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

[Subduction Zone]

An non answer can never refute the infallible truths that I have presented.

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?

Even you know that your claim is false. If you really believed it you would debate properly. People have offered to do so with you. But when you use what you called "garage techniques (that might have been a typo on your part), when you run away from reasonable questions, you show that you do not believe that BS yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An non answer can never refute the infallible truths that I have presented.

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?

The answer was clear.

When you do not understand something you should admit it.

For example I am betting that you still do not know what a meander is, unless you looked it up since the last time that I posted about them.

You should have asked how that disproves the flood rather than running away. That just makes a person look like a coward and you probably do not want that.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The answer was clear.

When you do not understand something you should admit it.

For example I am betting that you still do not know what a meander is, unless you looked it up since the last time that I posted about them.

You should have asked how that disproves the flood rather than running away. That just makes a person look like a coward and you probably do not want that.

I am here to help you and you need lots of help as you are deceived

If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why? They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?

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. Just for the missing links, I estimate odds against of about 10^10 million to 1. The odds against the missing partially developed organs and functions is way vaster than that. I estimate odds against of about 10^10 billion billion billion to 1.

Of course, the odds against all the ordered sequences in all the DNA, RNA, and proteins in all creatures that ever lived is more than 10^(10^43) to 1.

 

[ratiocinator]

The Big Hoax of the Big Bang has been replaced and went out with a whimper.

Big Bang is dead.



Redshift anomalies and other things that invalidate the Big Bang expansion

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ft_Data_and_the_Myth_of_Cosmological_Distance
Click on see the full text.

Anomalies in the count of low red shift quasars.

Anomalies in the Counts of Low Redshift Quasars

https://assa.saao.ac.za/wp-content/...liffe-A-review-of-anomalous-redshift-data.pdf

Redshift Anomalies and the Big Bang – Anthony Beckett

Is a new anomaly affecting the entire Universe?

Galaxies and the Universe - Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy

These two shows that today’s age estimate is a farce. The very exact number may be off by 100%. Of course if 100% is the error, then -100% puts it at about 6000 years.

'Tired light' might make the universe twice as old as we thought

Scientists have revisited the disproven light ageing hypothesis, which suggests the universe has been around for almost 27 billion years

More problems with the Big Bang Theory and the redshift explanation.

Plasma Cosmology .net

Exploring Cosmic Voids and Anomalies: The Mystery of the Cold Spot

Large Scale Cosmological Anomalies and Inhomogeneous Dark Energy

What if the Universe Is NOT Expanding?

The Big Bang Theory-A Scientific Critique [Part I] [Whole] - Apologetics Press

Galaxy Making Stars at the Edge of the Universe and Other “Surprises”

https://act.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf1171/files/a9r1o5g11h_6viqvc_3u4_0.pdf

The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang - LPP Fusion

Quasar with enormous redshift found embedded in nearby spiral galaxy with far lower redshift

The Big Bang Bust-Up

The Big Bang Never Happened: A Conclusive Argument

https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10338699

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18625061-800-did-the-big-bang-really-happen/

https://darkmattercrisis.wordpress.com/category/cosmology/mond/

https://www.sci.news/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

https://www.quantamagazine.org/astronomers-get-their-wish-and-the-hubble-crisis-gets-worse-20201217/

https://physicsworld.com/a/are-giant-galaxy-clusters-defying-standard-cosmology/

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html

Web telescope

Too many spiral galaxies in the early universe.

James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/james-webb-telescope-spots-thousands-173000173.html

Evasion of my point noted.

Just picked out a couple of these and they don't remotely indicate that the big bang theory is dead. As you don't seem to understand the first thing about the subject, what's the point? You can either learn and engage with what is being said or continue to make a fool of yourself.

Entirely up to you.

 

[The Hammer]

You mean like a tub of water?

You need to face reality. It is impossible fro a first living creature to have come into being by natural processes no matter what size it was.

It has never happened. There is no record of it ever happening. It is not happening now. And I have shown it is impossible.

Here is a record of it happening, via thermal processes.

Scientists recreated a key step for the origin of life at hydrothermal vents

Simulating alkaline environments from 3 billion years ago showed formation of precursor cells is possible

massivesci.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am here to help you and you need lots of help as you are deceived

We will see. If that is the case then you need to start to argue rationally.

If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why? They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?

Actually the burden of proof is upon you. Why do you think that we should have a complete record? That makes no sense. You would be very hard pressed to find an environment today that favors fossilization. There are some, but people rarely die there. And even if they do their bodies are still not buried rapidly enough to preserve them. This is an irrational and unjustified claim on your part. Even creationists admit that the fossilization of land based vertebrates is extremely rare. I do not see why you think that it is common.

There should also be partially developed organs, etc. in all individual creatures right now and that have ever lived. There are not why?

Because evolution does not work that way. Organs are always "fully developed". New traits emerge gradually. They do so from older existing traits. One can work all the way back if needed, but it gets very tedious after a while.

The odds against these 2 things are mind boggling. Just for the missing links, I estimate odds against of about 10^10 million to 1. The odds against the missing partially developed organs and functions is way vaster than that. I estimate odds against of about 10^10 billion billion billion to 1.

Stop it. Now you are just being foolish. You need to face facts. You cannot do math. You definitely cannot calculate odds based upon a strawman argument. And I have been trying to explain to you why what you are using are just that..

Of course, the odds against all the ordered sequences in all the DNA, RNA, and proteins in all creatures that ever lived is more than 10^(10^43) to 1.

Again, you cannot do math. If you want to be taken seriously do not use math because then you have to do sooooooooooo much more than to wave your hands. You just look incredibly ignorant when you try to do that.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

We will see. If that is the case then you need to start to argue rationally.


Actually the burden of proof is upon you. Why do you think that we should have a complete record? That makes no sense. You would be very hard pressed to find an environment today that favors fossilization. There are some, but people rarely die there. And even if they do their bodies are still not buried rapidly enough to preserve them. This is an irrational and unjustified claim on your part. Even creationists admit that the fossilization of land based vertebrates is extremely rare. I do not see why you think that it is common.


Because evolution does not work that way. Organs are always "fully developed". New traits emerge gradually. They do so from older existing traits. One can work all the way back if needed, but it gets very tedious after a while.


Stop it. Now you are just being foolish. You need to face facts. You cannot do math. You definitely cannot calculate odds based upon a strawman argument. And I have been trying to explain to you why what you are using are just that..



Again, you cannot do math. If you want to be taken seriously do not use math because then you have to do sooooooooooo much more than to wave your hands. You just look incredibly ignorant when you try to do that.

Document how any brain evolved. Give times and descriptions of all proteins and genes involved and of course the actual species involved. Also document how this was possible given sexual reproduction.
Also include all calculations and give the location of where the fossil evidences were found and all dating information with properly documented error ranges.
Evolutionists have made the claim and so you must prove it.
I will want the same for 100s of other irreducibly complex organs and functions.

Also, for the eyes, ears, smelling, taste, touch, heart, brain, feathers, hands, feet, legs, arms, toes, fingers.

Also, for the kidney, liver, spleen, gallbladder, pancreas, pituitary gland, tongue, speech, all 206 bones and how they work, all the over 600 muscles, all the joints in all creatures.

Please explain the giraffe’s neck and valves that control its blood flow, and especially the woodpecker’s tongue.

Can you at least explain the woodpecker's tongue, since its wraps around its head on the inside?

How did that evolve?

When can I expect a full report from you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am here to help you and you need lots of help as you are deceived

If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why? They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?

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. Just for the missing links, I estimate odds against of about 10^10 million to 1. The odds against the missing partially developed organs and functions is way vaster than that. I estimate odds against of about 10^10 billion billion billion to 1.

Of course, the odds against all the ordered sequences in all the DNA, RNA, and proteins in all creatures that ever lived is more than 10^(10^43) to 1.

Hey, broken record, everybody and their mother has already addressed these ridiculous and meaningless points that betray a complete and utter lack of understanding as to how evolution operates.

You are embarrassing yourself now.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Hey, broken record, everybody and their mother has already addressed these ridiculous and meaningless points that betray a complete and utter lack of understanding as to how evolution operates.

You are embarrassing yourself now.

Not a single time has anyone given a real answer.

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?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Document how any brain evolved. Give times and descriptions of all proteins and genes involved and of course the actual species involved. Also document how this was possible given sexual reproduction.
Also include all calculations and give the location of where the fossil evidences were found and all dating information with properly documented error ranges.
Evolutionists have made the claim and so you must prove it.
I will want the same for 100s of other irreducibly complex organs and functions.

Also, for the eyes, ears, smelling, taste, touch, heart, brain, feathers, hands, feet, legs, arms, toes, fingers.

Also, for the kidney, liver, spleen, gallbladder, pancreas, pituitary gland, tongue, speech, all 206 bones and how they work, all the over 600 muscles, all the joints in all creatures.

Please explain the giraffe’s neck and valves that control its blood flow, and especially the woodpecker’s tongue.

Can you at least explain the woodpecker's tongue, since its wraps around its head on the inside?

How did that evolve?

When can I expect a full report from you?

You demand such great detail and explanation from science and yet, you can even be bothered to provide the exact verses from the Bible that supposedly back up your claims.
Why should anyone take any time out of their lives to humor you and answer your questions when you can be bothered to extend the slightest courtesy to anyone else? That's some nerve you've got there.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not a single time has anyone given a real answer.

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?

BS.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

BS.

PhD piled higher and deeper with BS

 

[Subduction Zone]

Document how any brain evolved. Give times and descriptions of all proteins and genes involved and of course the actual species involved. Also document how this was possible given sexual reproduction.
Also include all calculations and give the location of where the fossil evidences were found and all dating information with properly documented error ranges.
Evolutionists have made the claim and so you must prove it.
I will want the same for 100s of other irreducibly complex organs and functions.

Also, for the eyes, ears, smelling, taste, touch, heart, brain, feathers, hands, feet, legs, arms, toes, fingers.

Also, for the kidney, liver, spleen, gallbladder, pancreas, pituitary gland, tongue, speech, all 206 bones and how they work, all the over 600 muscles, all the joints in all creatures.

Please explain the giraffe’s neck and valves that control its blood flow, and especially the woodpecker’s tongue.

Can you at least explain the woodpecker's tongue, since its wraps around its head on the inside?

How did that evolve?

When can I expect a full report from you?

Please stop using debating techniques that refute your God.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Please stop using debating techniques that refute your God.

More garbage from you which is false.

There is too much helium in radioactive rocks. Why?
There is helium in old zircon crystals. Why?

 

[Esteban X]

Just the phrase "infallible truths" indicates scientific illiteracy.

Is "infallible" the word he means to use? Perhaps he means "undeniable" or "irrefutable".

 

[Subduction Zone]

More garbage from you which is false.

There is too much helium in radioactive rocks. Why?
There is helium in old zircon crystals. Why?

No, you seem to think that asking stupid and ignorant questions that only tells others how ignorant you are refutes evolution. That means when we ask stupid and ignorant questions about God that refutes his existence. If you want to debate you have to be consistent. The same standards that you try to put on other people can and will be applied to you.

How can you not understand this? Are you being dishonest on purpose?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is "infallible" the word he means to use? Perhaps he means "undeniable" or "irrefutable".

Who knows? Since his arguments have all been refuted, and he has tacitly acknowledged that, what does it matter?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, you seem to think that asking stupid and ignorant questions that only tells others how ignorant you are refutes evolution. That means when we ask stupid and ignorant questions about God that refutes his existence. If you want to debate you have to be consistent. The same standards that you try to put on other people can and will be applied to you.

How can you not understand this? Are you being dishonest on purpose?

The old demeaning again.

Chimps have 48 chromosomes and mankind only 46. That is an inexplicable difference batten the 2 and proves it is common Creator not descent.

 

[SkepticThinker]

PhD piled higher and deeper with BS

I'm gonna venture a guess that you don't have a Ph.D.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The old demeaning again.

Chimps have 48 chromosomes and mankind only 46. That is an inexplicable difference batten the 2 and proves it is common Creator not descent.

I explained that to you at length two days ago. You owe me an apology.