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

[SavedByTheLord]

As I said, the expansion rate isn't a speed. Its units are generally given as km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹, that is kilometres per second (speed) per megaparsec, i.e. speed per unit distance.

Basically the reason the observable universe─not the universe whose size is unknown and could be infinite─is larger in light years than the age of the universe in years is because light takes so long to get to us. Something that is a long way away will have emitted the light we can see a long time ago, when it was much closer.

I mean, seriously, do you really think scientists are stupid? If there really was an anomaly of like the universe being 30 time bigger than it should be, they'd all be just ignoring it?

How Did The Universe Expand To 46 Billion Light-Years In Just 13.8 Billion Years?

If you think it expanded faster than light-speed, you need to read this.

www.forbes.com

Yet again: we don't know that it had a cause. Causality is something that is observed within space-time. If the space-time is finite in the past (an open question at the moment), then talking of a cause would be nonsensical.


How do you define 'living creature'? The dividing line between life and non-life isn't as straightforward as some people would like it to be. In addition, abiogenesis is another problem that doesn't have a definitive answer. Whereas the evidence for subsequent evolution is overwhelming, evidence about abiogenesis is far more difficult to find (for obvious reasons).

So you have no answer to either of these 2 which both disprove evolution and billions of years.
The first living thing could never happen by natural processes because eventually a very large sequence of amino acids must be accounted for.

If you believe the redshift con job, the universe, space itself, has been expanding a lot less than the speed of light for billions of years. And even the space where the most distant galaxies exist, is expanding less than the speed of light and they were the earliest.

It is a failure of the Big Bang model. The size of the universe is supposedly 94 billion light years, and the universe is supposedly 13.7 billion years old. The universe, space itself, is expanding at a rate less the speed of light. The space itself is expanding less 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.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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."

The fact that life exists is a pretty clear demonstration that there was a first living thing, and the fact that a ball exists means that, at some point, that ball must have formed.

Can you actually address the analogy or not?

So simiple it defies argument. What's the evidence if you want to keep arguing?

Your argument hasn't even addressed the point of the analogy.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The fact that life exists is a pretty clear demonstration that there was a first living thing, and the fact that a ball exists means that, at some point, that ball must have formed.

Can you actually address the analogy or not?


Your argument hasn't even addressed the point of the analogy.

that is such an unscientific statement and is just circular reasoning.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

that is such an unscientific statement and is just circular reasoning.

How is it unscientific to say "for a thing to exist, it must have - at some point - begun existing"?

Do you look at a human child and refuse to assume they were ever born?

In any case, this is taking us further away from the whole point of the analogy, which is: You don't have to know the origin of a thing in order to observe and understand the behaviour of - or what happens to - that thing after it exists. In this case, the ball is a thing, and rolling down a hill is the behaviour. It's perfectly analogous to life, which, without necessarily knowing the origin of, we can still observe the development and behaviour of. Hence, we don't need to know how life STARTED in order to make observations about how life DEVELOPS.

This is a very, very simple analogy. The fact that I have had to explain it, multiple times, is mind-boggling.

 

[ratiocinator]

So you have no answer to either of these 2 which both disprove evolution and billions of years.

I do, actually. I can't help it you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to accept them.

The first living thing could never happen by natural processes because eventually a very large sequence of amino acids must be accounted for.

Even if this were true, so what?

You can't use improbability alone as evidence for a god because speculating a god without other evidence of some connection will always reduce the probability. The probability of life (or wherever else you think is improbable) must be greater than the probability of life and that it was created by your posited god. Thinking otherwise is known as the conjunction fallacy.

If you believe the redshift con job, the universe, space itself, has been expanding a lot less than the speed of light...

This is simply untrue for the reasons I explained an you totally ignored. The expansion of space does not happen at a fixed speed. It's a scale factor on distance. If you imagine that you (say) double distances between things in some fixed time, then something 1m away from you will look like it travelled 1m in that time, but something 5m away will seem to have ravelled 5m in that time. hence (apparent) speed is proportional to distance. This is the basics of the Hubble law.

It is a failure of the Big Bang model. The size of the universe is supposedly 94 billion light years, and the universe is supposedly 13.7 billion years old.

Am I talking to a brick wall? I already explained this. If you have some comment to make on my explanation, then fine, but just repeating yourself without a response just makes you look dim.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

How is it unscientific to say "for a thing to exist, it must have - at some point - begun existing"?

Do you look at a human child and refuse to assume they were ever born?

In any case, this is taking us further away from the whole point of the analogy, which is: You don't have to know the origin of a thing in order to observe and understand the behaviour of - or what happens to - that thing after it exists. In this case, the ball is a thing, and rolling down a hill is the behaviour. It's perfectly analogous to life, which, without necessarily knowing the origin of, we can still observe the development and behaviour of. Hence, we don't need to know how life STARTED in order to make observations about how life DEVELOPS.

This is a very, very simply analogy. The fact that I have had to explain it, multiple times, is mind-boggling.

Your circular reasoning is that there must have been a first living thing that came from natural causes because life exists. That is circular reasoning, and not scientific.

Hawking made the same mistake. He wrote “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,”

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your circular reasoning is that there must have been a first living thing that came from natural causes because life exists.

That's false. I said no such thing. I made no assumption as to whether the first life form came about naturally or as a result of supernatural forces. The point of the analogy is that you don't need to know or confirm the origin of a thing in order to make observations about that thing subsequent to its origin. This is not hard to understand.

That is circular reasoning, and not scientific.

Good thing I never said that, then.

Hawking made the same mistake. He wrote “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,”

I can't speak for Hawking.

Can you actually respond to analogy or not?

Have you ever observed a ball rolling down a hill and thought "that ball is rolling fast" or "that ball is rolling slowly"?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That's false. I said no such thing. I made no assumption as to whether to first life form came about naturally or a result of supernatural forces. The point of the analogy is that you don't need to know or confirm the origin of a thing in order to make observations about that thing subsequent to its origin. This is not hard to understand.


Good thing I never said that, then.


I can't speak for Hawking.

Can you actually respond to analogy or not?

Have you ever observed a ball rolling down a hill and thought "that ball is rolling fast" or "that ball is rolling slowly"?

Nothing to add to the discussion in that post.

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.

It seems like the events in Israel match the prophecies in the Bible.
What is you opinion?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nothing to add to the discussion in that post.

You've added nothing whatsoever so far, so at least you're consistent.

Are you going to acknowledge that what you said about me was false?

If the first living thing was just proteins, how did it ever get evolve to use RNA? It is irreducibly complex.

False. Irreducible complexity is pseudo-science, and no living thing has ever been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex.

You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

You need all the atoms in a grain of sand for it to be a grain of sand. This statement means nothing and does not mean that a grain of said cannot be formed naturally over time.

If it was RNA based, how did it to ever evolve to use DNA? It is irreducibly complex.

You've repeated that claim twice, and it's still false.

You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true.

It seems like the events in Israel match the prophecies in the Bible. What is you opinion?

I have no comment on this wildly unrelated statement.

Once again, you have not addressed the point that I was making. Is it because you can do nothing to refute the argument?

Do you or do you not acknowledge that you CAN make observations about things without necessarily knowing the origin of that thing? Yes or no?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You've added nothing whatsoever so far, so at least you're consistent.

Are you going to acknowledge that what you said about me was false?


False. Irreducible complexity is pseudo-science, and no living thing has ever been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex.


You need all the atoms in a grain of sand for it to be a grain of sand. This statement means nothing and does not mean that a grain of said cannot be formed naturally over time.


You've repeated that claim twice, and it's still false.


Repeating a falsehood does not make it true.


I have no comment on this wildly unrelated statement.

Once again, you have not addressed the point that I was making. Is it because you can do nothing to refute the argument?

I provided 2 infallible proofs that destroy evolution and billions of years.
I gave the unmet challenge, the uninsurable question, and the evidence that destroys evolution and billions of years.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I provided 2 infallible proofs that destroy evolution and billions of years.

No, you haven't.

I gave the unmet challenge,

It's been met repeatedly.

the uninsurable question,

The question was answered repeatedly.

and the evidence that destroys evolution and billions of years.

That's just obviously false.

Instead of repeating these falsehoods, could you address the arguments? I'll ask again:

Do you or do you not acknowledge that you CAN make observations about things without necessarily knowing the origin of that thing? Yes or no?

It is generally considered good form, on a debate forum, to address someone's questions rather than avoiding them and just repeating false claims.

 

[ratiocinator]

I provided 2 infallible proofs that destroy evolution and billions of years.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

So that is the total failure of the evolutionist and it is laughable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So that is the total failure of the evolutionist and it is laughable.

Says the guy who can't acknowledge a single argument made or a simple analogy.

Why are you on these forums? I'm fairly certain you're not here to debate.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Says the guy who can't acknowledge a single argument made or a simple analogy.

Why are you on these forums? I'm fairly certain you're not here to debate.

Why would I have to acknowledge a false argument?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why would I have to acknowledge a false argument?

You're right. We should all just ignore your threads.

 

[ratiocinator]

So that is the total failure of the evolutionist and it is laughable.

No.

Insisting you have "infallible proofs that destroy evolution and billions of years" is laughable. Doubly so when your only response to people pointing out the obvious flaws in them and your failure to understand even the basics is to ignore them.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No.

Insisting you have "infallible proofs that destroy evolution and billions of years" is laughable. Doubly so when your only response to people pointing out the obvious flaws in them and your failure to understand even the basics is to ignore them.

No refutation from you.

 

[ratiocinator]

No refutation from you.

False. You have just ignored:

1. The fact that it is untrue to say the expansion of the universe is less than light speed, not least because the expansion rate is not defined by a speed.
2. Abiogenesis is irrelevant to the overwhelming evidence for evolution and, as I also pointed out, you cannot use the supposed improbability of it to argue for a god because that necessarily reduces the probability just because of how probability works.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Damage a part of the hardware in a computer, and the software won't run as it should!

Please answer my question.
Our brains are not computers.