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

[Dan From Smithville]

We should write a movie. Irrefutable Me. It will have minions in it. I'm sure we can fool Hollywood into believing it's an original idea.

We should! I want to pick the minions though.

 

[Bthoth]

..certainly does.
One can learn from experience as well as books.

Just like scientist and doctors do. It is how knowledge evolves.

 

[John53]

We should! I want to pick the minions though.

Probably best. Cute little bunny minions will make for great merchandise. That's where the big bucks are.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Probably best. Cute little bunny minions will make for great merchandise. That's where the big bucks are.

Yeah. Bunnies. That is exactly what I was thinking.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

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

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah. Bunnies. That is exactly what I was thinking.

Do all bunnies think alike?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do all bunnies think alike?

We are universally known to be whizzes at math. Especially multiplication. Probably yes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

I wrote, "Faith cannot provide any answers. Never has, never will." Maybe I should have specified demonstrably correct answers (knowledge). Unfalsifiable guesses are useful for nothing except comforting those who can be comforted by them. You are correct that I am not interested in such "answers."

even the most distant galaxies are expanding less than the speed of light. space itself is expanding less than the speed of light. There is no answer that helps the Big Bang. Only 13.7 billion years old and now 94 billion light years in size

Did you mean receding from one another? The galaxies aren't expanding. Space itself is. Your claim is incorrect either way. Objects on opposite sides of the universe are receding from one another faster than the speed of light as the space between them expands. Moreover, the rate of that expansion is accelerating.

"So, yes, for really large distances you could say that the Universe is expanding faster than light. But Einstein wouldn’t mind. His cosmic speed limit only refers to the motion of physical objects through space, from one point in the Universe to some other point. So in general, the expansion of space has nothing to do with moving objects, and is in no way limited by the velocity of light." Does the Universe expand faster than light?

An interesting question is whether galaxies so far from one another and moving apart above light speed have any gravitational effect on one another. Gravitons, being particles like photons, are presumably limited by the speed of light.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I wrote, "Faith cannot provide any answers. Never has, never will." Maybe I should have specified demonstrably correct answers (knowledge). Unfalsifiable guesses are useful for nothing except comforting those who can be comforted by them. You are correct that I am not interested in such "answers."

Did you mean receding from one another? The galaxies aren't expanding. Space itself is. Your claim is incorrect either way. Objects on opposite sides of the universe are receding from one another faster than the speed of light as the space between them expands. Moreover, the rate of that expansion is accelerating.

"So, yes, for really large distances you could say that the Universe is expanding faster than light. But Einstein wouldn’t mind. His cosmic speed limit only refers to the motion of physical objects through space, from one point in the Universe to some other point. So in general, the expansion of space has nothing to do with moving objects, and is in no way limited by the velocity of light." Does the Universe expand faster than light?

An interesting question is whether galaxies so far from one another and moving apart above light speed have any gravitational effect on one another. Gravitons, being particles like photons, are presumably limited by the speed of light.

Exactly so the Big Bang is Big Hoax because the universe is supposedly 94 billion light years in size and only supposedly 13.7 billion years old. The expansion of space had been measured to be less than the speed of light and for the last several billions of years quite a bit so.
RIP Big Bang

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Exactly so the Big Bang is Big Hoax because the universe is supposedly 94 billion light years in size and only supposedly 13.7 billion years old. The expansion of space had been measured to be less than the speed of light and for the last several billions of years quite a bit so.
RIP Big Bang

 

[SavedByTheLord]

View attachment 83284

That is silly. Nobody alive today will be alive by then. Not even 5 gradations or more.
That makes you a silly person too.

BTW. there will be a new heaven and a new earth in about 1000 years.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Where is the defense of the OP that we all keep waiting for?

I don't think it will ever happen.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Where is the defense of the OP that we all keep waiting for?

I don't think it will ever happen.

post #1 in this and other of my threads.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, it just isn't there. No defense. I assume that is why we are seeing more and more insults, empty claims and declarations of victory for no obvious or even obscure reason.

Here's some evidence for natural selection and evolution.

https://hoekstra.oeb.harvard.edu/files/hoekstra/files/barrett2019sci.pdf

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does anyone remember that old movie "Dragonslayer"? The king did nothing to stop the dragon in the film. He and his "nobles" abetted the demands of the dragon, so long as it meant no harm them and only losing a few "worthless" peasant lives. But when the dragon was slain, he and his ilk stepped up to declare "their" victory.

Amusing how art sometimes reflects life.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are correct that I am not interested in such "answers."

Exactly .. you couldn't care less whether G-d exists or not.

 

[Tomef]

The following all show that evolution and billions of years are false. They also prove the Bible is true, and that God created all things in 6-day, about 6000 years ago.

Each of these either directly refute evolutionists claims and/or are questions they have no answer for. It is like a comedy where the evolutionists say, “ask us anything about origins”. So, you start asking them questions. And each time they say, “I do not know”. After a while you give up, they then say, “is there any other question that you want answered?”

If you do not refute everyone of these, then evolution and billions of years are falsified. A theory can be refuted by just one fact.
Example of a false theory: the sum of any 2 numbers is 100. Proof by results: 10+90, 54+46, pi + 100-pi
Falsified: 1+1=2 and for each pair given above, an infinite number of pairs refutes it.

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?
What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?
How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?
Where did it come into being? In space? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? In a tide pool?
In clay or mud? What protected it from UV rays? What was the composition of the atmosphere at that time?
If it was in water, how did the amino acids keep from being dissipated by the water?
What was the energy source for these reactions?
Where there any enzymes in it? Which ones? Certain required reactions need enzymes as catalysts. If not, the reaction may take a vast number of years. Surely the primitive thing could not last more than a minute much less than many years.
How did it survive? Where did the protective layer come from? What was the protected layer? How did that part get reproduced?
How was it able to divide itself? The protective layer must also divide and then close.
What was its food source? How did it remove waste? How did it repair itself? How did these things move in and out of the protective layer since they must be gated.
Please explain how it was ever able to reproduce itself.
If the first living thing was just proteins, how did it ever get evolve to use RNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.
If it was RNA based, how did it to ever evolve to use DNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.
Please explain how anything that is irreducibly complex evolves.
Please explain how the eye came to be. It is irreducibly complex. It happened independently more than once. Please explain all of these plus hearing, smell, and taste.
Please explain how flight came to be. It is irreducibly complex. It happened independently more than once. Please explain all of these.
Please explain how blood clotting came to be. It is irreducibly complex.
Please explain how the first multi cell creature came to be.
Please explain how the bone tissue came to be.
Please explain how the citrus cycle came to be. It is irreducibly complex.
Please explain how ATP came to be and how the first creature that used it evolved that capability. The mechanism is irreducibly complex.
In fact, there are many things in living things that are irreducibly complex. Please explain how any of them evolved.
The science seems to have identified mitochondrial Eve and the recent origin of x chromosome Adam. This matches recent creation and destroys evolution. Why?

Short lived comets are a problem for long ages of the universe. Why?

Where are all the remains of all the people that have died? Where are all their artifacts? If mankind has been around for 100,000 years, there must be a lot more than has been found. Why?
If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why? There should also be partially developed organs, etc. in all individual creatures right now and that have ever lived. There are not why? The odds against these 2 things are mind boggling.
They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?
How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? Within a short time, all the basic body types appear fully developed. The trilobite just appears and yet it has one of the most complex eyes.
Why are there living fossils?
How does one explain polystrate trees?
How does one explain soft tissue and blood vessels in dinosaur tissue?
How does one explain dinosaur tissue with DNA and other biomolecules still being intact?
How does one explain dinosaur tissue, and diamonds that are not C-14 dead?
Why is there too much C-14 in some samples of coal and fossilized wood?
How do you explain ancient microbes revived?
How do you explain parentless polonium 210 radiohaloes in granites?
How do you explain elliptical polonium 210 halos in the same strata with circular halos?
There is a great deception in some of the ages that are quoted by evolutionists. Why the deception?
There are inconsistencies in the radioactive dating results of many things. So isochron dating has been used. But even then, there are many large discrepancies. Why?
The inconsistencies in the dating of things and in all “clocks” used to set the age of things can be simply explained if some miraculous events occurred. These would be 6-day creation, the fall of man and the curse on creation and the worldwide flood about 4500 years ago.
What is the recipe for primordial soup, and can I buy a can of it?
There is a lack of a 50-50 racemization of amino acids in fossils. Why?
Why do living things have all left-handed amino acid. How did that happen by random processes?
There are discontinuous fossil sequences in the fossil record. Why?
Oil, coal, and opals can be formed rapidly under certain conditions. Why the deception?
The evidence is that the coal beads and fossilized wood were formed rapidly. Why?
There are missing layers representing millions of years. Why?
Why are there ephemeral markings at the boundaries of layers? That shows rapid deposit.
The Great Barrier reef is only 4200 years old; the oldest tree is only 4300 years old. Why?
The age of the Sahara Desert is only 4000 years old. Why?

If intelligent man was around for 100,000 years or more, Cro-Magnon for about 40,000 years, why did he not figure out how to drop a seed in the ground and farm? How did they go from nothing to farming? Why does this phenomenon occur in diverse places around the world at the same?
Where are all the structures that the built? The pyramids are about 4200 years old. How did they go from nothing to that? And this phenomenon occurs in many parts of the world about the same time?
Where are all the writings from before 6000 years ago? Yet they go from nothing to writings. Why does this phenomenon occur in a number of places around the world at the same?
Why are there no calendars over 6000 years?
History is too short. Why?
There is too much helium in radioactive rocks. Why?
There is helium in old zircon crystals. Why?
Thick sedimentary rock layers bent beyond the fracturing point, yet not fractured. Why?
The Mississippi river delta and deltas around the world show the result of one large flood like the worldwide flood. Why?
The arms of spiral galaxies should no longer exist, but they do. Why?
There is not enough helium in the earth’s atmosphere to support an old atmosphere. Why?
There is not enough sediment at the bottom of the sea to support an old earth. Why?
High speed objects in globular clusters show that they are young. Why?
Living fossils invalidate not only the age and origin of the sedimentary rock but refute evolution over eons.
The natural direction of life is degeneration not evolution.
The genetic load in all creatures means they would have ceased to exist after so much time. They have not. Why?
The DNA, RNA, and proteins with some of these being enzymes is a triply interconnected irreducibly complex system. Evolution could not be the mechanism to produce these.
There are depictions of dinosaurs from ancient cultures. Why?
Job 40:15-19 describes a plant eating dinosaur, probably Brachiosaurus. Why?
Almost all ancient cultures have a record of a worldwide blood and a remnant saved on a great boat, sometimes 8 people. How do explain that?
There are about 30,000 figurines of dinosaurs date about 2500 years ago. How do you explain that?
All population growth statistics invalidate mankind being around for more than 6000 years old but match only 8 people being saved in the ark. It also matches the world population at the time of Christ and today.
It does not seem that there is enough force for the Indian sub-continent to have crashed into Asia and raised the Himalayan Mountain range with just plate tectonics. Why?

The dim young sun paradox invalidates long ages for the sun, evolution, and life on the earth.
The rate of recession of the moon from the earth limits the age of the moon.
The rapid decline of the Earth’s magnetic strength limits the age of the earth. Why?
The salt content of the oceans is too low for an old earth. Why?
The concentration of various minerals in the ocean limits the age of the oceans. Why?
The rock layers show no signs of erosion between layers. Why?
There is no time between rock layers for slow deposition. Why?
There is not enough erosion of continental plates for an old earth. Why?
Earth is not cooled enough for it to be old. Why?
Earth’s rotation rate is slowing for it to be old. Why?
Haeckel’s drawings were not accurate, yet his drawings are still used for evolution. Why the fraud?
Nebraska man was not a man. Why the fraud?
The Milken experiment is a disaster for evolutionists. Why the deception.
Beware of the old con “the building blocks of life”. Why the deception?

Please explain how asexual reproduction evolved into sexual reproduction. Without all things working the switch over leads to the destruction of the creature. But there is no survival advantage to the incomplete system.
Please explain how asexual reproduction evolved. It too is irreducibly complex.

Here’s some stuff I don’t understand or know anything about, ergo my beliefs are true. That is all you are saying here. To even have the beginnings of an argument you’d need to demonstrate that you actually understand something about any of the things in your list. Simply making trite comments about things you don’t understand achieves nothing other than making it clear that you have no understanding of any of the issues you think make your point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you do not think that there should partially developed organs in all living creatures.

No. And anyone how understands the basics would realize the ridiculousness of the proposition of "partial organs".

But evolution is gradual.

Yes. And each step accounts for a "complete" species with "complete" traits.
There is no such thing as "half a wing" or "half a stomach".

The wing of a pinguin is just as evolved as the wing of an albatros.
It's absurd to call the wing of a pinguin "half a wing" and the one from the albatros "a full wing".
It makes zero sense.


I'll again refer you to the evolution of language.

People who speak french today had ancestors 2 millenia ago that spoke latin.
Over time, gradually, generation by generation, through accumulation of micro-changes, latin evolved into french (and spanish, italian, portugese,..).

So 2000 years ago, they spoke latin
Today, they speak french.

What is it that they spoke 500 years ago? Was it "75% french"? Was it "25% latin"?
What about 1000 years ago? "50% french"? "Partial french"?

Or was it rather its own and complete language?
If you could go back in time 1000 years and go to Paris... how do you think they will look at you if you called their language "50% latin" or "50% french"?
It's an insane proposition.

They didn't speak "partial latin" or "partial french". It was rather a language of its own. A complete language. No "partial" anything.

So there should. If not then, evolution would be hopeful monsters, aka, jumps which is impossible.

No.

Remember the french / latin evolution.
Consider that at no point in human history, did a latin speaking mother raise a french speaking child.
Every human ever raised, spoke the same language as its parents and peers.

Yet, latin turned into french, with no "partially developed language" along the way

So you see the condundrum for evolution

The only thing I see is your willful ignorance and doubling down on strawman.

A creature's offspring just did not have eyes that the creature itself did not.

And neither did it half "partial eyes".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes Creation by God is.
Evolution is false,
what was the first living creature?
what was the next 5 generations ?

Show me a picture of your face of every second you were alive to prove that you are in fact ageing.

If you can't do that, then I'm going to consider that a disproof of the claim that you are ageing.

Therefor you are not ageing.

Checkmate!

 

[F1fan]

That is silly. Nobody alive today will be alive by then. Not even 5 gradations or more.
That makes you a silly person too.

That wasn't what she said.

BTW. there will be a new heaven and a new earth in about 1000 years.

Said as if you are a God. But I'm not convinced.