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.

[SavedByTheLord]

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

Proved it by MI and also using the law of non contradiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Proved it by MI and also using the law of non contradiction.

Wrong again, And you ran away when I offered to discuss them if you brought up one of your proofs point by point.

Why are you so afraid?

 

[Astrophile]

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.

If we have millions of transitional fossils, and geologists have been seriously collecting fossils for about 250 years (say 91,300 days), on average at least eleven transitional fossils have been discovered every day during those 250 years.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

Since you claim to be well informed on this subject, perhaps you can explain something that puzzles me about the fossil record. Geologists have known for abut 200 years that there is a well-defined succession of fossils, and that they include index fossils whose presence in a sedimentary formation is sufficient to define the stratigraphic position of that formation. For example, the species of trilobites in Silurian rocks are quite distinct from those in Ordovician rocks, and the species of ammonites in Upper Jurassic rocks are quite distinct from those in Lower Jurassic rocks. (Notice that the order of the succession is defined by which rocks (with their fossils) rest on top of other rocks, not by the complexity of the fossils.)

Now, it should be obvious that the Silurian trilobites had Ordovician ancestors and that the Upper Jurassic ammonites had Lower Jurassic ancestors. Since Silurian trilobites are of different species and genera from Ordovician trilobites, the obvious conclusion is that they must have descended from trilobites that belonged to different species and genera from themselves. What other explanation do you have for these facts?

 

[Astrophile]

And how could a chimp have 48 chromosomes ve 46 for people?
Common Creator is the explanation not descent.

Why should the Creator give humans and chimpanzees chromosome numbers that differ by only 2, thus creating the impression of genetic similarity? Why didn't He give chimpanzees 96 chromosomes and humans 46, or humans 92 and chimpanzees 48, so as to emphasise the difference between us?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

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

Proved it by MI and also using the law of non contradiction.

Why should the Creator give humans and chimpanzees chromosome numbers that differ by only 2, thus creating the impression of genetic similarity? Why didn't He give chimpanzees 96 chromosomes and humans 46, or humans 92 and chimpanzees 48, so as to emphasise the difference between us?

But they are not the same so the Creator made them different so that you would know they are not related .

 

[Polymath257]

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.

So the question is whether we can use evidence we collect today to learn about the past. Would you agree this is possible by using the known laws of physics?

And, if the laws of physics are 'broken', would there be any evidence of this? Or would things look as if the laws were not broken?

For example, can we assume that if there was a worldwide flood, it would have left the evidence we would expect of such a flood based on the known laws of physics and chemistry? Or are you assuming it could have left no evidence whatsoever?

And if I reason differently, would that be considered an assumption? Or would it be simply using the regularities we have observed to make reasonable deductions?

 

[Monty]

And how could a chimp have 48 chromosomes ve 46 for people.

Which is why humans can breed with chimps in a similar way to horses being able to breed with donkeys, and lions can breed with tigers etc etc.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And I would agree that before the universe there was no time, no causality, and no physical laws. I would just place such at 13.7 billion years ago.

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.

And how can we determine if such happened? Would there be evidence left of such?

 

[Polymath257]

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?

1. Fossilization isn't a common thing. The number of fossils is very small compared to the number of individuals.
2. Transitions tend to happen in small populations because of genetic drift. That lessens the chances of fossilization.
3. Unless the transitional forms are close to areas that are likely to produce fossils, they won't be left in the fossil record. So, for example, animals living close to rivers are much more likely to leave a fossil record than those living on mountains.
4. We *do* see changes over the course of millions of years. In fact, the record of species leading up to modern humans is quite detailed.

There should also be partially developed organs, etc. in all individual creatures right now and that have ever lived. There are not why?.

Because that isn't how evolution works. No 'partially developed organs': instead, fully functioning organs that gradually change in function.

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.

Well, the problem is your understanding of what evolutionary science says happened. So your calculations are based on faulty assumptions and so are wrong.

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.

Nope. You are assuming that the different stages of the process are probabilistically independent. That is simply wrong because the chemistry alone is not so.

Each kind can have adaptation within its created kind but cannot hum into another kind. The genetics preclude that.

Really? What mechanisms prevent that? What evidence do you have of such? In particular, what prevents mutations from producing new variation after each stage of natural selection?

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.

And, if the population shifts due to natural selection (based on a changing environment), mutations will then increase variation around the new mean. There is no barrier to such.

 

[Polymath257]

Proved it by MI and also using the law of non contradiction.

But they are not the same so the Creator made them different so that you would know they are not related .

But the fact that the chromosomes merged is evidence of that relationship. If you look at the 'pieces' the bands line up perfectly. Also, there are teleomeres in humans chromosomes that show that a merge occurred.

 

[McBell]

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.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

View attachment 83381

It is ironic that those that believe that they use the scientific method, have abandoned the scientific method entirely when it comes to evolution and billions of years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is ironic that those that believe that they use the scientific method, have abandoned the scientific method entirely when it comes to evolution and billions of years.

They have? How are you going to prove that when you do not understand the scientific method. You are afraid to even discuss it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

They have? How are you going to prove that when you do not understand the scientific method. You are afraid to even discuss it.

Always dodging because you cannot defend evolution. No one can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Always dodging because you cannot defend evolution. No one can.

Nope, I have not dodged. I have always explained your errors to you. Well after about ten times I probably start to have a bit of fun with you.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope, I have not dodged. I have always explained your errors to you. Well after about ten times I probably start to have a bit of fun with you.

Have you met the challenge yet? No.
Have you refuted the 2 infallible proofs I gave? No.
Have you any answer to the origin of anything? No.
But God forces you to fulfill many prophecies from the Bible very many times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you met the challenge yet? No.
Have you refuted the 2 infallible proofs I gave? No.
Have you any answer to the origin of anything? No.
But God forces you to fulfill many prophecies from the Bible very many times.

Your bogus challenge was met a long time ago.

It is too bad that you do not understand how your challenge failed from the start.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Your bogus challenge was met a long time ago.

It is too bad that you do not understand how your challenge failed from the start.

Please post anything that met the challenge without any assumptions.

here is the result of the 1980 eruption of Mount Saint Helen’s . Just like the Grand Canyon with multiple rock layers and carved out. All in just a short time.

Remembering Mount St. Helens 35 Years Later

The volcano’s main 1980 eruption filled in an entire valley with hundreds of feet of sediment. Another smaller eruption event deposited more material on top of that, and then a third deposition occurred in 1982. Later, a catastrophic flood of snowmelt water and muddy debris tore a gash through...

www.icr.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please post anything that met the challenge without any assumptions.

here is the result of the 1980 eruption of Mount Saint Helen’s . Just like the Grand Canyon with multiple rock layers and carved out. All in just a short time.

Remembering Mount St. Helens 35 Years Later

The volcano’s main 1980 eruption filled in an entire valley with hundreds of feet of sediment. Another smaller eruption event deposited more material on top of that, and then a third deposition occurred in 1982. Later, a catastrophic flood of snowmelt water and muddy debris tore a gash through...

www.icr.org

Nope you used a known lying source again. You are trying to compare very poorly indurated (cemented) volcanic ash that is just hundreds of feat thick to well indurated sandstone and limestone. Those are not anywhere like each other at all.

And of course the Grand Canyon has meanders. Do you remember the picture that you ran away from? There are no meanders in the Mt. St Helens eruption stream. It is nothing like the Grand Canyon at all.

I posted a very clear picture. It refuted your fairy tale. Would you like to see it again?