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

[SkepticThinker]

I only have one assumption, that the Bible is the true word of God And I have already proved it with many infallible proofs.

That's three massive assumptions actually: That the particular god you believe in exists; that everything in the Bible is true; and that the Bible is the true word of the God you believe in.

You have a multitude of already proven false assumptions.

Here is your circular reasoning and unscientific methods.

You don't appear to have any idea what circular reasoning is, despite the fact that your assertions are almost entirely circular in nature.

Because the citrus cycle exist, it must have evolved by natural processes.

I think you mean the citric acid cycle. But do go on making the same error over and over. Good grief.

Now deny all facts, science that show the absurdity of this assumption.
Then repeat the same fully logic for everything in creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's three massive assumptions actually: That the particular god you believe in exists; that everything in the Bible is true; and that the Bible is the true word of the God you believe in.



You don't appear to have any idea what circular reasoning is, despite the fact that your assertions are almost entirely circular in nature.

I think you mean the citric acid cycle. But do go on making the same error over and over. Good grief.

Oh poop! There goes my fun. I was having really enjoying giving him examples of the "citrus cycle" that he demanded. One more time:

 

[SkepticThinker]

There was no scientific content in your post.

The dim young sun paradox invalidates long ages for the sun, evolution, and life on the earth.

Your arguments are sooo bad. Seriously.

CE311: Faint young sun

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Your arguments are sooo bad. Seriously.

CE311: Faint young sun

I read that article and it has no real substance in it. It addresses almost nothing on the subject. So it is dismissed.
I peer reviewed it and fact checked and it failed.

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?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read that article and it has no real substance in it. It addresses almost nothing on the subject. So it is dismissed.
I peer reviewed it and fact checked and it failed.

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?

Asking silly and inconsequential questions does not refute anything. Remember how you responded to the same sort of questions about your God? Why didn't you answer those questions?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I read that article and it has no real substance in it. It addresses almost nothing on the subject. So it is dismissed.
I peer reviewed it and fact checked and it failed.

I guess we can add peer review to the list of things you don't understand.
You're in over your head here. That's why all you can seem to do is ignore and dismiss all the science thrown at you.
It's amazing you don't see how embarrassing this really is for you.

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?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I guess we can add peer review to the list of things you don't understand.
You're in over your head here. That's why all you can seem to do is ignore and dismiss all the science thrown at you.
It's amazing you don't see how embarrassing this really is for you.

Your reasoning in a circle is showing. I am a valid fact checker and peer reviewer. I look for circular reasoning fallacies.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your reasoning in a circle is showing. I am a valid fact checker and peer reviewer. I look for circular reasoning fallacies.

This was in response to, "I guess we can add peer review to the list of things you don't understand.
You're in over your head here. That's why all you can seem to do is ignore and dismiss all the science thrown at you.
It's amazing you don't see how embarrassing this really is for you."


You claim "circular reasoning." Where, exactly? Be specific.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

This was in response to, "I guess we can add peer review to the list of things you don't understand.
You're in over your head here. That's why all you can seem to do is ignore and dismiss all the science thrown at you.
It's amazing you don't see how embarrassing this really is for you."


You claim "circular reasoning." Where, exactly? Be specific.

Simple. What was the first living creature and where did it come into being?
What caused the Big Bang and where did all the finely tuned orderly laws of nature come from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simple. What was the first living creature and where did it come into being?

You need to justify that question. If you can't then no one needs to answer it.

What caused the Big Bang and where did all the finely tuned orderly laws of nature come from?

Now this is just a silly silly question that is an immediate loss on your part. Don't force me to ask you what God's middle name is.

 

[Esteban X]

I read that article and it has no real substance in it. It addresses almost nothing on the subject. So it is dismissed.
I peer reviewed it and fact checked and it failed.

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?

The flaw with these questions is that you assume matter, energy etc came from somewhere. The universe is made of energy (matter is simply energy in concrete form) and since energy cannot be created or destroyed it must have always existed; IN SOME FORM.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The flaw with these questions is that you assume matter, energy etc came from somewhere. The universe is made of energy (matter is simply energy in concrete form) and since energy cannot be created or destroyed it must have always existed; IN SOME FORM.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you are trapped in circular reasoning. All of creation disproves evolution and billions of years.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The flaw in your reasoning is that you are trapped in circular reasoning. All of creation disproves evolution and billions of years.

How so? And how do you justify the term "creation"? We know that the universe exists, we do not know if it was created.

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?

Why do you think that this is the case? Or are you just admitting that you are wrong again. I will make it easy. All that you have to do to admit that you are wrong again is to ignore this demand for evidence for a claim that needs it.

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

See above. What is your evidence for this claim? I can assure you that it is nowhere in the theory of evolution. Once again, you can admit that you are wrong by not responding to this claim of yours that needs evidence.

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.

If your claims were accurate you might be right. But I have never seen anyone that studies the science that makes those claims Why do you? What is your evidence?

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.

Really? And what sort of math do you have that supports that? Remember, assumptions are allowed, but one has to be able to justify them.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

How so? And how do you justify the term "creation"? We know that the universe exists, we do not know if it was created.


Why do you think that this is the case? Or are you just admitting that you are wrong again. I will make it easy. All that you have to do to admit that you are wrong again is to ignore this demand for evidence for a claim that needs it.


See above. What is your evidence for this claim? I can assure you that it is nowhere in the theory of evolution. Once again, you can admit that you are wrong by not responding to this claim of yours that needs evidence.


If your claims were accurate you might be right. But I have never seen anyone that studies the science that makes those claims Why do you? What is your evidence?

Really? And what sort of math do you have that supports that? Remember, assumptions are allowed, but one has to be able to justify them.

No logic or science just a 100% circular reasoning post.

Where did the universe come from?

If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?

If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then that breaks cause and effect. It also violates every law of conservation too.

If there was something before that, what caused the thing that was before the Big Bang to come into being?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No logic or science just a 100% circular reasoning post.

I was asking you questions since all that you seemed to have were unsupported claims. And you keep demonstrating that you have no clue as to what circular reasoning, or for that matter any sort of reasoning is. Once again, this is rather boring. I would gladly help you become a better debater.

Where did the universe come from?

Newark.

If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?

Tapioca pudding.

If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then that breaks cause and effect. It also violates every law of conservation too.

Seriously cause and effect may not have applied. This has been explained to you.

If there was something before that, what caused the thing that was before the Big Bang to come into being?

Hard to say since the current theory is that the universe has existed for all time. There is no "before the Big Bang". There you go. One serious answer. Too bad that you cannot even manage that.

 

[ratiocinator]

No logic or science just a 100% circular reasoning post.

Misapplying the term 'circular reasoning' just makes you look dim.

Where did the universe come from?

If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?

If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then that breaks cause and effect. It also violates every law of conservation too.

If there was something before that, what caused the thing that was before the Big Bang to come into being?

As does repeating questions that have been answered without any attempt to seriously address the answers you've got.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Misapplying the term 'circular reasoning' just makes you look dim.


As does repeating questions that have been answered without any attempt to seriously address the answers you've got.

You cannot answer because you have false assumptions , the assumptions of circular reasoning.

 

[ratiocinator]

You cannot answer because you have false assumptions...

Isn't your god supposed to not like people who bear false witness?

I have answered. Several times.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Isn't your god supposed to not like people who bear false witness?

I have answered. Several times.

A circular reasoning post by you if ever there was.
What was the cause of the Big Bang and where did the finely tuned orderly laws of nature come from?
What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

 

[ratiocinator]

A circular reasoning post by you if ever there was.

Comical.

What was the cause of the Big Bang and where did the finely tuned orderly laws of nature come from?
What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

You've had these answered multiple times. Stop running scared and either address the answer you have or stop the endless repetition. It just makes you look stupid.