Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[IndigoChild5559]

@F1fan
As these people thought the 'whole world' when actually flooding was local, did these people value the poison from these snakes in any way, and if so, how did they, or did these people ever hope the flood would get rid of these poison snakes? How did poison snakes survive local floods and survive amongst people?

I don't think the flood myth has anything to do with wanting certain animals to die off. The Noah account is a teaching story to show us how much God hates sin, and how valuable all species are to God.

When a local flood kills off the animals (and people) of a certain area, that area is eventually refilled by animals and people coming in from elsewhere.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think the flood myth has anything to do with wanting certain animals to die off. The Noah account is a teaching story to show us how much God hates sin, and how valuable all species are to God.

When a local flood kills off the animals (and people) of a certain area, that area is eventually refilled by animals and people coming in from elsewhere.

If the flood is a myth, then Moses is a myth, the entire history of the Jews is mythical in the Hebrew scriptures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the flood is a myth, then Moses is a myth, the entire history of the Jews is mythical in the Hebrew scriptures.

Yes, the story of Moses as in the Bible is a myth. Ask an archaeologist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If the flood is a myth, then Moses is a myth, the entire history of the Jews is mythical in the Hebrew scriptures.

Yes.

 

[shunyadragon]

@F1fan
As these people thought the 'whole world' when actually flooding was local, did these people value the poison from these snakes in any way, and if so, how did they, or did these people ever hope the flood would get rid of these poison snakes? How did poison snakes survive local floods and survive amongst people?

There is no justification for any interpretation of the ancient mythology of the Flood of Noah. The Pentateuch does not remotely describe a local flood.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, the story of Moses as in the Bible is a myth. Ask an archaeologist.

or any other reasonably education person without an ancient religious agenda.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See: The Mesopotamian Origin of the Biblical Flood Story

 

[shunyadragon]

It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that some medicines that scientists make up have a deleterious effect on a patient, and these are prescribed by doctors who may even know about the possible dangerous results of taking the medicine.

True. So what?!?!!? Not remotely related to the sciences of evolution.

If I thought that scientists really knew the biologic transformations from one organism to another in detail, I'd say OK, evolution is certainly factual. But -- there is no detailed biological record in any case of one type of organism such as a fish or two transforming to land flopping fish moving on to air breathing land dwellers. It is all conjecture and supposition.

The above reflects your intentional ignorance of the sciences of evolution and the misuse and lack of understanding of basic elementary school level of the English language as to what 'detail' apply to any science. The 'details' in science concern the accuracy and reliability of objective verifiable evidence, which you conveniently ignore with foolish dialogue.

 

[metis]

If the flood is a myth, then Moses is a myth, the entire history of the Jews is mythical in the Hebrew scriptures.

No.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Noah account is a teaching story to show us how much God hates sin, and how valuable all species are to God.

I disagree. For starters, it shows how cheap life is to that deity.

How many stories do you need to teach you that God hates disobedience. You've also got the Garden story and the tower of Babel story.

What these three stories have in common is that they all attempt to explain the world the ancient Hebrews found themselves living in with the understanding that a god that knew all, could do all, and loved them perfectly. In such a world, man should be immortal and living in paradise and all able to understand one another, and there wouldn't have been a global flood decimating them, which I presume they believe occurred after finding marine fossils on the highest mountaintops.

Why does man live a short and often brutish and difficult life, why does he speak so many mutually unintelligible languages, and why dd their god see fit to drown the world? I believe that these questions came first, uniformly followed by the same answer - man must have deserved it in the eyes of a loving, tri-omni god, or that would make the god unjust or weak or indifferent and thus not tri-omni. To preserve tri-omni in the face of all of that, the concept of sin was formulated, and it was accepted that there could be a deity unable to tolerate disobedience to its will and that this still be an all-powerful entity.

And that's the god and description of that god Abrahamists accept, even if the flood story, for example, depicts it as intolerant of man as it created him, willing to blame its creation for its own engineering errors, willing to kill most terrestrial life in a pointless gesture given the choice to use the same breeding stock to repopulate the earth and to use an especially cruel method.

Yet believers accept these as the acts of a good and all-powerful god and are willing to accept the victim blaming account as just, kind, and loving as it seems you have as well.

I understand that this is likely an affront to you, and that you won't agree, but I don't think you can find and demonstrate an error in all of that.

Why do I post things like this? I consider such thinking harmful. If one accepts that deity as loving, he's halfway to accepting Trump as loving and beneficent as well. We need to use reason, evidence, and empathy to decide these matters, and this deity as described is neither intelligent nor loving, so let's not call it that, because people emulate that model.

 

[bobhikes]

The following all show that evolution and billions of years are false. They also prove the Bible is true, and that God created all things in 6-day, about 6000 years ago.

Each of these either directly refute evolutionists claims and/or are questions they have no answer for. It is like a comedy where the evolutionists say, “ask us anything about origins”. So, you start asking them questions. And each time they say, “I do not know”. After a while you give up, they then say, “is there any other question that you want answered?”

If you do not refute everyone of these, then evolution and billions of years are falsified. A theory can be refuted by just one fact.
Example of a false theory: the sum of any 2 numbers is 100. Proof by results: 10+90, 54+46, pi + 100-pi
Falsified: 1+1=2 and for each pair given above, an infinite number of pairs refutes it.

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?
What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?
How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?
Where did it come into being? In space? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? In a tide pool?
In clay or mud? What protected it from UV rays? What was the composition of the atmosphere at that time?
If it was in water, how did the amino acids keep from being dissipated by the water?
What was the energy source for these reactions?
Where there any enzymes in it? Which ones? Certain required reactions need enzymes as catalysts. If not, the reaction may take a vast number of years. Surely the primitive thing could not last more than a minute much less than many years.
How did it survive? Where did the protective layer come from? What was the protected layer? How did that part get reproduced?
How was it able to divide itself? The protective layer must also divide and then close.
What was its food source? How did it remove waste? How did it repair itself? How did these things move in and out of the protective layer since they must be gated.
Please explain how it was ever able to reproduce itself.
If the first living thing was just proteins, how did it ever get evolve to use RNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.
If it was RNA based, how did it to ever evolve to use DNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.
Please explain how anything that is irreducibly complex evolves.
Please explain how the eye came to be. It is irreducibly complex. It happened independently more than once. Please explain all of these plus hearing, smell, and taste.
Please explain how flight came to be. It is irreducibly complex. It happened independently more than once. Please explain all of these.
Please explain how blood clotting came to be. It is irreducibly complex.
Please explain how the first multi cell creature came to be.
Please explain how the bone tissue came to be.
Please explain how the citrus cycle came to be. It is irreducibly complex.
Please explain how ATP came to be and how the first creature that used it evolved that capability. The mechanism is irreducibly complex.
In fact, there are many things in living things that are irreducibly complex. Please explain how any of them evolved.
The science seems to have identified mitochondrial Eve and the recent origin of x chromosome Adam. This matches recent creation and destroys evolution. Why?

Short lived comets are a problem for long ages of the universe. Why?

Where are all the remains of all the people that have died? Where are all their artifacts? If mankind has been around for 100,000 years, there must be a lot more than has been found. Why?
If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why? 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.
They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?
How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? Within a short time, all the basic body types appear fully developed. The trilobite just appears and yet it has one of the most complex eyes.
Why are there living fossils?
How does one explain polystrate trees?
How does one explain soft tissue and blood vessels in dinosaur tissue?
How does one explain dinosaur tissue with DNA and other biomolecules still being intact?
How does one explain dinosaur tissue, and diamonds that are not C-14 dead?
Why is there too much C-14 in some samples of coal and fossilized wood?
How do you explain ancient microbes revived?
How do you explain parentless polonium 210 radiohaloes in granites?
How do you explain elliptical polonium 210 halos in the same strata with circular halos?
There is a great deception in some of the ages that are quoted by evolutionists. Why the deception?
There are inconsistencies in the radioactive dating results of many things. So isochron dating has been used. But even then, there are many large discrepancies. Why?
The inconsistencies in the dating of things and in all “clocks” used to set the age of things can be simply explained if some miraculous events occurred. These would be 6-day creation, the fall of man and the curse on creation and the worldwide flood about 4500 years ago.
What is the recipe for primordial soup, and can I buy a can of it?
There is a lack of a 50-50 racemization of amino acids in fossils. Why?
Why do living things have all left-handed amino acid. How did that happen by random processes?
There are discontinuous fossil sequences in the fossil record. Why?
Oil, coal, and opals can be formed rapidly under certain conditions. Why the deception?
The evidence is that the coal beads and fossilized wood were formed rapidly. Why?
There are missing layers representing millions of years. Why?
Why are there ephemeral markings at the boundaries of layers? That shows rapid deposit.
The Great Barrier reef is only 4200 years old; the oldest tree is only 4300 years old. Why?
The age of the Sahara Desert is only 4000 years old. Why?

If intelligent man was around for 100,000 years or more, Cro-Magnon for about 40,000 years, why did he not figure out how to drop a seed in the ground and farm? How did they go from nothing to farming? Why does this phenomenon occur in diverse places around the world at the same?
Where are all the structures that the built? The pyramids are about 4200 years old. How did they go from nothing to that? And this phenomenon occurs in many parts of the world about the same time?
Where are all the writings from before 6000 years ago? Yet they go from nothing to writings. Why does this phenomenon occur in a number of places around the world at the same?
Why are there no calendars over 6000 years?
History is too short. Why?
There is too much helium in radioactive rocks. Why?
There is helium in old zircon crystals. Why?
Thick sedimentary rock layers bent beyond the fracturing point, yet not fractured. Why?
The Mississippi river delta and deltas around the world show the result of one large flood like the worldwide flood. Why?
The arms of spiral galaxies should no longer exist, but they do. Why?
There is not enough helium in the earth’s atmosphere to support an old atmosphere. Why?
There is not enough sediment at the bottom of the sea to support an old earth. Why?
High speed objects in globular clusters show that they are young. Why?
Living fossils invalidate not only the age and origin of the sedimentary rock but refute evolution over eons.
The natural direction of life is degeneration not evolution.
The genetic load in all creatures means they would have ceased to exist after so much time. They have not. Why?
The DNA, RNA, and proteins with some of these being enzymes is a triply interconnected irreducibly complex system. Evolution could not be the mechanism to produce these.
There are depictions of dinosaurs from ancient cultures. Why?
Job 40:15-19 describes a plant eating dinosaur, probably Brachiosaurus. Why?
Almost all ancient cultures have a record of a worldwide blood and a remnant saved on a great boat, sometimes 8 people. How do explain that?
There are about 30,000 figurines of dinosaurs date about 2500 years ago. How do you explain that?
All population growth statistics invalidate mankind being around for more than 6000 years old but match only 8 people being saved in the ark. It also matches the world population at the time of Christ and today.
It does not seem that there is enough force for the Indian sub-continent to have crashed into Asia and raised the Himalayan Mountain range with just plate tectonics. Why?

The dim young sun paradox invalidates long ages for the sun, evolution, and life on the earth.
The rate of recession of the moon from the earth limits the age of the moon.
The rapid decline of the Earth’s magnetic strength limits the age of the earth. Why?
The salt content of the oceans is too low for an old earth. Why?
The concentration of various minerals in the ocean limits the age of the oceans. Why?
The rock layers show no signs of erosion between layers. Why?
There is no time between rock layers for slow deposition. Why?
There is not enough erosion of continental plates for an old earth. Why?
Earth is not cooled enough for it to be old. Why?
Earth’s rotation rate is slowing for it to be old. Why?
Haeckel’s drawings were not accurate, yet his drawings are still used for evolution. Why the fraud?
Nebraska man was not a man. Why the fraud?
The Milken experiment is a disaster for evolutionists. Why the deception.
Beware of the old con “the building blocks of life”. Why the deception?

Please explain how asexual reproduction evolved into sexual reproduction. Without all things working the switch over leads to the destruction of the creature. But there is no survival advantage to the incomplete system.
Please explain how asexual reproduction evolved. It too is irreducibly complex.

To answer you question. On average cells divide once a day and the average cells can live 7 years.

So from an old riddle. If you take 1 grain of rice as a reward to be doubled every day for a month at the end of a month you would be able to feed your family for life.

Now take a cell and divide it for 7 years and how many do you have, divide them for 6000 years and how many do you have. Divide them for billions of years and I would bet you have the same number of cells that exist today.

As to how they formed there are several decent theories but they started as cells there are no fossils to determine, kinda like no fossils of God. As to how they survived only a few needed to be in the proper environment and it's a big world. I mean Adam and Eve where able to create 8 billion people most of them non believers in a much shorter time by your belief. I mean it was even shorter if you consider Noah.

It is far more believable that you'd need billions of years for billions of people.

 

[Pogo]

No.

Well Myth can contain truth and even history so it is not the dichotomy that @YoursTrue wants it to be.

 

[YoursTrue]

No.

Of course it virtually negates what comes next and before in the Torah. Jesus spoke of the floodso even if some believe he was "God in the flesh" his reference to the days of Noah places him less than "God in the flesh" because he was not telling the truth.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well Myth can contain truth and even history so it is not the dichotomy that @YoursTrue wants it to be.

Not a matter of dichotomy. Just truth and reason. As I said, if Jesus, as some believe he was part of a Trinity of 3 equal godpersons, spoke of the days of Noah, then as "God in the flesh," he was deluded according to some.

Of course it virtually negates what comes next and before in the Torah including the Christian Greek scriptures. Jesus spoke of the flood so even if some believe he was "God in the flesh" his reference to the days of Noah places him less than "God in the flesh" because he was not telling the truth. But according to some, a myth he fell for maybe. Because he said, "When the Son of Man returns, it will be like it was in Noah’s day. 27In those days, the people enjoyed banquets and parties and weddings right up to the time Noah entered his boat and the flood came and destroyed them all." Poor deluded Jesus, according to some...

 

[Pogo]

Not a matter of dichotomy. Just truth and reason. As I said, if Jesus, as some believe he was part of a Trinity of 3 equal godpersons, spoke of the days of Noah, then as "God in the flesh," he was deluded according to some.

Coherent English please.

 

[YoursTrue]

Coherent English please.

Ok I'll try to make it clearer for you. Let me put it this way for you (and others but I think some others know what I mean...). If a person professes to be Christian, many believe that Jesus is God in the flesh. And this relates to the rest of my point which if possible we can go over slowly because I notice real silence from, uh, some participants. Very quiet. But let's first start with logic for some hopefully you will comprehend. So, if a person belongs to a church that teaches God is a Trinity of three individuals combining to make one God'head,' would you say that Jesus, considered by that teaching as "God in the flesh" by professed adherents to a church which teaches that, would be deluded by environment and upbringing to believe in the flood of Noah? Did you read Jesus's words, btw, that I quoted from the Bible?

 

[YoursTrue]

I disagree. For starters, it shows how cheap life is to that deity.

How many stories do you need to teach you that God hates disobedience. You've also got the Garden story and the tower of Babel story.

What these three stories have in common is that they all attempt to explain the world the ancient Hebrews found themselves living in with the understanding that a god that knew all, could do all, and loved them perfectly. In such a world, man should be immortal and living in paradise and all able to understand one another, and there wouldn't have been a global flood decimating them, which I presume they believe occurred after finding marine fossils on the highest mountaintops.

Why does man live a short and often brutish and difficult life, why does he speak so many mutually unintelligible languages, and why dd their god see fit to drown the world? I believe that these questions came first, uniformly followed by the same answer - man must have deserved it in the eyes of a loving, tri-omni god, or that would make the god unjust or weak or indifferent and thus not tri-omni. To preserve tri-omni in the face of all of that, the concept of sin was formulated, and it was accepted that there could be a deity unable to tolerate disobedience to its will and that this still be an all-powerful entity.

And that's the god and description of that god Abrahamists accept, even if the flood story, for example, depicts it as intolerant of man as it created him, willing to blame its creation for its own engineering errors, willing to kill most terrestrial life in a pointless gesture given the choice to use the same breeding stock to repopulate the earth and to use an especially cruel method.

Yet believers accept these as the acts of a good and all-powerful god and are willing to accept the victim blaming account as just, kind, and loving as it seems you have as well.

I understand that this is likely an affront to you, and that you won't agree, but I don't think you can find and demonstrate an error in all of that.

Why do I post things like this? I consider such thinking harmful. If one accepts that deity as loving, he's halfway to accepting Trump as loving and beneficent as well. We need to use reason, evidence, and empathy to decide these matters, and this deity as described is neither intelligent nor loving, so let's not call it that, because people emulate that model.

If you're going to consider cheapness of life, how about war? Abortion? Murder? In fact, what about death, innate within the concept of evolution...as a matter of fact, it can cost quite a bit for funerals...

 

[shunyadragon]

Not a matter of dichotomy. Just truth and reason. As I said, if Jesus, as some believe he was part of a Trinity of 3 equal godpersons, spoke of the days of Noah, then as "God in the flesh," he was deluded according to some.

Truth is indeterminate from the human perspective and cannot remotely be justify by ancient text without provenance.

The problem with reason is it is subjective approach to justify what one believes and not based on evidence.

You have no objective evidence to justify what you believe.

 

[Pogo]

Ok I'll try to make it clearer for you. Let me put it this way for you (and others but I think some others know what I mean...). If a person professes to be Christian, many believe that Jesus is God in the flesh. And this relates to the rest of my point which if possible we can go over slowly because I notice real silence from, uh, some participants. Very quiet. But let's first start with logic for some hopefully you will comprehend. So, if a person belongs to a church that teaches God is a Trinity of three individuals combining to make one God'head,' would you say that Jesus, considered by that teaching as "God in the flesh" by professed adherents to a church which teaches that, would be deluded by environment and upbringing to believe in the flood of Noah? Did you read Jesus's words, btw, that I quoted from the Bible?

I'd say it rather demonstrates my point that finding parts of the Bible to be myth, ie moral stories and not actual fact is common amongst christians and says little by itself about the veracity of any of these beliefs and so whatever you or someone believes about individual parts of the Bible is insufficient to dismiss any other persons opinion and certainly not enough to dismiss the findings of science that can be reproduced for everyone today.

I find all of the extraordinary events to be examples of myth to tell a story of a common bond of a group of people and not things to be believed as absolute truth. In fact that pretty much describes the whole book, as someone once said, it tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'd say it rather demonstrates my point that finding parts of the Bible to be myth, ie moral stories and not actual fact is common amongst christians and says little by itself about the veracity of any of these beliefs and so whatever you or someone believes about individual parts of the Bible is insufficient to dismiss any other persons opinion and certainly not enough to dismiss the findings of science that can be reproduced for everyone today.

I find all of the extraordinary events to be examples of myth to tell a story of a common bond of a group of people and not things to be believed as absolute truth. In fact that pretty much describes the whole book, as someone once said, it tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

That's what I'm saying--there are those claiming to worship or bow down to or pray to Jesus as God or perhaps a "godhead," but yet might say that somehow while Jesus, who they go along with church doctrine perhaps about evolution and who they go along without remonstrations that he is "God-in-the-flesh" while he was on the earth born to a virgin (which I doubt such ones believe either), is stating things that are not so due to the culture, even though he is supposed to be "God on earth" in fleshly form. So this "God on earth" got things a little befuddled, according to some. Even though he was supposed to be, according to the Trinity theory, "God on earth in the flesh."