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

[Little Dragon]

Evolution is false,

You're entitled to hold that opinion.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You're entitled to hold that opinion.

Thanks

 

[Little Dragon]

what was the first living creature?

The first self replicating organic molecule? Probably not much more than a strand of DNA or RNA enclosed in a protein membrane or lipid layer. Somewhat like a macro virus perhaps? To hazard a guess.

 

[Little Dragon]

Thanks

I admire your conviction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes Creation by God is.
Evolution is false,
what was the first living creature?
what was the next 5 generations ?

Nope, there is no reliable evidence for your myth.

What was Jesus's middle name? If you don't know it he clearly did not exist.

What were the names of his first five generations of descendants? If you don't know them he clearly didn't exist.

Hmm, I am beginning to like this "logic".

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope, there is no reliable evidence for your myth.

What was Jesus's middle name? If you don't know it he clearly did not exist.

What were the names of his first five generations of descendants? If you don't know them he clearly didn't exist.

Hmm, I am beginning to like this "logic".

Your post is fulfilled prophecy from God

 

[Little Dragon]

Your post is fulfilled prophecy from God

Noice!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your post is fulfilled prophecy from God

Prove it.

Your inability to understand your own book of myths is not enough. Demonstrate it with a rational argument.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes Creation by God is.
Evolution is false,
what was the first living creature?
what was the next 5 generations ?

The first living creatures on Earth were simple single-celled organisms like we found evidence of and fossils as the earliest known organisms in rocks over about 3.7 billion years ago in rocks formed in hydrothermal vents when continental drift began.

The next generations of more complex organisms like what we find in the fossil record, are more recent than the oldest evidence of life.

This article goes into detail on what is known and unknown about abiogenesis including a detailed description of the organic chemical pathways of abiogenesis

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Another post demonstrating that you don't know the first thing about the subject and science. Way to go.

Only creationists say this nonsense about transitional forms having things like half a wing or partially developed organs.

Of course, you will just ignore this and continue on as if you really do know what you are talking about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Very ridiculous.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not a science site, it's a pet owners site but go as technical as you want. Rabbits don't chew their cud. The simple fact is the bible gets stuff wrong.

I guess you prefer the bats are birds classification?

Rabbits have a complicated digestive system. Another time...but again, the Bible's declarations do not have to coincide with science's definitions. It is of some interest to me about the rabbit so I'll get into more detail about that first.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

The mechanisms of evolution are known. All evolution requires are living things that reproduce with heritable variation (that means the babies have slightly different genetics from the mommies and daddies) and they can have babies when they get older and pass on those differences. It doesn't matter what the origin of life is, evolution is, unlike anything you have claimed, demonstrable and demonstrated.

Good grief!

 

[F1fan]

Yes Creation by God is.

Actually creationism is dying out, and that's because it not only lacks evidence, it is contrary to facts and science. No gods are known to exist, so your interpretation of the Bible is flawed until you can show any god exists.

Evolution is false,

False, it is one of the most well verified theories in all of science. It's also called a unifying theory which means it is confirmed by all other areas of science, like geology, botany, cosmology, paleontology, etc. This means all the work done in other sciences is consistent with each other. Your creationism doesn't fit with any science, so it is irrelevant.

what was the first living creature?

You keep asking this as if you would know a correct versus incorrect answer. You don;t even know basic science.

what was the next 5 generations ?

We don't know, but they don't have to ask where their wives came from like Cain and Abel.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Rabbits have a complicated digestive system..

So do I

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you believe that there are God fearing atheists?

Are you thinking clearly? Do you even understand the questions you ask? How many things that you don't believe in frighten you?

 

[John53]

Very ridiculous.

I'm sitting outside a jewelry store evolving a deep hatred of a busker

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm sitting outside a jewelry store evolving a deep hatred of a busker

Just put a dollar in his pouch and he'll hop away.

 

[shunyadragon]

What was the fist creature with even a photo eye?
Now walk as through with how that became all the different eye types that are in existence.
What genes were involved exactly?
What were the intermediate species involved?
Is there any chains of missing links that show this in the fossil record?

Circular reasoning by the evolutionist again.
No facts just myths.

I provided a path for you for a detailed description of the eye in Google an it is apparent you did not follow through. There is an excellent video from NOVA, but of course, you will reject it with a Biblical handwave The following are references you refused the do your own homework.

From the NIH: Eye evolution and its functional basis
From PBS: Evolution of the Eye | PBS LearningMedia
New York Academy of Science: How the Eye Evolved | The New York Academy of Sciences

Specifically, where are they in error?
There are many more . . .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Absolutely,

For example, you have no answer as to the first living creature. But you are sure it must have happened. Why?

According to scripture plants were the first living things created. Do you know which one? If not, does that mean you are wrong in your belief?

Your reasoning here doesn't make any sense.

Because there are living things which requires a first living creature.

Even the Bible says there was a first. It doesn't say what it was other than plants and trees. Still not making any sense with your point here.

So the first living creature must have come into being or else EVOLUTION IS FALSE.

Poor reasoning and lack of understanding of the science. Evolution would work regardless of how life got here. Evolution is a demonstrated phenomenon. It is impossible for you to declare it false.

Now some say well maybe God did it. But without God, abiogenesis is impossible.

A fact not in evidence and claim remaining undemonstrated.

It is not observed at all.

At one time organ transplants were not observed.

But it must have happened or else evolution is false.

No. You clearly don't understand.

And that is circular reasoning.

Your circular reasoning based on misguided understanding.

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?

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.

The lists you've posted don't go anywhere.

Scientists are not claiming that the universe created itself or was created from nothing. You really need to stop mining pseudoscience garbage. It isn't science.