• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
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

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
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.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
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

Well-Known Member
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

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
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

Veteran Member
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

Veteran Member
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

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
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

"We are both impressed and daunted." Cargn
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
 
Top