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]

Bold empty claims and name calling followed by false witness.

More false accusations by you fulfill dozens of Biblical prophecies.

Where did the orderly and fine-tuned laws of nature come from?

Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter?

Where did all energy come from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

More false accusations by you fulfill dozens of Biblical prophecies.

Where did the orderly and fine-tuned laws of nature come from?

Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter?

Where did all energy come from?

Once again, you cannot just say "false accusations". If you merely say that and then never show how the accusations are false you are only admitting to being bothered by his post.

 

[ratiocinator]

More false accusations by you fulfill dozens of Biblical prophecies.

Baseless unargued assertions. What false accusation? Why are they false? What prophecies?

Where did the orderly and fine-tuned laws of nature come from?

Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter?

Where did all energy come from?

More running away.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

How would you know? Really. You don't know what science or a circular argument are.

Incidentally, prophecy fulfilled here. It was foretold by me that you would post these words in this location within days if not hours. I asked you to produce an equally specific and useful-for-anticipating-outcomes prophecy from your Bible about me if you had one, and not surprisingly, you evaded the request. That's good enough. I already knew that you couldn't, and apparently, so did you.

I glanced at it

Then you wasted your time. It was science. There's nothing there for you. Your fellow apologists can review it trying to generate specious creationist apologetics for you to use on these threads. That's all the "science" a creationist can use, and you can find that at Answers in Genesis and The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM)

First, the Earth is only about 6000 years old. That has been proven beyond all doubt.
Second, the fossils in the sedimentary rock layers are almost all from the worldwide flood, which is a documented historal event And are just a snapshot of the creatures that were alive then and not any descent relationship.
Third, there are many still missing links In establishing any chain of creatures leading to beaks.

Oh, I see you've already been there. Never mind.

this source has been fact checked and peer reviewed by me in this area of knowledge

You can't know how much that endorsement means to your audience.

That birds have beaks is evidence that birds have beaks and not that the beaks evolved.

You're making progress. Likewise, that the Bible contain claims is evidence that the Bible writers made claims and not that gods had anything to do with them or even that any claim contained therein is factual.

The evidence that beaks evolved includes the beaks, but more. The mountain of evidence in support of the theory accounts for all of biology's diversity and commonality (common descent via assorted pathways) and includes the pathway from the last universal common ancestor to beaked birds.

I notice you've also decided to ignore my questions about why you do this - why you come onto the Internet daily in multiple threads that you have started, and behaving in a way that earns you universal disrespect and condemnation. I wonder why that's not interesting to you. If you presented me with something like that, I'd be all over it whatever my thoughts were. Maybe I'd disagree that I was being disrespected. Maybe I would agree but think that that's OK and could explain why. Whatever my thoughts, I would have no reason to conceal them from you, but rather, I'd have a reason to explain and justify them. After all, they're my reasons and therefore must be good reason to me, right?

But not you. Nor most people sharing your plight. I've asked at least a dozen others the same questions, and it's always crickets. That's a mystery to me. Creationists are shamelessly happy to share their pseudoscience and the specious apologetics reasoning they've learned to reproduce, but this area seems to spook them. How about you? Do you have anything responsive to say about these last two paragraphs, and if not, why not? I assure you that I and others have opinions. Don't you want to have some input into shaping them?

I've shared mine. You're performing for your god, playing the role of martyr, suffering for your imagined salvation. There are other logical possibilities, and maybe one of them is correct, but you seem to have no interest in what others think or you would be adding your input, and I'm content that my explanation is the most reasonable, the most consistent with human psychology as I understand it. It makes sense if one believes in this deity and the concept of salvation. Something is driving this behavior.

Feel free to tell me that it's none of my business. It's a step up from what you offer now. It's a human response that I can identify with. I understand why somebody might give that answer, but I don't understand your evasion of the matter without comment. I would expect this to be important and interesting to you, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Baseless unargued assertions. What false accusation? Why are they false? What prophecies?


More running away.

You just ran away from some very simple origin questions.

Where did the universe come from?

If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?

If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then that breaks cause and effect. It also violates every law of conservation too.

If there was something before that, what caused the thing that was before the Big Bang to come into being?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

God of the gaps arguments and tactics have always failed. Why do some people continue to use them as if they were never seen before and are some sort of infallible get out of reasoning free card?

 

[Watchmen]

All reasoning for evolutionists is circular reasoning and not science.
This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution is true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution is true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution is true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).

No. Your description is wrong.

 

[F1fan]

So again, no answer to the origin of anything

The Big Bang is what we have so far.

for the theory of evolution which is supposed to answer the origin of everything.

It explains how species exist, and the mechanism is evolution. The evidence supports this theory as science shows, not your flawed intepretation of the Bible. So you lost the debate long ago.

How did the beaks of birds come into being through evolution? Be specific.

This is fraud. Why? Because you have a pattern of asking questions that experts have reported on, but then you reject them. Your fraud reflects the fraud of creationism. Isn't deception from Satan? It doesn't worry you that you follow a deceptive framework of creationism?

I answer every real rational answer and many of the non rational answers.

Your answers aren't factual or reasoned, even though you have facts and reason available to you. You have chosen fraud to try to deceive us with it. We know better, and i suspect you do too.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

False, you are projecting the flaws of creationism. Creationists know they hold a fraudulent view, but that is the liability and weakness of faith.

This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

The irony is that you ignore the actual assumptions of your flawed interpretation of the Bible. I asked how 8.7 billion species can come from the small number of kinds on the Ark in 4500 years. You had no evidence. You couldn't even tell us how many kinds there was on the Ark. Nor how animals got to Austrailia from the Middle East.

Your beliefs have so many problems, and you have no answers to these serious and fatal problems.

 

[F1fan]

More false accusations by you fulfill dozens of Biblical prophecies.

How? Notice you can't actually explain how you are correct. So we reject your claim.

Where did the orderly and fine-tuned laws of nature come from?

Oh, you mean the fine tuning that results in defects and cancers in children? If it was your God then your God is either incompetent, or a screwup, because you tell me what is moral about creating a baby with the genes that cause cancer. Can you answer why your God (according to your assimvtions and interpretation of the Bible) does this?

Would you create a baby with cancer so that it suffers and dies? If not, then explain why your God isn't as moral as you.

If you were a doctor and could fix genes so that no one ever gets cancer again, would you? If so, why doesn't your God do that if he is loving and moral? Don't you agree that would be "tuning" that benefits humans?

Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter?

From the singularity of the Big Bang. Why assume it came from anywhere?

Have you explained where your God came from? How did it create anything? Where is your science?

Where did all energy come from?

Energy is matter, and is the stuff of the singularity. Why don't you understand this basic science? At the Big Bang event there was helium and hydrogen. All other elements were forged in stars naturally.

 

[ratiocinator]

You just ran away from some very simple origin questions.

Where did the universe come from?

If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?

If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then that breaks cause and effect. It also violates every law of conservation too.

If there was something before that, what caused the thing that was before the Big Bang to come into being?

False. I've answered all these question before and you just ignored my answers and now you falsely claim that I haven't answered. It looks like a plain, straightforward lie on your part. If you have some other explanation I'll listen (perhaps you're very forgetful, but then you really should be taking that into account before accusing others of not answering), but trotting out accusations that are just plain false is not a great advert for your faith....

You can see my answers >here<.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

False. I've answered all these question before and you just ignored my answers and now you falsely claim that I haven't answered. It looks like a plain, straightforward lie on your part. If you have some other explanation I'll listen (perhaps you're very forgetful, but then you really should be taking that into account before accusing others of not answering), but trotting out accusations that are just plain false is not a great advert for your faith....

You can see my answers >here<.

No one from the evolutionist and billions of years group has given a real, rational and satisfactory answer to the origin of anything.
And instead of saying you gave an answer, just post the answer here.

What caused the Big Bang? I have many more questions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I haven't seen a creationist provide actual, rational support that would lead to the conclusion of victory that keeps appearing in heavy rotation on these threads.

I wonder why they cannot answer questions and run away at the mere sight of them if they have won.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No one from the evolutionist and billions of years group has given a real, rational and satisfactory answer to the origin of anything.

Sure they have. You weren't equipped to recognize them as such. And I don't think anybody here is any more motivated to try to teach a creationist with a stake in not learning than I am. Your standards for belief are irrelevant to critical thinkers. They apply only to you and others determined to shield falsified beliefs from evidence. Why would anybody want to try to change that once they understand your agenda, values, and methods? "What shall we say? Shall we call it by a name? As well to count the angels dancing on a pin."

And instead of saying you gave an answer, just post the answer here.

Why bother? So you can say again how it's not good enough for you? You've made your point. You're locked into a creationist bubble that cannot be penetrated with evidenced argument. You've made your opinions irrelevant to critical thinkers.

What caused the Big Bang?

More IANS prophecy fulfilled. Your scriptures can't match this specificity (who, what, when) and practicality (prophecies that can actually be used to anticipate outcomes and then confirm the correctness of the prophecy). Why settle for so little?

I have many more questions.

I don't think anybody cares any more.

Notably, you also have no answers - nothing to contribute to knowledge. Your unfalsifiable beliefs answer, explain, and predict nothing.

And you're still running from my questions.

 

[ratiocinator]

No one from the evolutionist and billions of years group has given a real, rational and satisfactory answer to the origin of anything.
And instead of saying you gave an answer, just post the answer here.

I gave you a link to my answers. Either address them, admit you can't, or just stop this foolish charade. And you owe me an apology for saying I ran away from answering. You not liking my answers is not the same as me not answering or running away.

No creationist has ever given a rational and satisfactory answer to the origin of anything. Where did your god come from?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I gave you a link to my answers. Either address them, admit you can't, or just stop this foolish charade. And you owe me an apology for saying I ran away from answering. You not liking my answers is not the same as me not answering or running away.

No creationist has ever given a rational and satisfactory answer to the origin of anything. Where did your god come from?

God created everything. And I have proved it.

 

[ratiocinator]

God created everything.

That baseless assertion doesn't tell me where it came from.

And I have proved it.

In your dreams.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

God created everything. And I have proved it.

That is an extraordinary claim that demands repetition, explanation and widespread dissemination. A full accounting should appear in every available medium.

Go!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

God created everything. And I have proved it.

Are you aware that your style of lobbing a claim into the conversation or avoiding cogent responses to the posts of others and seeming to run away has a direct and negative impact on your credibility.

Why do you do this? Are you unaware of this?

 

[Alien826]

I answer every real rational answer and many of the non rational answers.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.
This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

Or, as you would argue from a creationist point of view:

We know creationism and a young Earth are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know creationism and a young Earth are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have been created 6000 years ago because we know creationism and a young Earth are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts creationism and a young Earth must be false because we know creationism and a young Earth are are true.

See, the same words using different premises. Both are circular. I dispute that the first is a fair representation of how evolutionists argue, but the second is pretty accurate.

As should be obvious, neither one proves anything and both depend on the truth or otherwise of the premises, which is what we have all been discussing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God of the gaps arguments and tactics have always failed. Why do some people continue to use them as if they were never seen before and are some sort of infallible get out of reasoning free card?

Because that is all that they have?

I am a bit amazed at those claiming not to be afraid and then running away from every attempt at a rational discussion.