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

[muhammad_isa]

Without rubber, there can be no ball. But that does not mean that you need to know where the rubber came from in order to observe and understand how a ball rolls down a hill..

Of course .. but the fact you do not know why we evolved, or how we evolved (from naught),
makes your argument pretty circumstantial.
i.e. it is NOT a fact that evolution is responsible for our existence

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course .. but the fact you do not know why we evolved, or how we evolved (from naught),
makes your argument pretty circumstantial.
i.e. it is NOT a fact that evolution is responsible for our existence

How does that work?

Is the observation "the ball rolls down the hill at 5mph" a "circumstantial" argument, or is it rendered "NOT a fact", by you not knowing where the rubber that made the ball came from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course you do, Without a first living creature there is no theory of evolution.
I no the utter desperation that evolutionists must have to run and hide from the impossibility of abiogenesis.

Why do you keep using this strawman argument?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course .. but the fact you do not know why we evolved, or how we evolved (from naught),
makes your argument pretty circumstantial.
i.e. it is NOT a fact that evolution is responsible for our existence

No, one can still easily make a case with circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can still be very strong evidence. Did you ever see the Maury Povich Show?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But there is no evidence or actual description of the first living creature, just assumptions and unproven conjectures.
I have already shown it was impossible, so read Genesis 1 for the truth.
BTW, you have fulfilled Biblical prophecy with exact timing and details made about 2000 years ago,

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. - 2 Tim 2:7

I think you have provided us with an excellent example that we should never stop learning. That verse you are quoting is from 2 Timothy 3:7.

Much as you seem to want it to be, it is not promoting Christians live a life of ignorance and denial. It simply means that the acquisition of knowledge will not bring you to salvation.

Perhaps this is a sign that you should read 2 Timothy 2. In particular verse 5. And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I think you have provided us with an excellent example that we should never stop learning. That verse you are quoting is from 2 Timothy 3:7.

Much as you seem to want it to be, it is not promoting Christians live a life of ignorance and denial. It simply means that the acquisition of knowledge will not bring you to salvation.

Perhaps this is a sign that you should read 2 Timothy 2. In particular verse 5. And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.

No. I person has to come to a knowledge of the truth and that would be that exists and did not use evolution or billions of years so that verse is fulfilled in you over and over and over again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. I person has to come to a knowledge of the truth and that would be that exists and did not use evolution or billions of years so that verse is fulfilled in you over and over and over again.

What??? Can you write that so it can be understood?

 

[Esteban X]

Of course you do, Without a first living creature there is no theory of evolution.
I no the utter desperation that evolutionists must have to run and hide from the impossibility of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different and unrelated things. One deals with the emergence of life the other deals with the variations that occur within populations of existing creatures. To refer to this "debate" as Evolution vs Creationism is a misnomer. Let us admit that it may be more correctly be called Abiogenesis vs Creationism and not muddy the waters by bringing up evolution which is irrelevant in this argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What??? Can you write that so it can be understood?

I guess not.

 

[muhammad_isa]

How does that work?

Is the observation "the ball rolls down the hill at 5mph" a "circumstantial" argument, or is it rendered "NOT a fact", by you not knowing where the rubber that made the ball came from?

You'll have to be more specific..

Why does the ball roll down the hill at 5mph? Due to gravity, amongst other things..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You'll have to be more specific..

How could I be more specific? It's a pretty straightforward question.

Why does the ball roll down the hill at 5mph? Due to gravity, amongst other things..

Can you measure the speed and distance at which a ball rolls down a hill without knowing where the ball or the force of gravity came from? Yes or no?

Actually, don't bother. We both know the answer is yes. Because you do stuff like that every day.

 

[F1fan]

..and why are they as they are?

Because that is how it is, and not some other way.

The funny thing for creationists is that why doesn't the universe treat humans any better than it does if all this was created for humans? Look at all the things that threaten humans, from dangerous animals to toxins to diseases. If this world was created for us how do you explain the dangers? How do you explain cancers affecting anyone, including children?

Yes, of course .. it is fundamental.
..but where did they come from?

Why assume it came from anywhere?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, of course .. it is fundamental.
..but where did they come from?

Well . . . any possible answer beyond the physical verifiable objective evidence is subjective and hypothetical based on the theological belief of what may possibly be beyond the physical.

A simple answer . . . "turtles all the way down,"

 

[shunyadragon]

But there is no evidence or actual description of the first living creature, just assumptions and unproven conjectures.
I have already shown it was impossible, so read Genesis 1 for the truth.
BTW, you have fulfilled Biblical prophecy with exact timing and details made about 2000 years ago,

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. - 2 Tim 2:7

You have no evidence only ancient world view without provenance and no science. Also, you consistently 'argue from ignorance' and like AIG reject science upfront. You consistently refuse to respond to the scientific articles, and continue entertaining us with amusing stuff like cud-chewing rabbits and toy dinosaurs dated with Carbon-14

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You have no evidence only ancient world view without provenance and no science. Also, you consistently 'argue from ignorance' and like AIG reject science upfront. You consistently refuse to respond to the scientific articles, and continue entertaining us with amusing stuff like cud-chewing rabbits and toy dinosaurs dated with Carbon-14

And the etched Stegosaurus and yes the Dino figurines and a bunch of other depictions of dinosaurs and of course all of creature.

 

[shunyadragon]

And the etched Stegosaurus and yes the Dino figurines and a bunch of other depictions of dinosaurs and of course all of creature.

Less than sixty years old.

 

[shunyadragon]

No. I person has to come to a knowledge of the truth and that would be that exists and did not use evolution or billions of years so that verse is fulfilled in you over and over and over again.

Therefore you upfront reject the science, and all your bogus questions are meaningless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the etched Stegosaurus and yes the Dino figurines and a bunch of other depictions of dinosaurs and of course all of creature.

What makes you think that was a stegosaurus? I see that you cannot explain the clear absence of a thagomizer. Have you not considered that what look like plates might be stylized flower petals, a motif that can be shown elsewhere on that same work elsewhere.

All you have are frauds and misinterpretations. You need something more substantial than that.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What makes you think that was a stegosaurus? I see that you cannot explain the clear absence of a thagomizer. Have you not considered that what look like plates might be stylized flower petals, a motif that can be shown elsewhere on that same work elsewhere.

All you have are frauds and misinterpretations. You need something more substantial than that.

My eyes .

 

[Subduction Zone]

My eyes .

But you have demonstrated that "your eyes" are not a reliable source since you have no education in these matters and have a terrible prejudice against them. You sound no different than an extreme racist ranting and raving about people of color.