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

[gnostic]

The atoms are in the dust and clay.

But cells are not made of dust, clay or any other type of soil.

This is probably why you failed in basic biology and chemistry. You don't understand basic science. You cannot change dust or soil into protein or DNA that exist in just about every types of cells.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Floods can make a lot of varves all at once so that are not all annual. And the worldwide flood made a lot.

Layers of Assumption

Secular scientists claim it’s easy to disprove the Bible’s 6,000-year history: just count the tree rings. Is this dating method reliable?

answersingenesis.org

Sorry, AiG is not a reliable source when it comes to the sciences. In fact they make their writers swear that they will not follow the scientific method. It is pure pseudoscience. You can try and make the arguments yourself, but if you just link to the site as if it proves anything you have instead only shown that you have no evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Floods can make a lot of varves all at once so that are not all annual. And the worldwide flood made a lot.

No natural processes cannot make a lot of lake varves all at once. It is physically impossible

Layers of Assumption

Secular scientists claim it’s easy to disprove the Bible’s 6,000-year history: just count the tree rings. Is this dating method reliable?

answersingenesis.org

This source is false in terms of science because it assumes some process in the past that is different from today without any evidence of any such different process. There is no known possible explanation of seasonal varves that the seasonal deposition we see today. It is up to AIG to present an adequate explanation for the formation of varves, and they cannot.

It is grossly dishonestly false on all counts.

You must realize that AIG states that it accepts the witness of the literal Bible only as evidence, and does not accept any physical evidence observed by science if it conflicts with the Bible.

This would be true of your outrageous entire list to prove because AIG and you would not accept the scientific explanation for anything.

In other words, you would reject all possible scientific explanations on your list regardless of the evidence.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No natural processes cannot make a lot of lake varves all at once. It is physically impossible


This source is false in terms of science because it assumes some process in the past that is different from today without any evidence of any such different process. There is no known possible explanation of seasonal varves that the seasonal deposition we see today. It is up to AIG to present an adequate explanation for the formation of varves, and they cannot.

It is grossly dishonestly false on all counts.

You must realize that AIG states that it accepts the witness of the literal Bible only as evidence, and does not accept any physical evidence observed by science if it conflicts with the Bible.

This would be true of your outrageous entire list to prove because AIG and you would not accept the scientific explanation for anything.

In other words, you would reject all possible scientific explanations on your list regardless of the evidence.

It has already been shown that large floods do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has already been shown that large floods do.

Where? Show the peer reviewed articles. You need to remember that AiG will lie to you.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Where? Show the peer reviewed articles. You need to remember that AiG will lie to you.

Well Answers in Genesis is peer reviewed, uses the scientific method and publishes papers, etc.
Floods can produce many valves in a short time and the worldwide flood was very large.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well Answers in Genesis is peer reviewed, uses the scientific method and publishes papers, etc.
Floods can produce many valves in a short time and the worldwide flood was very large.

No, it is not. It is a pseudoscience organization. I can even show you where they force their workers to swear to not follow the scientific method.

You really should try to at least learn the basics of science. You came to a gunfight with some old mostly broken rubber bands.

You are simply too easy to refute right now. If you learned a bit you might be a better debater.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, it is not. It is a pseudoscience organization. I can even show you where they force their workers to swear to not follow the scientific method.

You really should try to at least learn the basics of science. You came to a gunfight with some old mostly broken rubber bands.

You are simply too easy to refute right now. If you learned a bit you might be a better debater.

Actually I am doing just fine.
It helps being a better debater but it is not being a better debater that counts.
It is having the truth on your like I have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually I am doing just fine.
It helps being a better debater but it is not being a better debater that counts.
It is having the truth on your like I have.

No, you have lost every single argument. You have only demonstrated extreme ignorance. The fact that you are keeping yourself uneducated does not mean that you have won.

Please note, everyone else has offered to help you with realizable sources. To explain how you are wrong. You have sources so bad that you do not even read them, much less understand them. That is an action of a desperate person.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, you have lost every single argument. You have only demonstrated extreme ignorance. The fact that you are keeping yourself uneducated does not mean that you have won.

Please note, everyone else has offered to help you with realizable sources. To explain how you are wrong. You have sources so bad that you do not even read them, much less understand them. That is an action of a desperate person.

Please refute either of my 2 irrefutable proofs or meet the challenge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please refute either of my 2 irrefutable proofs or meet the challenge.

I cannot refute that which does not exist. I know that I refuted a silly argument of yours. Did you have two silly arguments?

By the way, you have not answered me as to why the Templeton Foundation has not contacted you.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I cannot refute that which does not exist. I know that I refuted a silly argument of yours. Did you have two silly arguments?

By the way, you have not answered me as to why the Templeton Foundation has not contacted you.

I have no idea why they have not contacted me. Are they a 6 day recent creation group?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no idea why they have not contacted me. Are they a 6 day recent creation group?

No, they are not that ignorant. They are a religious organization that gives people that provide evidence for God with money.

 

[shunyadragon]

It has already been shown that large floods do.

No, it has not been shown. The only evidence. is we have is annual seasonal deposition. Please cite in scientific literature where an alternate large flood can cause seasonal varves. AIG does not propose an alternate way varves can be deposited. .

Well Answers in Genesis is peer reviewed, uses the scientific method and publishes papers, etc.
Floods can produce many valves in a short time and the worldwide flood was very large.

Actually no, the statements of policy of AIG is to reject the scientific method in favor of the literal Bible, No they are not peer-reviewed outside AIG. Peer review id defined as having scientific research and articles outside your institution or university.

 

[metis]

I am so glad I left the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, it has not been shown. The only evidence. is we have is annual seasonal deposition. Please cite in scientific literature where an alternate large flood can cause seasonal varves. AIG does not propose an alternate way varves can be deposited. .


Actually no, the statements of policy of AIG is to reject the scientific method in favor of the literal Bible, No they are not peer-reviewed outside AIG. Peer review id defined as having scientific research and articles outside your institution or university.

Answers in genesis is a science site.

 

[metis]

Answers in genesis is a science site.

No, it is not. Matter of fact, the last creationist study submitter for peer review was back in the early 1950's.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, it is not. Matter of fact, the last creationist study submitter for peer review was back in the early 1950's.

Peer reviewed by evolutionists and billions of years people.

 

[metis]

Peer reviewed by evolutionists and billions of years people.

"Nice" stereotype. Now you have literally betrayed your own bigotry as many "evolutionists" are Christians.

 

[shunyadragon]

Answers in genesis is a science site.

No it is not. it has defined itself as a religious site based on a literal Bible.

Answers in Genesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Answers in Genesis organization rejects key scientific facts and theories as established by archeology, cosmology, geology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology and argues that the universe, the Earth and life originated about 6,000 years ago.[14][15][16] (Creationism beliefs reject natural causes and events in scientific explanations of nature and of the origin of the universe in favor of the supernatural, and the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that creationism is religion.