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

[McBell]

The word birds is not even in the passage,​

yes it is:

(AFV)
And you shall have these in abomination among the fowls. They shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the black vulture, and the bearded vulture,​

(ASV)
And these ye shall have in abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the gier-eagle, and the ospray,​

(BBE)
And among birds these are to be disgusting to you, and not to be used for food: the eagle and the gier-eagle and the ospray;​

(Bishops) These are they whiche ye shall abhorre among the foules, and that ought not to be eaten, for they are an abhomination: The Egle, the Goshauke, and the Ospray,​

(Brenton)
And these are the things which ye shall abhor of birds, and they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle and the ossifrage, and the sea-eagle.​

(Cepher)
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,​

(Darby)
And these shall ye have in abomination of the fowls; they shall not be eaten; an abomination shall they be: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the sea-eagle,​

(DRB)
Of birds these are they which you must not eat, and which are to be avoided by you: The eagle, and the griffon, and the osprey.​

(ERV)
"You must also treat some birds as things that are wrong to eat. Stay away from them. It is a sickening thought for you to eat any of these birds: eagles, vultures, buzzards,​

(ESV)
“And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture,​

​

(Geneva)
These shal ye haue also in abomination among the foules, they shal not be eaten: for they are an abomination, the egle, and the goshauke, and the osprey:​

(GNB)
(13-19) You must not eat any of the following birds: eagles, owls, hawks, falcons; buzzards, vultures, crows; ostriches; seagulls, storks, herons, pelicans, cormorants; hoopoes; or bats.​

(GW)
"Here are the kinds of birds you must consider disgusting and must not eat. They are eagles, bearded vultures, black vultures,​

(JPS)
And these ye shall have in detestation among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are a detestable thing: the great vulture, and the bearded vulture, and the ospray;​

(KJV)
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,​

(KJV-1611)
And these are they which ye shall haue in abomination among the foules, they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: The Eagle, and the Ossifrage, and the Ospray,​

(KJVA)
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,​

(KJV-BRG)
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,​

(LEB)
"'And these you must detest from the birds; they must not be eaten—they are detestable: the eagle and the vulture and the short-toed eagle,​

(LITV)
And these you shall count unclean among the fowls; they shall not be eaten; they are unclean: the eagle, and the black vulture and the bearded vulture,​

(LSV)
And these you detest of the bird—they are not eaten, they [are] an abomination: the eagle, and the bearded vulture, and the osprey,​

(MKJV)
And you shall have these in abomination among the fowls. They shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the black vulture, and the bearded vulture,​

(RV)
And these ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the gier eagle, and the ospray;​

(TLV)
“Among the birds you should detest the following—they are not to be eaten—they are loathsome: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,​

(TS2009)
‘And these you do abominate among the birds, they are not eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the vulture, and the black vulture,​

(WEB)
“‘These you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the vulture, and the black vulture,​

(WEBA)
“‘These you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the vulture, and the black vulture,​

(Webster)
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,​

(YLT)
'And these ye do abominate of the fowl; they are not eaten, an abomination they are : the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,​

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Why am I getting the feeling that we're dealing with AI chatbot that is programmed to respond in this malignant fashion...?

 

[McBell]

Why am I getting the feeling that we're dealing with AI chatbot that is programmed to respond in this malignant fashion...?

In all sincerity, I hope you are right and they are a chat bot programmed to respond that way.
I hate the idea that there are people out there like that.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

yes it is:

(AFV)​

And you shall have these in abomination among the fowls. They shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the black vulture, and the bearded vulture,​

(ASV)​

And these ye shall have in abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the gier-eagle, and the ospray,​

(BBE)​

And among birds these are to be disgusting to you, and not to be used for food: the eagle and the gier-eagle and the ospray;​

(Bishops) These are they whiche ye shall abhorre among the foules, and that ought not to be eaten, for they are an abhomination: The Egle, the Goshauke, and the Ospray,​

(Brenton)​

And these are the things which ye shall abhor of birds, and they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle and the ossifrage, and the sea-eagle.​

(Cepher)​

And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,​

(Darby)​

And these shall ye have in abomination of the fowls; they shall not be eaten; an abomination shall they be: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the sea-eagle,​

(DRB)​

Of birds these are they which you must not eat, and which are to be avoided by you: The eagle, and the griffon, and the osprey.​

(ERV)​

"You must also treat some birds as things that are wrong to eat. Stay away from them. It is a sickening thought for you to eat any of these birds: eagles, vultures, buzzards,​

(ESV)​

“And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture,​

​

(Geneva)​

These shal ye haue also in abomination among the foules, they shal not be eaten: for they are an abomination, the egle, and the goshauke, and the osprey:​

(GNB)​

(13-19) You must not eat any of the following birds: eagles, owls, hawks, falcons; buzzards, vultures, crows; ostriches; seagulls, storks, herons, pelicans, cormorants; hoopoes; or bats.​

(GW)​

"Here are the kinds of birds you must consider disgusting and must not eat. They are eagles, bearded vultures, black vultures,​

(JPS)​

And these ye shall have in detestation among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are a detestable thing: the great vulture, and the bearded vulture, and the ospray;​

(KJV)​

And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,​

(KJV-1611)​

And these are they which ye shall haue in abomination among the foules, they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: The Eagle, and the Ossifrage, and the Ospray,​

(KJVA)​

And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,​

(KJV-BRG)​

And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,​

(LEB)​

"'And these you must detest from the birds; they must not be eaten—they are detestable: the eagle and the vulture and the short-toed eagle,​

(LITV)​

And these you shall count unclean among the fowls; they shall not be eaten; they are unclean: the eagle, and the black vulture and the bearded vulture,​

(LSV)​

And these you detest of the bird—they are not eaten, they [are] an abomination: the eagle, and the bearded vulture, and the osprey,​

(MKJV)​

And you shall have these in abomination among the fowls. They shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the black vulture, and the bearded vulture,​

(RV)​

And these ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the gier eagle, and the ospray;​

(TLV)​

“Among the birds you should detest the following—they are not to be eaten—they are loathsome: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,​

(TS2009)​

‘And these you do abominate among the birds, they are not eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the vulture, and the black vulture,​

(WEB)​

“‘These you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the vulture, and the black vulture,​

(WEBA)​

“‘These you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the vulture, and the black vulture,​

(Webster)​

And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,​

(YLT)​

'And these ye do abominate of the fowl; they are not eaten, an abomination they are : the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,​

You beat me to it. I was about to post multiple translations of the verse to further demonstrate that his repeated denial is blatantly dishonest.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Why am I getting the feeling that we're dealing with AI chatbot that is programmed to respond in this malignant fashion...?

In all sincerity, I hope you are right and they are a chat bot programmed to respond that way.
I hate the idea that there are people out there like that.

Now that you mention it, I suppose it is possible. However, I've met other Christians who brazenly professed the same creationist beliefs as the OP.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Facts are of no interest to this poster. Dogma is all that concerns him/her.

What keeps me out of his/her threads is that I knew more science after grade 6 than this person does as a presumed adult. What could possibly be the point of arguing with them as if they were on the same level as you? It's like arguing with a 7 year old:

"Is so,"
"Is not!"
"Is too."
"No way!"
"Who says?"
"I do."
"Well, what do you know?"
"More than you!"
"Prove it."
"Don't have to..."

Now, isn't than fun and edifying?

If s/he truly believes what is written in their comments here then I pity them, given that firstly they are dismissing vast swathes of science - of which they cannot be experts or that knowledgeable, given that mostly none can be, even with some being specialists in a few areas. And secondly it just shows so much arrogance in dismissing what science has produced, and all because of the acceptance of one particular religious text - the veracity of which cannot be shown and mostly comes down to simply believing that which is written has literally to be true, even when so many who still believe the Bible has some merit don't take it literally. On the other hand, this just might be a futile attempt to impress others of the same mind. Not working for the majority here I suspect though, even having such divergence of religious views.

 

[McBell]

If s/he truly believes what is written in their comments here then I pity them, given that firstly they are dismissing vast swathes of science - of which they cannot be experts ...

I suspect they would be considered an expert on some creationist sites

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why am I getting the feeling that we're dealing with AI chatbot that is programmed to respond in this malignant fashion...?

In all sincerity, I hope you are right and they are a chat bot programmed to respond that way.
I hate the idea that there are people out there like that.

Oh, please, let it be a chatbot! Then I won't need to feel guilty for wishing we had a "moron" frubal.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No. Sorry. ...

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 be partially developed organs and systems in all individual creations that exist today and have eve existed. There are none. Why?

The odds against the above 2 facts are so vast that it is more than the odds against a very large specific amino acid sequence coming into being by natural processes.

 

[viole]

Answers in genesis is a science site.

Yes, and the Flinstones is a scientific documentary about humans and dinosaurs living together.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yes, and the Flinstones is a scientific documentary about humans and dinosaurs living together.

Ciao

- viole

Thanks. I watched it as a kid.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I suspect they would be considered an expert on some creationist sites

That wouldn't be much to be proud of, would it?

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 be partially developed organs and systems in all individual creations that exist today and have eve existed. There are none. Why?

The odds against the above 2 facts are so vast that it is more than the odds against a very large specific amino acid sequence coming into being by natural processes.

All wrong, and all showing again how very little science you comprehend. Life dies, and usually, when it dies, it decomposes -- soon leaving no trace at all that it existed. Fossilization is an extremely rare event, occuring only under very specific conditions. Most organisms decompose fairly quickly after they die.

For an organism to be fossilized, the remains usually need to be covered by sediment soon after death. Sediment can include the sandy seafloor, lava, and even sticky tar. Over time, minerals in the sediment seep into the remains. The remains become fossilized. Fossilization usually occur in organisms with hard, bony body parts, such as skeletons, teeth, or shells. Soft-bodied organisms, such as worms, are rarely fossilized.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That wouldn't be much to be proud of, would it?

All wrong, and all showing again how very little science you comprehend. Life dies, and usually, when it dies, it decomposes -- soon leaving no trace at all that it existed. Fossilization is an extremely rare event, occuring only under very specific conditions. Most organisms decompose fairly quickly after they die.

For an organism to be fossilized, the remains usually need to be covered by sediment soon after death. Sediment can include the sandy seafloor, lava, and even sticky tar. Over time, minerals in the sediment seep into the remains. The remains become fossilized. Fossilization usually occur in organisms with hard, bony body parts, such as skeletons, teeth, or shells. Soft-bodied organisms, such as worms, are rarely fossilized.

I just wanted to find the official answers which must exist.

What was the first living thing? Ans the first 4 generations after that?

Asking for a friend.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I just wanted to find the official answers which must exist.

What was the first living thing? Ans the first 4 generations after that?

Asking for a friend.

You are doing no such thing. You are trying to argue against science without understanding it. That's like shouting out loud, "it is imossible for airplanes to fly" because you haven't got a clue what Benoulli's Principle is all about.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You are doing no such thing. You are trying to argue against science without understanding it. That's like shouting out loud, "it is imossible for airplanes to fly" because you haven't got a clue what Benoulli's Principle is all about.

I have evolutionist friends and they should know the official answers. They have not been indoctrinated into it in awhile.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why?

Why should there be? I do not think that you understand fossilization at all.

They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?

Paleontologists probably are finding one "missing link" every day. They are finding one new dinosaur fossil every two weeks. Marine fossils are over 90% of all fossils found so that would mean that they would be finding about ten times as many marine fossils as dinosaur fossils. In fact it may be one hundred times more. Dinosaur fossils are a very small percentage of all of the fossils found:

How Many Dinosaurs Remain Undiscovered?

Paleontologists say more non-avian dinos are waiting to be uncovered than have previously been found

www.smithsonianmag.com

There should be partially developed organs and systems in all individual creations that exist today and have eve existed. There are none. Why?

No, evolution does not work that way. You are assuming a goal. That leads to nonsensical questions and demands.

The odds against the above 2 facts are so vast that it is more than the odds against a very large specific amino acid sequence coming into being by natural processes.

You do not know how to do math. Remember?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have evolutionist friends and they should know the official answers. They have not been indoctrinated into it in awhile.

Oh my, assuming that evolution is a religion again

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I have evolutionist friends and they should know the official answers. They have not been indoctrinated into it in awhile.

Your idea that there is some kind of central authority for science that gives "official" answers is flawed...I'm sure your friends have explained this to you before, just as it's been explained here, repeatedly.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Your idea that there is some kind of central authority for science that gives "official" answers is flawed...I'm sure your friends have explained this to you before, just as it's been explained here, repeatedly.

So what is the answer in your mind, to what was the first living thing?

 

[John53]

So what is the answer in your mind, to what was the first living thing?

A bat bird?