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

[SavedByTheLord]

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?

Well that is convenient.
But I proved that it could not have happenEd anywhere in the universe for all time.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well that is convenient.
But I proved that it could not have happenEd anywhere in the universe for all time.

You haven't proved anything. What will you be saying if we do find evidence of life on one of the moons of other planets in our solar system? Which is quite possible in the next few decades given we will be sending probes to some of these to give us better answers as to life existing elsewhere.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Your truth denying is a sickness.

here is another that shows the extreme racism of Darwin.

Charles Darwin - Religions Wiki

religions.wiki

This is more informative than that measly, delusional, and derisory sketch:

Charles Darwin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[muhammad_isa]

If God can always have existed, why not matter?

It doesn't matter

 

[muhammad_isa]

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

What .. the error of believing in the Creator and Maintainer of the universe?
That is NO error!

 

[McBell]

Does life exist now?

Irrelevant.
That there is life now is not evidence of there being a first living creature...

 

[McBell]

What .. the error of believing in the Creator and Maintainer of the universe?
That is NO error!

You really should pay better attention to what is actually being said to you and stop trying so hard at being a victim for your god.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

OK, I find it interesting you like AIG reject any scientific explanation up front, which makes all your questions meaningless.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

OK, I find it interesting you like AIG reject any scientific explanation up front, which makes all your questions meaningless.

 

[shunyadragon]

not everyone

Of course, there will always be the intentionally ignorant who will reject science based on an ancient tribal agenda.

It remains that 95%+ of all scientists in the world in the related scientific disciplines accept abiogenesis and evolution as the explanation for the history of life on Earth. The lower the education level the higher the % rejection of science.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Of course, there will always be the intentionally ignorant who will reject science based on an ancient tribal agenda.

as do all evolutionists.

 

[shunyadragon]

as do all evolutionists.

It remains that 95%+ of all scientists in the world in the related scientific disciplines accept abiogenesis and evolution as the explanation for the history of life on Earth. The lower the education level the higher the % rejection of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

No science.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It remains that 95%+ of all scientists in the world in the related scientific disciplines accept abiogenesis and evolution as the explanation for the history of life on Earth. The lower the education level the higher the % rejection of science.

And how does one qualify as a scientist in this area of knowledge.

Your pagan forbears were always wrong anyway.

What was the first living creature.

 

[shunyadragon]

What .. the error of believing in the Creator and Maintainer of the universe?
That is NO error!

Not necessarily an error, but a subjective claim in many diverse and conflicting fallible human beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

And how does one qualify as a scientist in this area of knowledge.

Doctorate in Biology, Geology, Physics, or Chemistry and the related fields. Actually, everyone that is literate at the High School level can understand the evidence of evolution.

Your pagan forbears were always wrong anyway.

True, as well as Jews, Christians, and Muslims concerning those that reject science, or as is often the case that the ancients lacked the knowledge of science we have today..

What was the first living creature.

OK, I find it interesting you like AIG reject any scientific explanation up front, which makes all your questions meaningless.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Doctorate in Biology, Geology, Physics, or Chemistry and the related fields..

True, as well as Jews, Christians, and Muslims concerning those that reject science, or as is often the case that the ancients lacked the knowledge of science we have today..

OK, I find it interesting you like AIG reject any scientific explanation up front, which makes all your questions meaningless.

BS - bull s...
MS - more of the same
Phd - piled higher and deeper

Where did the laws of nature come from?

Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter?

Where did all energy come from?

Where did all the protons come from? neutrons? photons? neutrinos? All the quarks? Gluons? Muons? All the anti-particles?

Where did the gravitation force come from? The strong force? The weak force? The electromagnetic force?

Ask all the Phd people you want.

 

[Esteban X]

Irrelevant.
That there is life now is not evidence of there being a first living creature...

Logic fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant.
That there is life now is not evidence of there being a first living creature...

You answered too soon. Of course she didn't. The next question was to be "Was there a time with no life?" The answer for that is no. So we do know from logic alone that there was an abiogenesis event. That does not tell us if it was natural or supernatural and that would lead to all of the various hypotheses of how various steps of abiogenesis could have occurred that have been tested and confirmed to be possible. All of which would be scientific evidence for natural abiogenesis. There is no evidence for supernatural abiogenesis. But scientists do not tend to look for the supernatural.

 

[Subduction Zone]

BS - bull s...
MS - more of the same
Phd - piled higher and deeper

Where did the laws of nature come from?

Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter?

Where did all energy come from?

Where did all the protons come from? neutrons? photons? neutrinos? All the quarks? Gluons? Muons? All the anti-particles?

Where did the gravitation force come from? The strong force? The weak force? The electromagnetic force?

Ask all the Phd people you want.

Do silly and terribly ignorant questions about God refute God? Then why do you ask silly and ignorant questions about science as if you are proving something?

I need to remind you that by your own standards your God does not exist.