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

[F1fan]

I have peer reviewed these experts in the area of evolution and billions of years, and in this area of knowledge they are not experts. I have facts checked them too and the same issues were found. They are all dismiss . That leaves you.

Nebraska man was not a man. Why the fraud?
As was Piltdown, Peking man, Java man, Java man 2 and Lucy.

Piltdown was a deliberate fraud by a non-scientist. But science isn’t a system that has absolute answers. Science gathers evidence and data and forms models. These models get adjusted as more evidence is gathered. Science has been getting more and more accurate over time. What you cite is old news that has been corrected with new data. None of what you mentioned makes evolution false. If you understood science you would understand this. You are doing “research” on creationist sites, so that’s why you are losing these debates. If you don’t get science right you lose.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Piltdown was a deliberate fraud by a non-scientist. But science isn’t a system that has absolute answers. Science gathers evidence and data and forms models. These models get adjusted as more evidence is gathered. Science has been getting more and more accurate over time. What you cite is old news that has been corrected with new data. None of what you mentioned makes evolution false. If you understood science you would understand this. You are doing “research” on creationist sites, so that’s why you are losing these debates. If you don’t get science right you lose.

Lucy, Java man, Java man 2, Peking man, Piltdown man, Nebraska man and all other frauds.

 

[F1fan]

Lucy, Java man, Java man 2, Peking man, Piltdown man, Nebraska man and all other frauds.

Science doesn't produce fraud. That is your creationism. Creationism is completely fraud, and those who create content for you to consume know it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Piltdown was a deliberate fraud by a non-scientist. But science isn’t a system that has absolute answers. Science gathers evidence and data and forms models. These models get adjusted as more evidence is gathered. Science has been getting more and more accurate over time. What you cite is old news that has been corrected with new data. None of what you mentioned makes evolution false. If you understood science you would understand this. You are doing “research” on creationist sites, so that’s why you are losing these debates. If you don’t get science right you lose.

It was science that determined that Piltdown man was a fraud. Creationists only know it was a fraud, because scientists told them.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Science doesn't produce fraud. That is your creationism. Creationism is completely fraud, and those who create content for you to consume know it.

All of evolution, which is not science, is a fraud.

 

[F1fan]

All of evolution, which is not science, is a fraud.

This is you getting science wrong. You are wrong due to a flawed interpretation of the Bible. Only fringe Christians believe as you do, and the rest of the world is well educated.

Have you ever wondered why so many of your fellow, well educated Christians accept science? Have you ever wondered why only a fringe group of extremist Christians buy into creationism despite it being contrary to fact?

 

[Subduction Zone]

False accusation from you again.

What is the false accusation. If you were foolish enough to challenge me when you make false accusations you know you would have your *** handed to you. Yet you run away whenever you have to defend the claim of a false accusation. That makes those accusations look true. It is better to say nothing than to object and then run away.

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.

That has been refuted. You refuted it yourself, did you forget? I explained to you what that was nonsense and then challenged you to defend your claims. As usual you ran away.

It would have to have had at least 100,000 amino acids in a particular sequence. This is extremely generous. The smallest free-living thing has over 1,000,000 base pairs. I also have not included having over 500 million other atoms in it.
The odds against a sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 counting handedness) coming to be by random chance is (10 to the 160,000 power) to 1. That could never have happened anywhere in the universe over the supposed 13.7 billion years of its existence. It actually is impossible because no concentration of that amount of amino acids would happen by random chance. There are other factors that make it impossible. It would be a miracle.

That has been refuted multiple times. Your only support sank your argument. You made the mistake of using modern life.


Please you need to learn from your mistakes.

And that is just to get to the first living thing. There would have to at least 1 trillion other miracles to produce all the living creatures by evolution. That would be about 70 miracles for each of the supposed 13.7 billion years.

No, it is not. That is a strawman argument. You even know it because you have created other strawman arguments about the first life that shows that you have listened to at least part of the argument that refuted you.


If you are still in high school or middle school I would suggest that you join the debating club. They will teach you a lot about how to argue.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What is the false accusation. If you were foolish enough to challenge me when you make false accusations you know you would have your *** handed to you. Yet you run away whenever you have to defend the claim of a false accusation. That makes those accusations look true. It is better to say nothing than to object and then run away.


That has been refuted. You refuted it yourself, did you forget? I explained to you what that was nonsense and then challenged you to defend your claims. As usual you ran away.


That has been refuted multiple times. Your only support sank your argument. You made the mistake of using modern life.


Please you need to learn from your mistakes.


No, it is not. That is a strawman argument. You even know it because you have created other strawman arguments about the first life that shows that you have listened to at least part of the argument that refuted you.


If you are still in high school or middle school I would suggest that you join the debating club. They will teach you a lot about how to argue.

More false accusations again.
The attack on Israel is right out of the Bible prophecy

 

[Subduction Zone]

More false accusations again.

Thank you for admitting my claims were true again. You did not support your claim as you have to know.

The attack on Israel is right out of the Bible prophecy

Really? Which prophecy. A general one will not do. It has to be precise for you claim to be factual.


Have you thought about trying to learn from your mistakes yet?

 

[F1fan]

All of evolution, which is not science, is a fraud.

So since you are adamant about your literalist religious beliefs, and that they trump science, how about answering a few questions.

1. When exactly was the global flood?
2. How many people survived the flood?
3. How many animal kinds survived the flood?
4. How many plant kinds survived the flood?
5. With an estimated 8.7 billion species on earth today how did this diversity happen since the flood without evolution?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

So since you are adamant about your literalist religious beliefs, and that they trump science, how about answering a few questions.

1. When exactly was the global flood?
2. How many people survived the flood?
3. How many animal kinds survived the flood?
4. How many plant kinds survived the flood?
5. With an estimated 8.7 billion species on earth today how did this diversity happen since the flood without evolution?

1. about 4500 years ago
2. 8
3. 2 unclean and 7 unclean of all created kinds, but not sea animals or plants of any kind.
4. All plant kinds
5. they multiplied and God already created their diversity to flourish

Read Genesis 6-8 for detailed info

 

[F1fan]

1. about 4500 years ago

Sorry, there's no evidence of a global flood, so guess again.

2. 8

Why doesn't the human genetic map show that all humans came from just 8 people 4500 years ago if you are correct? The maps show that humans evolved in Africa and migrated into the Middle East, and then Europe and then the rest of the world. There is evidence that humans inter bred with Neanderthals in the Middle East. Your Bible stories dont mention Neanderthals, but they are a distinct species from homo sapiens. Native Africans don't have Neadnderthal genes.

So how can your interpretation of Genesis be correct when the facts don't support it?

3. 2 unclean and 7 unclean of all created kinds, but not sea animals or plants of any kind.

I asked you how many animal kinds survived. If you have no answer then we can reject your religious claims.

4. All plant kinds

Again, I asked how many. If you don;t have answers then you can't be confident against experts who do have answers.

5. they multiplied and God already created their diversity to flourish

God created the diversity? Where is that in the Bible, or did you make it up?

Show us how the number on the Ark was able to multiply and diversify into 8.7 million species in 4500 years. And explain why this is not evident in genetic maps. Show us your math.

And while you're at it explain how all the differnent animals got to Australia, and then evolved.

Read Genesis 6-8 for detailed info

There are no details, thats why you need to explain these questions. If you are correct, then you have factual answers, yes?

 

[SkepticThinker]

But again it suffers from uniformitarianism which has been proven false. Catastrophism is the real science.

Nope, it hasn't. Try again without making stuff up this time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have peer reviewed these experts in the area of evolution and billions of years, and in this area of knowledge they are not experts. I have facts checked them too and the same issues were found. They are all dismiss . That leaves you.

I don't believe you. You can't even stay on topic or answer questions posed to you on your own threads in any sort of coherent fashion.

Nebraska man was not a man. Why the fraud?
As was Piltdown, Peking man, Java man, Java man 2 and Lucy.

Gibberish.

 

[SkepticThinker]

They were all frauds.

Nope.

Australopithecus afarensis

humanorigins.si.edu

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope.

Australopithecus afarensis

humanorigins.si.edu

Clearly not of the kind mankind.

 

[McBell]

Clearly not of the kind mankind.

Define kind.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Define kind.

For dogs it would be the equivalent go the genus canis. For people it would be just mankind.

 

[McBell]

For dogs it would be the equivalent go the genus canis. For people it would be just mankind.

So kind is the equivalent of genus?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Clearly not of the kind mankind.

Nobody ever said it is. You're just trying to move the goal posts, as you always do. "Kind" doesn't mean anything in science. It's a vague Biblical term.

You said Lucy was a fraud. You are wrong about that.