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

[Ebionite]

. . .because I believe you were involved in this.

I have no idea what you're on about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I'm not a "creationist" .. and I've never met you before.

That may be, but you tend to make the same errors that they do.

 

[YoursTrue]

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 find that interesting, i.e., that there is no evidence OR actual description of the first living creature.

 

[YoursTrue]

In what way? Be specific.

It's pretty obvious that you don't have to know what the first living thing was in order to observe how living things change over time today, in the exact same way you don't have to know how rubber is made in order to observe how a rubber ball rolls down a hill. These things are perfectly analagous.


Most likely minute microbes in deep-sea vents, and simple self-replicating proteins before them. At which point one or the other can be considered "living" is more a more complex question.

It's obvious that your analogy is faulty because (it's so obvious it's almost silly to describe it but I'll try ) there simply is no evidence of the "first living creature." So simiple it defies argument. What's the evidence if you want to keep arguing?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why are you bringing me into this?

(I gotta laugh anyway...the superciliousness of those making such comments as if they can show evidence of -- the "first living creature..." LOL, yikes) He used you evidently to bash me and those like me even though the poster in subject and those like him have no evidence of the "first living" creature. Yikes. But -- they'll keep it up with the insults and LACK OF INFORMATION.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have inadvertently given a reason as to a longer existence than 6000 years - after all, why would there be any evidence after three or four billion years have passed since the first forms of life existed?

In other words, (1) there is no evidence, and (2) you and those like you do not know. Bye for now and thank you for your answer.

 

[McBell]

It's obvious that your analogy is faulty because (it's so obvious it's almost silly to describe it but I'll try ) there simply is no evidence of the "first living creature." So simiple it defies argument. What's the evidence if you want to keep arguing?

Well there goes all how life began claims, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well there goes all how life began claims, right?

(could be...so that's how it is... as far as you're concerned. Hey, have a good one!)

 

[YoursTrue]

Educated people who follow facts and data have a better model and explanation than any of the many religious folks out there. Christians and Muslims have no factual model, and their fundamentalist beliefs are certainly inconsistent with facts.

not everyone

 

[McBell]

(could be...so that's how it is... as far as you're concerned. Hey, have a good one!)

You are the one claiming there is no evidence of a first living creature.

 

[YoursTrue]

. . .because I believe you were involved in this.

lol, another philosophical meandering thought? LOL, maybe...

 

[YoursTrue]

You are the one claiming there is no evidence of a first living creature.

So where is any evidence? there's no proof of any first living creation by scientists, is there? Depending on your answer, we'll look forward ...

 

[McBell]

So where is any evidence? there's no proof of any first living creation by scientists, is there? Depending on your answer, we'll look forward ...

Moving the goal posts does not help you.

To go from "first living creature" to "first living creation by scientists"...

How are you supposed to be taken seriously?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's obvious that your analogy is faulty because (it's so obvious it's almost silly to describe it but I'll try ) there simply is no evidence of the "first living creature." So simiple it defies argument. What's the evidence if you want to keep arguing?

But there is.

I need to remind you that you refuse to learn what is and is not evidence.

 

[John53]

I find that interesting, i.e., that there is no evidence OR actual description of the first living creature.

Do you think it's a problem? What do you mean by creature?

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you think it's a problem? What do you mean by creature?

Ok got it. Let's just say first living thing, ok? Not creature. Evidence of...the first living thing. Where or what is it? Naturally proof is out of the picture. Just evidence of...the first living thing. Ok.

 

[YoursTrue]

Moving the goal posts does not help you.

To go from "first living creature" to "first living creation by scientists"...

How are you supposed to be taken seriously?

Ok go with thing not creature. Where's the evidence or .. ok no proof. Can't be. Just evidence of first living thing, maybe better word entity.

 

[John53]

Ok got it. Let's just say first living thing, ok? Not creature. Evidence of...the first living thing. Where or what is it? Naturally proof is out of the picture. Just evidence of...the first living thing. Ok.

You didn't answer my first question

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok got it. Let's just say first living thing, ok? Not creature. Evidence of...the first living thing. Where or what is it? Naturally proof is out of the picture. Just evidence of...the first living thing. Ok.

Does life exist now?

 

[Mock Turtle]

In other words, (1) there is no evidence, and (2) you and those like you do not know. Bye for now and thank you for your answer.

Don't be silly. Earth processes over this time, such as tectonic plate drift and all the other geological processes, besides all weathering processes, could easily have destroyed the earliest signs of life. We have few enough of human ancestor fossils, so why would we expect to find evidence from so much further back? Subscribing to a 6000-year-old Earth really is the silliest belief - so best to drop it before it warps your mind completely. Oh, has it done so already?