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

[Little Dragon]

It falls short in many ways

No it doesn't. I know you cannot provide one piece of evidenced reasoning why.

 

[Little Dragon]

But they ARE answered, numerous times! Your insistence that they are not does not weaken either the evidence or its explanation.

Creationism is a delusional and false unscientific narrative, it has absolutely no evidence to support it. Not one iota.
Yet here people are trying to poke holes in a theory they do not begin to understand.

Support your own hypothesis, creationists. Before ye try to pick apart something a little more intellectually demanding, than "God done it with magic".

 

[YoursTrue]

No it doesn't. I know you cannot provide one piece of evidenced reasoning why.

I realize you don't think abiogenesis is part of the process of what is deemed to be evolution. But it is. You simply cannot have evolution without a start, and that start would be supposedly from the theory of abiogenesis.

 

[The Hammer]

I realize you don't think abiogenesis is part of the process of what is deemed to be evolution. But it is. You simply cannot have evolution without a start, and that start would be supposedly from the theory of abiogenesis.

Hypothesis. There are no creation Theories.

It's also the best fitting model currently, until it isn't.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hypothesis. There are no creation Theories.

in a way that's true, because the Bible has an account of how life especially on the Earth started. Not a theory. But anyway, we can carry on later maybe. Nice talking with you, Hammer. Take care and good night.

 

[Little Dragon]

I realize you don't think abiogenesis is part of the process of what is deemed to be evolution. But it is. You simply cannot have evolution without a start, and that start would be supposedly from the theory of abiogenesis.

The hypothesis of abiogenesis is undergoing research and development. It is a testable hypothesis. I know abiogenesis is the truth, because it is practically obvious to anyone with some chemistry background beyond high school. Obvious to anyone, who was not indoctrinated with religious dogma.

 

[YoursTrue]

The hypothesis of abiogenesis is undergoing research and development. It is a testable hypothesis. I know abiogenesis is the truth, because it is practically obvious to anyone with some chemistry background beyond high school. Obvious to anyone, who was not indoctrinated with religious dogma.

As I look at it now, combining two chemicals in whatever form scientists think they may have been and have them multiply by some force is beyond physical reason. The initial elements themselves are not simple as if they just got there. But that's how I think now and frankly there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Or explain otherwise. It didn't just happen by fortuitous meeting of elements producing life eventually supposedly evolving by chemical/mechanical/physical/biologic means to plants and animals and humans. That is how I see it now. Take care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I realize you don't think abiogenesis is part of the process of what is deemed to be evolution. But it is. You simply cannot have evolution without a start, and that start would be supposedly from the theory of abiogenesis.

This has been explained to you. Yes, one needs a start. No one disagrees with that. But evolution only need a start. It does not need a particular start, and that is what abiogenesis is. It is why we can solve evolution without solving abiogenesis. It appear that your only motive for this continued disingenuity is to give yourself an excuse not to accept evoluiton.

So one more time:

Evolution works if the start was natural abiogenesis.

Evolution works if the start was ET.

Evolution works even if the start was a magic poofing of the first cell into existence by the Christian God.


Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I look at it now, combining two chemicals in whatever form scientists think they may have been and have them multiply by some force is beyond physical reason. The initial elements themselves are not simple as if they just got there. But that's how I think now and frankly there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Or explain otherwise. It didn't just happen by fortuitous meeting of elements producing life eventually supposedly evolving by chemical/mechanical/physical/biologic means to plants and animals and humans. That is how I see it now. Take care.

And of course that is because that is a strawman of abiogenesis.

 

[John53]

Hypothesis. There are no creation Theories.

It's also the best fitting model currently, until it isn't.

It's been explained to them 1,000 times.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's been explained to them 1,000 times.

One more time! From the top.

The stories the same.

It still just a fish.

Searching frantically for water.

Flip flop, flop, flop, flop.

 

[John53]

One more time! From the top.

The stories the same.

It still just a fish.

Searching frantically for water.

Flip flop, flop, flop, flop.

It's almost as depressing as the timber and oyster festival I went to that had no one selling oysters and no wood chopping events, It has evolved into a bunch of stalls selling junk nobody wants to buy from the environmental pressure of covid and QX disease. I'm not sure what killed the wood chopping events.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's almost as depressing as the timber and oyster festival I went to that had no one selling oysters and no wood chopping events, It has evolved into a bunch of stalls selling junk nobody wants to buy from the environmental pressure of covid and QX disease. I'm not sure what killed the wood chopping events.

I suspect DUCKS. It's always DUCKS.

 

[John53]

I suspect DUCKS. It's always DUCKS.

You could be right, they have a plastic duck race in the river.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You could be right, they have a plastic duck race in the river.

Now I understand.

 

[Valjean]

I realize you don't think abiogenesis is part of the process of what is deemed to be evolution. But it is. You simply cannot have evolution without a start, and that start would be supposedly from the theory of abiogenesis.

It's either chemistry or magic. Those are the only two possibilities I can see.
Which is better evidenced?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It's either chemistry or magic. Those are the only two possibilities I can see.
Which is better evidenced?

All evidence disproves evolution and billions of years and proves creation by God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All evidence disproves evolution and billions of years and proves creation by God.

No, I can show you endless evidence for evolution. You have not yet shown one iota o evidence against it. Do I need to remind you what scientific evidence is again?

 

[John53]

No, I can show you endless evidence for evolution. You have not yet shown one iota o evidence against it. Do I need to remind you what scientific evidence is again?

I believe I won our prophet of the day competition. Drop and give me 50.

 

[Valjean]

All evidence disproves evolution and billions of years and proves creation by God.

An unevidenced claim. You know what can be done with a claim sans evidence...
Show your work or get off the podium, please.