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.

[The Hammer]

What came first, the chicken or the egg? If you are going to put that off and try to work back to the first egg, what came first that egg of the creature that laid it.

"Eggs, generally speaking, existed before chickens did... Archaeopteryx fossils, which are the oldest generally accepted as birds, are around 150 million years old, which means that birds in general came after eggs in general."

But as an addendum:

"They say... the chicken. Researchers found that the formation of (chicken) egg shells relies on a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries"

So the answer is, drum roll: Both came first.

 

[McBell]

Don't count your chicken before there hatched. The completion is tough.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? If you are going to put that off and try to work back to the first egg, what came first that egg of the creature that laid it.

What came first the inside parts of the first living thing or its protective covering?

It saw a group of mason workers on the other side and wanted to see one lay a brick.

Wait...
My bad.
That is why the chicken crossed the road.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It saw a group of mason workers on the other side and wanted to see one lay a brick.

Wait...
My bad.
That is why the chicken crossed the road.

So again, no answer to the origin of anything for the theory of evolution which is supposed to answer the origin of everything.
How did the beaks of birds come into being through evolution? Be specific.

 

[The Hammer]

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

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0090

The origin of the bird's beak: new insights from dinosaur incubation periods

 

[SavedByTheLord]

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0090

The origin of the bird's beak: new insights from dinosaur incubation periods

I glanced at it but unfortunately the article has the same false assumptions that run rampant in the evolution and billions of years group.
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.
So since this source has been fact checked and peer reviewed by me in this area of knowledge, you have no real answer yet as to how could bird’s beaks have evolved.
So how could bird’s beaks have evolved?

 

[Watchmen]

Actually, the articles use evidence and scientific theory while your position is based on the ramblings of ancient goat herders.

 

[John53]

Actually, the articles use evidence and scientific theory while your position is based on the ramblings of ancient goat herders.

And the boastings of someone claiming to have peer reviewed the articles with a quick glance and not stating their qualifications.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Actually, the articles use evidence and scientific theory while your position is based on the ramblings of ancient goat herders.

That birds have beaks is evidence that birds have beaks and not that the beaks evolved. That is a false conclusion from false assumptions and faulty reasoning logic. It just circular reasoning disguised as science.
The evolutionist uses this circular reasoning. Since evolution is true and birds have beaks the beaks must have evolved because we know that evolution is true.

 

[Watchmen]

That birds have beaks is evidence that birds have beaks and not that the beaks evolved. That is a false conclusion from false assumptions and faulty reasoning logic. It just circular reasoning disguised as science.
The evolutionist uses this circular reasoning. Since evolution is true and birds have beaks the beaks must have evolved because we know that evolution is true.

It’s actually linear, not circular.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It’s actually linear, not circular.

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).

 

[ratiocinator]

First, the Earth is only about 6000 years old. That has been proven beyond all doubt.

Certified 100% false.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Certified 100% false.

I already proved it to be 100% true.
Have you met the challenge I gave yet?
No one has.

 

[ratiocinator]

I already proved it to be 100% true.

No. You proved that you don't understand what 'proved' means.

Have you met the challenge I gave yet?

Many of them, so have others, repeatedly. You keep ignoring them and just repeating yourself. Why do you apparently want to make yourself look stupid, because that's all you're achieving?

No one has.

Also false.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No. You proved that you don't understand what 'proved' means.


Many of them, so have others, repeatedly. You keep ignoring them and just repeating yourself. Why do you apparently want to make yourself look stupid, because that's all you're achieving?


Also false.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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).

And that is what is called a strawman argument

 

[ratiocinator]

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

Patently untrue. See, for example >here<.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.
This is it in a nutshell.

And it remains a baseless, unargued assertion. You have never once given any valid evidence or the slightest hint of an argument.

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).

I thought your god didn't like people who bear false witness? This is a totally false description. The evidence came first, evolution and the billions of years is based on the evidence.

Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

Also false. I have never once seen a creationist site that doesn't include obvious misrepresentation and falsehoods. They don't even have the courage to face up to the evidence and what (for example) the theory of evolution actually says. They g=have to misrepresent it.

As for billions of years, just go to one of your propaganda sites and look up "old light" to watch them tying themselves in knots trying to explain how we can directly see events that happened billions of years ago.

 

[Mock Turtle]

And the boastings of someone claiming to have peer reviewed the articles with a quick glance and not stating their qualifications.

Well he did say some others considered him brilliant, so presumably that is enough evidence for him.

 

[McBell]

So again, no answer to the origin of anything for the theory of evolution which is supposed to answer the origin of everything.
How did the beaks of birds come into being through evolution? Be specific.

Already addressed.
Numerous times.
By numerous members.
You not understanding the answers does not make them disappear.

 

[McBell]

I glanced at it but unfortunately the article has the same false assumptions that run rampant in the evolution and billions of years group.

So in other words you looked and saw to many big words so you assume that because you can not understand it, it was wrong?

First, the Earth is only about 6000 years old. That has been proven beyond all doubt.

Nope.
Not even close.
And it matters not how many times you present this bold face lie, it remains a bold face lie.

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.

Already addressed
Many times
By many members

Third, there are many still missing links In establishing any chain of creatures leading to beaks.

Already addressed
Many times
By many members

So since this source has been fact checked and peer reviewed by me in this area of knowledge, you have no real answer yet as to how could bird’s beaks have evolved.

Please list the "peers" that reviewed it.
You have not demonstrated that you even come close to qualifying as knowledgeable enough to peer review anything.

So how could bird’s beaks have evolved?

Already addressed

 

[McBell]

That birds have beaks is evidence that birds have beaks and not that the beaks evolved. That is a false conclusion from false assumptions and faulty reasoning logic. It just circular reasoning disguised as science.
The evolutionist uses this circular reasoning. Since evolution is true and birds have beaks the beaks must have evolved because we know that evolution is true.

Bold empty claims and name calling followed by false witness.