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

[SavedByTheLord]

Your hypothesis, however, doesn't change the unequivocal fact that the universe is billions of years old. Which is why we can see over two hundred billion galaxies, given that the speed of light is about 300,00 km/sec. Recent estimates are that there are more than two trillion galaxies.

Of course the finite speed of light refutes the Big Bang since the observable universe is less than the size of the universe.
Many have shown that the redshift is not from receding stars and galaxies, so no expansion of the universe and no Big Bang.

God made the light from the stars and the galaxies when He created them so that light reached the earth upon creation.
A straight forward read of Genesis 1 shows that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What was the first living thing made of?

Still perseverating? OK. Let's humor you. Mostly organic matter, but also some minerals.

What was its code?

Morse? Or maybe you meant it's area or zip code. If so, I don't think they had those billions of years ago.

How many amino acids did it have?

A dozen or two. I used to be able to name them all and draw their structures. And the Krebs cycle. Biochemistry was my undergraduate major. I believe alanine and serine were the simplest (just checked - add glycine to that short list).

When did it come into being?

At the end of abiogenesis, right when the evolution of biological populations began.

As you can see, I don't take you any more seriously than you take yourself.

What's your god made of? What prevents its memory from corrupting? What forces prevent it from eroding or dissipating like a cloud and where did they come from? You've got a lot more 'splainin' to do than the naturalist, but I'm guessing that you have a double standard for your beliefs and give yourself and your god a pass.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Still perseverating? OK. Let's humor you. Mostly organic matter, but also some minerals.

Morse? Or maybe you meant it's area or zip code. If so, I don't think they had those billions of years ago.

A dozen or two. I used to be able to name them all and draw their structures. And the Krebs cycle. Biochemistry was my undergraduate major. I believe alanine and serine were the simplest (just checked - add glycine to that short list).

At the end of abiogenesis, right when the evolution of biological populations began.

As you can see, I don't take you any more seriously than you take yourself.

What's your god made of? What prevents its memory from corrupting? What forces prevent it from eroding or dissipating like a cloud and where did they come from? You've got a lot more 'splainin' to do than the naturalist, but I'm guessing that you have a double standard for your beliefs and give yourself and your god a pass

Evolution is a lie and false.

Thanks fro the complete failure for a required answer to a simple question.

 

[Monty]

Of course the finite speed of light refutes the Big Bang since the observable universe is less than the size of the universe.
Many have shown that the redshift is not from receding stars and galaxies, so no expansion of the universe and no Big Bang.

God made the light from the stars and the galaxies when He created them so that light reached the earth upon creation.
A straight forward read of Genesis 1 shows that.

None of that, however, changes the unequivocal fact that the universe is billions of years old, given that the speed of light is about 300,000 km/sec.

Do you have any actual evidence to support your claims, given that the story in Genesis 1 is just an imaginative story in a book, and has no more credibility than the Dreamtime stories and other creation stories. Have you ever discussed your hypotheses with a god like Abraham did when he shared a non kosher meal with a god and had a face to face discussion about the number of righteous children in Gomorrah, before the god walked down to Gomorrah to count them (Gen 18)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is meaningless .. "generated naturalistically" ..

Furthermore, brains are just pieces of meat .. they do not represent a person.

Brains appear to be the source of our thoughts. There is ample evidence for that, and no evidence for some extraneous source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course the finite speed of light refutes the Big Bang since the observable universe is less than the size of the universe.

More failed "logic". The Big Bang was an expansion of space. It merely continues on at a lower rate. That has been confirmed by testing and observation. You should be asking "how". Not trying to refute that which is far beyond your ken, or even your barbie.

Many have shown that the redshift is not from receding stars and galaxies, so no expansion of the universe and no Big Bang.

No, that is not the case. Many have formed hypotheses that said this. But guess what? To be a proper scientific hypothesis an idea has to be testable. Those concepts were tested and refuted. The Big Bang has not been refuted.

God made the light from the stars and the galaxies when He created them so that light reached the earth upon creation.
A straight forward read of Genesis 1 shows that.

How did he do that? You cannot just wave your hands. Claims require an explanation. They require evidence.

We can see the "stretching of space" the the way that it affected the light that passed through it. That can be explained with clear physical formulas. How can you support your God hypothesis?

Here is the most important question of all if you want to claim that the Bible is scientifi:

When it comes to your God hypothesis what test, what observation could possibly refute it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What time is it when an elephant sits on your clock?

If you are driving at the speed of light and turn on your headlights, what happens?

How many licks does it take to the get to the center of a tootsie pop?

I win! My irrefutable refuting refutes all the naysayers, doubters, and deniers of science.

I'm glad we can finish this now.

There has been nothing presented in any of these threads in any reasonable way that would convince a rational person, believer or not, to reject the theories and conclusions of science.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It means the opposite of generated supernaturalistically...

Well, you should read what I write .. I never claimed that a brain was generated in
any particular way. That is you, who is making claims about thousands of years ago.

What does this have to do with this discussion? I thought you were discussing the origin of intelligence. Are you now asking what represents a person?

No. I'm just saying that "a brain" does not represent a person.

..Sometimes it's a name, sometimes a face, sometimes a voice, sometimes a fingerprint, sometimes a DNA sequence. Sometimes it's an elected representative..

Ha! You know well what I refer to, but you want to avoid the issue by being pedantic.

That's the beauty and danger of faith. You can believe whatever you like.

..and so can you.
Science cannot provide all the answers .. never has done .. never will do.

..Christianity is inflicting on America now with its various bigotries and superstitions creeping into government.

Pot, kettle, black.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

More failed "logic". The Big Bang was an expansion of space. It merely continues on at a lower rate. That has been confirmed by testing and observation. You should be asking "how". Not trying to refute that which is far beyond your ken, or even your barbie.


No, that is not the case. Many have formed hypotheses that said this. But guess what? To be a proper scientific hypothesis an idea has to be testable. Those concepts were tested and refuted. The Big Bang has not been refuted.

How did he do that? You cannot just wave your hands. Claims require an explanation. They require evidence.

We can see the "stretching of space" the the way that it affected the light that passed through it. That can be explained with clear physical formulas. How can you support your God hypothesis?

Here is the most important question of all if you want to claim that the Bible is scientifi:

When it comes to your God hypothesis what test, what observation could possibly refute it?

Actually it is a fail on the Big Bang model. The size of the universe is supposedly 94 billion light years and the universe is less than 14 billion years. The universe is expanding at a rate less the speed of light. The space itself is expanding lesse that the speed of light. How could the universe be 7x larger in light years than its age. In 13.7 billion years it should have expanded less than 13.7 billion light years Vs 94 billion light years.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Brains appear to be the source of our thoughts..

Things are not always what they appear to be..

Is it the computer that "speaks" .. or something else?

 

[muhammad_isa]

There has been nothing presented in any of these threads in any reasonable way that would convince a rational person, believer or not, to reject the theories and conclusions of science.

It is not a case of rejecting all the theories of science..

..just theories that propose human beings are not different in any way to other
creatures.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Many have shown that the redshift is not from receding stars and galaxies

Nobody has shown that.

Of course the finite speed of light refutes the Big Bang since the observable universe is less than the size of the universe.

That is incorrect.

The universe is expanding at a rate less the speed of light. The space itself is expanding lesse that the speed of light.

Maybe it is today (or not), but that was not always the case. Lightspeed is only a limit to particles moving through space, not to the rate space expands.

I'm just saying that "a brain" does not represent a person.

OK, whatever that means. But why bother to post it?

You know well what I refer to

No I don't, but I've lost interest in your answer after that. Move on. It doesn't matter to me what you meant any more than it matters to you to be understood.

Pot, kettle, black.

Nice argument. I stand defeated and humiliated.

Science cannot provide all the answers .. never has done .. never will do.

Faith cannot provide any answers. Never has, never will.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Things are not always what they appear to be..

Is it the computer that "speaks" .. or something else?

Fine, then find evidence for the "something else". We know how a computer works. If you want to claim that there is more to the brain than just complex chemistry the burden of proof is upon you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not a case of rejecting all the theories of science..

..just theories that propose human beings are not different in any way to other
creatures.

If you cannot support your claims all that you have is unsupported claims. There is no rational reason to believe them.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Faith cannot provide any answers. Never has, never will.

Of course it does.
..but you are not interested .. up to you.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We know how a computer works..

Exactly .. we can make computers.
..but we can't make a universe or even a fly.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you cannot support your claims all that you have is unsupported claims..

That's boring..
You may condemn believers as irrational, and feel that you are smarter than the average Joe.
..but it might come back to bite you.

 

[Bthoth]

Of course it does.
..but you are not interested .. up to you.

How can you write that? Be honest, before trying to defend such a claim. It's better to keep the commandment of NO false witness, than lie to defend a religious belief.

 

[Bthoth]

That's boring..
You may condemn believers as irrational, and feel that you are smarter than the average Joe.
..but it might come back to bite you.

Exactly the same: keep the rules of personal responsibility before lying to defend a religious belief/story. Because you could be held liable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly .. we can make computers.
..but we can't make a universe or even a fly.

So what?