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

[shunyadragon]

Absolutely,

For example, you have no answer as to the first living creature. But you are sure it must have happened. Why? Because there are living things which requires a first living creature. So the first living creature must have come into being or else EVOLUTION IS FALSE.

The first simple living organisms have been found in rocks developed in thermal ocean vents 3.7 billion years ago. Yes, it came into being through the process of abiogenesis in this type of rock formation.

Now some say well maybe God did it. But without God, abiogenesis is impossible. It is not observed at all. But it must have happened or else evolution is false. And that is circular reasoning.

Hawking used the same circular reasoning on where the universe came from without God. He wrote:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going."

But where did the law of gravity even come from?

Scientists do not believe our universe was created out of absolutely nothing, nor any sort of spontaneous creation. This has been responded to several times before/

Scientists developed their Law of Gravity based on objectively verifiably verifiable evidence that confirms that gravity is the natural property of our physical existence

Here is what John Lenox said about what Hawking wrote:

What (Stephen) Hawking says in his book The Grand Design is the universe exists because it needed to exist, and because it needed to exist, it therefore created itself. His conclusion merely restates his premise, which means his argument is circular. Nonsense is nonsense, even when spoken by famous scientists.

And the list goes on and on.

Yes your erroneous dishonest list goes on and on based on an ancient religious agenda without any knowledge of science, except like AIG you basically reject science even if you know the science.

 

[Little Dragon]

Scientists do not believe our universe was created out of absolutely nothing, nor any sort of spontaneous creation.

Agreed. Most astrophysicists, discussing such metaphysics, will talk of a collapse in a meta stable region of hyperspace, M theorists talk about Brane collisions in higher dimensional space. There is always a causation. Naturalistic.

 

[Watchmen]

God is Almighty so He can do anything.
Evolution is a lie and just uses circular reasoning.
All facts, probability, statistics, math, logic and all science refute it as I have here.

Where did the first living thing come from?

If you think evolution is circular reasoning then you clearly don’t understand evolution.

The first living thing most likely came into being within hydrothermal vent precipitates.

Show me the facts, probability, statistics, math, logic, and science that prove anything to do with God in any way whatsoever.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And yet, i have proven God is the creator of all things and the Bible is the word of God 5x each.
And of course proven evolution and billions of years false many times.

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 be partially developed organs and systems in all individual creations that exist today and have eve existed. There are none. Why?

No, there shouldn't be. This is an inaccurate caricature of evolution.

Seriously, you should go learn some science before attempting to discuss it.

The odds against the above 2 facts are so vast that it is more than the odds against a very large specific amino acid sequence coming into being by natural processes.

Those aren't facts.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, there shouldn't be. This is an inaccurate caricature of evolution.

Seriously, you should go learn some science before attempting to discuss it.

Those aren't facts.

So you do not think that there should partially developed organs in all living creatures. But evolution is gradual. So there should. If not then, evolution would be hopeful monsters, aka, jumps which is impossible. So you see the condundrum for evolution. A creature's offspring just did not have eyes that the creature itself did not.

 

[F1fan]

So no real answers yet again.

I noticed you can’t explain why your God creates genes that cause cancer in children. By your own words your God is responsible for everything. And you admit your God can do anything. So every child that is diagnosed with cancer is your God doing it.

Yeah life in this world is very tough and I grieve for those that suffer such loses.

Almost as if we live in a godless universe.

But it is a fallen world because of sin and that is why death, suffering and disease happen.

Just as your God created. Did your God not know what he was doing?

But salvation is forever and there is no more sorrow or tears or pain or sadness or disease or death.
Christ redeems His people.

And what purpose does this serve if your God is so indifferent to suffering and death that he crested fatal diseases? Why create excessive pain and suffering while alive only to make it end in death? Can’t have it both ways.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I noticed you can’t explain why your God creates genes that cause cancer in children. By your own words your God is responsible for everything. And you admit your God can do anything. So every child that is diagnosed with cancer is your God doing it.

Almost as if we live in a godless universe.

Just as your God created. Did your God not know what he was doing?

And what purpose does this serve if your God is so indifferent to suffering and death that he crested fatal diseases? Why create excessive pain and suffering while alive only to make it end in death? Can’t have it both ways.

Disease and death are the result of the fall due to sin.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you do not think that there should partially developed organs in all living creatures.

No. Nobody who understands evolution expects to see that.

But evolution is gradual. So there should. If not then, evolution would be hopeful monsters, aka, jumps which is impossible. So you see the condundrum for evolution. A creature's offspring just did not have eyes that the creature itself did not.

There should not be. You do not understand evolution. Probably because you're relying on Answers in Genesis for your misinformation. That and talking points that have been out-of-date for at least 60 years now.

 

[metis]

Disease and death are the result of the fall due to sin.

Oh, so which sin did a miscarried child make? How about a child borne with severe deflects? If it's supposedly about "original sin", why would a child be sacrificed by God especially since that child could not have sinned prior to birth?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Oh, so which sin did a miscarried child make? How about a child borne with severe deflects? If it's supposedly about "original sin", why would a child be sacrificed by God especially since that child could not have sinned prior to birth?

The fall unfortunately does produce these terrible things.

 

[F1fan]

Disease and death are the result of the fall due to sin.

Which is what your God designed and let happen. Your God is responsible.

 

[metis]

The fall unfortunately does produce these terrible things.

So, why would God kill innocent others? That's a "loving God"?

 

[Little Dragon]

Disease and death are the result of the fall due to sin.

I do not sin because I do not know what that is.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I do not sin because I do not know what that is.

But God determines what is sin, not you.

That is the same deception that Satan used in the garden.

1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 13:1-5

 

[Little Dragon]

But God determines what is sin, not you.

I await God's determination to be revealed to me then.

 

[Little Dragon]

and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

As far as I can tell good and evil, are merely diametrically opposed points of view. Abstract concepts, determined by social contracts taboos and natural instincts and the like.

 

[viole]

What was the first living thing

Nobody knows. Especially evolutionists, who, as the name indicates, are concerned with the evolution of life, not its origins.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Little Dragon]

Especially evolutionists, who, as the name indicates, are concerned with the evolution of life, not its origins.

Precisely. Abiogenesis may be a closely related subject, but it is not yet comprehensively explained, it remains a testable hypothesis that is in the process of being tested!

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Precisely. Abiogenesis may be a closely related subject, but it is not yet comprehensively explained, it remains a testable hypothesis that is in the process of being tested!

Without the first living thing there is no evolution.
why not retract it worldwide until the exact answer and mechanism is known.
It would give the evolutionists an incentive.

 

[John53]

Without the first living thing there is no evolution.
why not retract it worldwide until the exact answer and mechanism is known.
It would give the evolutionists an incentive.

But there was a first living thing. Your logic is ridiculous.