Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

[Polymath257]

Here is simple challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

I will soon post a thread that will refute billions of years and evolution.

Can I assume the past existed?

Can I assume that the laws of physics and chemistry were the same in the past? if not, am I allowed to demonstrate that they were?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Can I assume the past existed?

Can I assume that the laws of physics and chemistry were the same in the past? if not, am I allowed to demonstrate that they were?

I also assume that the laws of physics existed in the past. I would not agree that they have always existed. I believe that God created all things in 6 days about 6000 years ago. And God did it according to a straight forward reading of Genesis 1.
So before God created all things there was nothing not even time. So the laws of physics would have been meaningless. Upon creation the laws of physics then are also created by God.
But God has the ability to break the laws of physics because God is the law giver and Almighty.
So all miraculous evens by God break the laws of physics.
You of course can reason differently.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First it may be a lot less since the supposed junk DNA may not be junk after all. So that is just a deception.
Second, 5% difference is 200 million base pairs so that is a lot. So using percent and not absolute number is another deception.

With a mutationrate of ~55, a couple percentage can be accounted for over the course of ~7 million years.

Third, even the 5% may be too low and it may be as high as 20%.

No. 95% is conservative even. It's rather more then that.

Fourth, similarity is better explained by an intelligent Creator.

No.
Similarity is rather better explained by similar conditions. Rocks in rivers tend to gain specific features due to erosion. So similar rocks likely came from the bottom of rivers.

In life though... it's not mere similarity. It's more specifically the pattern of those similarities. And not just similarities either. Exact matches, rather.

The genetic matches in the collective genomes of life, map out to a branching tree. A nested hierarchy. A family tree.

The best explanation for such a pattern is common ancestry.
It literally is what a family tree is. When we draw a family tree based on DNA samples from the family in question, it works in the exact same way... it maps matches.
The tree that it spews out, is the family tree. It shows who shares a common ancestor with who at which node.

How is the best explanation for this not common ancestry?

A Tesla is not descended from a model T.

Indeed it isn't. It doesn't reproduce for one.
Tesla cars also don't map out in a branching tree.
There is no nested hierarchy in its parts, features, functions, plans, what-have-you.

That is just another deception.

The only deception here, is the strawman version of evolution you have in your head

Fifth, chimps have 48 chromosomes and mankind only 46.

Yes. And when examine it up close, we find that humans have a fused cromosome and we can identify the exact fusion site.
When we split it up again, then we find that it matches the 2 chromosomes from chimps that we seem to be "missing".
We don't miss them. They are fused together in humans.

Chromosomal fusion is a known mutation. We know of multiple cases also where it happened and achieved fixation.

That is an inexplicable difference batten the 2

No it's not

Here's a 5 minute video from a prof (who's a christian btw) explaining it clearly and in detail for you to ignore:

and proves it is common Creator not descent.

You will require evidence FOR your argument in order to support your argument.
Trying to poke holes in perceived rivaling theories, is not going to make your own claims any more credible.

I've told you this before.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why are there No partially developed organs or functional in any creature today or in the fossil record?

Because evolution doesn't work that way

 

[SavedByTheLord]

With a mutationrate of ~55, a couple percentage can be accounted for over the course of ~7 million years.



No. 95% is conservative even. It's rather more then that.



No.
Similarity is rather better explained by similar conditions. Rocks in rivers tend to gain specific features due to erosion. So similar rocks likely came from the bottom of rivers.

In life though... it's not mere similarity. It's more specifically the pattern of those similarities. And not just similarities either. Exact matches, rather.

The genetic matches in the collective genomes of life, map out to a branching tree. A nested hierarchy. A family tree.

The best explanation for such a pattern is common ancestry.
It literally is what a family tree is. When we draw a family tree based on DNA samples from the family in question, it works in the exact same way... it maps matches.
The tree that it spews out, is the family tree. It shows who shares a common ancestor with who at which node.

How is the best explanation for this not common ancestry?



Indeed it isn't. It doesn't reproduce for one.
Tesla cars also don't map out in a branching tree.
There is no nested hierarchy in its parts, features, functions, plans, what-have-you.




The only deception here, is the strawman version of evolution you have in your head



Yes. And when examine it up close, we find that humans have a fused cromosome and we can identify the exact fusion site.
When we split it up again, then we find that it matches the 2 chromosomes from chimps that we seem to be "missing".
We don't miss them. They are fused together in humans.

Chromosomal fusion is a known mutation. We know of multiple cases also where it happened and achieved fixation.




No it's not

Here's a 5 minute video from a prof (who's a christian btw) explaining it clearly and in detail for you to ignore:

You will require evidence FOR your argument in order to support your argument.
Trying to poke holes in perceived rivaling theories, is not going to make your own claims any more credible.

I've told you this before.

And where is your calculations?
You have a false assumption that one kind can change into another kind and that is not happening today and there is no evidence it happened in the past.

If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why? They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?
There should also be partially developed organs, etc. in all individual creatures right now and that have ever lived. There are not why?
The odds against these 2 things are mind boggling. Just for the missing links, I estimate odds against of about 10^10 million to 1. The odds against the missing partially developed organs and functions is way vaster than that. I estimate odds against of about 10^10 billion billion billion to 1.
Of course, the odds against all the ordered sequences in all the DNA, RNA, and proteins in all creatures that ever lived is more than 10^(10^43) to 1.

Each kind can have adaptation within its created kind but cannot hum into another kind. The genetics preclude that. It is simply a n dimensional manifold for each created kind, where within a kind there is a stable point that can have some deviation from.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have a false assumption that one kind can change into another kind

I have no such assumption. Every creature ever born was of the same species as its parents.

and that is not happening today and there is no evidence it happened in the past.

It never happens.

If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why?

Because they're missing.
You might want to look at those that aren't missing.

They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?

They do. After which they are no longer missing.

There should also be partially developed organs, etc.

No. How many times are you going to repeat this falsehood? It's been pointed out multiple times as an incorrect assumption. Why double down on being wrong?

in all individual creatures right now and that have ever lived. There are not why?

Because evolution doesn't work that way.

The odds against these 2 things are mind boggling. Just for the missing links, I estimate odds against of about 10^10 million to 1. The odds against the missing partially developed organs and functions is way vaster than that. I estimate odds against of about 10^10 billion billion billion to 1.
Of course, the odds against all the ordered sequences in all the DNA, RNA, and proteins in all creatures that ever lived is more than 10^(10^43) to 1.

Each kind can have adaptation within its created kind but cannot hum into another kind. The genetics preclude that. It is simply a n dimensional manifold for each created kind, where within a kind there is a stable point that can have some deviation from.

So you are just going to continue copy pasting all your nonsense and completely ignore all responses to it, specifically when people point out your mistakes?

I guess so. Oh well...

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I have no such assumption. Every creature ever born was of the same species as its parents.



It never happens.



Because they're missing.
You might want to look at those that aren't missing.



They do. After which they are no longer missing.



No. How many times are you going to repeat this falsehood? It's been pointed out multiple times as an incorrect assumption. Why double down on being wrong?


Because evolution doesn't work that way.


So you are just going to continue copy pasting all your nonsense and completely ignore all responses to it, specifically when people point out your mistakes?

I guess so. Oh well...

You need to understand that probability and statistics.

If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why? They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?
There should also be partially developed organs, etc. in all individual creatures right now and that have ever lived. There are not why?
The odds against these 2 things are mind boggling. Just for the missing links, I estimate odds against of about 10^10 million to 1. The odds against the missing partially developed organs and functions is way vaster than that. I estimate odds against of about 10^10 billion billion billion to 1.
Of course, the odds against all the ordered sequences in all the DNA, RNA, and proteins in all creatures that ever lived is more than 10^(10^43) to 1.

And frankly this ignored the trillions of other miracles to make evolution work.
Evolution is preposterous.

 

[Monty]

I also assume that the laws of physics existed in the past. I would not agree that they have always existed. I believe that God created all things in 6 days about 6000 years ago. And God did it according to a straight forward reading of Genesis 1.

Unless you can explain why there are over two hundred billion visible galaxies then your hypothesis is just imaginative words in a book which wouldn't even convince my dog, let alone my cat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need to understand that probability and statistics.

If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why? They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?
There should also be partially developed organs, etc. in all individual creatures right now and that have ever lived. There are not why?
The odds against these 2 things are mind boggling. Just for the missing links, I estimate odds against of about 10^10 million to 1. The odds against the missing partially developed organs and functions is way vaster than that. I estimate odds against of about 10^10 billion billion billion to 1.
Of course, the odds against all the ordered sequences in all the DNA, RNA, and proteins in all creatures that ever lived is more than 10^(10^43) to 1.

And frankly this ignored the trillions of other miracles to make evolution work.
Evolution is preposterous.

They do find "missing links" every day Why do you think that they don't?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

They do find "missing links" every day Why do you think that they don't?

Never have the found a single missing link.

But if as you say they find a missing link every day, name the 7 they found this week.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never have the found a single missing link.

But if as you say they find a missing link every day, name the 7 they found this week.

Oh my. That is incredible ignorance and denial. Well we already know that ice does not float in your world. Water is probably not wet either.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Oh my. That is incredible ignorance and denial. Well we already know that ice does not float in your world. Water is probably not wet either.

So you know of no missing links then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you know of no missing links then.

No we have millions of transitional fossils. And they can be easily shown to be transitional.

You do not seem to even understand the proper terminology. That is another reason that you keep losing all of your debates. Let me help you so that you do not repeat this error:

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No we have millions of transitional fossils. And they can be easily shown to be transitional.

You do not seem to even understand the proper terminology. That is another reason that you keep losing all of your debates. Let me help you so that you do not repeat this error:

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.

And you have no proof that any are the ancestor of any other.
And remember, you actually need a chain of missing links.
So you still haven’t found any yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you have no proof that any are the ancestor of any other.
And remember, you actually need a chain of missing links.
So you still haven’t found any yet.

And you just showed that you do not understand science at all.

Science is evidence based and I have endless scientific evidence, the most reliable form of evidence, that life is the product of evolution and that you are still an ape. Nor is there any need of an endless link of fossil evidence. Where did you get that crazy idea from? Please link the source.

Too bad that you refuse to understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Bthoth]

And you have no proof that any are the ancestor of any other.
And remember, you actually need a chain of missing links.
So you still haven’t found any yet.

When will you pick up a shovel and go find them?

Maybe you could offer evidence to support your claims first hand.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

When will you pick up a shovel and go find them?

Maybe you could offer evidence to support your claims first hand.

Evolutionists say they are ancestors they made the claim they must prove.
I have already refuted evolution and billions of years already of course.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionists say they are ancestors they made the claim they must prove.
I have already refuted evolution and billions of years already of course.

No, you only demonstrated your ignorance. And the fact of evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I need to remind you that you refuse to even learn the basics of science. You cannot refute anything when you force yourself to be ignorant.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, you only demonstrated your ignorance. And the fact of evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I need to remind you that you refuse to even learn the basics of science. You cannot refute anything when you force yourself to be ignorant.

Evolution has been falsified beyond all doubt.
I did it here and many others have already did it.
RIP evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution has been falsified beyond all doubt.
I did it here and many others have already did it.
RIP evolution.

Prove it. And if you claim to already have that is just an admission that you are wrong since you never provide any evidence.