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

[YoursTrue]

Your incredulity is your problem.

I can understand the theory. But there are too many in-betweens, meaning too many--yes--gaps in the theory. So while it may make logical sense to some in a way, when looked at real carefully, it no longer does to me.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sponges? Wut?

Signs point to sponges as earliest animal life

'Chemical fossils' provide evidence for first multicelled creatures

news.mit.edu

 

[Valjean]

I doubt any test will ever show that a particle from somewhere burgeons out to form plants and animals and more.

I doubt this is a serious post, after all the explanation of abiogenesis we've given you over the years.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Part of the scientific method are efforts to eliminate assumptions. Science tests its hypotheses whenever possible.

I have eliminated the no God assumption and the assumptions of circular reasoning which evolution and billions of years uses.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have eliminated the no God assumption and the assumptions of circular reasoning which evolution and billions of years uses.

Have you figured out why that 5th dentist doesn't recommend Trident?

 

[Little Dragon]

Signs point to sponges as earliest animal life

'Chemical fossils' provide evidence for first multicelled creatures

news.mit.edu

Oh right. Earliest multicellular life. As opposed to unicellular life, which existed before sponges did.

Sponges are interesting in that they lack Hox genes, unlike all other multicellular animals, including us. They'e also only somewhat multicellular, in that most animals, will not survive being pushed through a sieve, Sponges however can and do. They have only one cell type too, which again, is unique among all multicellular animals. I understand why they are considered and described as multicellular animals, scientifically, but they are the simplest multicellular animals there could logically be.

 

[Valjean]

Lol ok I will. It disproves itself because it cannot be proved. Meaning it is impossible to prove.

How many times have we explained to you that only mathematical equations can be proved? If you're going to ignore our posts, why should we even bother?
The spherical Earth theory; the germ theory, heliocentrism -- all unproven, but all well evidenced. Why do you doubt well-evidenced chemical abiogenesis and an old Earth? You, yourself, believe in abiogenesis. Our only disagreement is over mechanism, chemistry vs magic.
How does one judge probability, if not by actual evidence?

It doesn't matter if someone says it has been or can be proved. It has not been and logic should show that when the evidence (such as sponges as said to be maybe one of the first living things) is spoken of it is so out-of-this-world by imagination that it disputes/refutes itself when looked at with an honest eye. I'm speaking now primarily of the start. The beginning through subsequent supposedly early stages of the said process.

Noöne's claiming proof. Science works on evidence and most likely interpretations.

What are sponges evidence of, an old Earth? Why would dated fossils or sponge residues not be evidence of age? Do you dispute the dating? Why?
Sponges one of the first living things? A multicellular animal? You have a remarkable capacity to misinterpret what you read, and to misunderstand how evolution works. You have a fixed, mythological narrative in your head, and contrary facts or alternative possibilities just don't seem to register. I might as well try to teach statistics to my cat.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Have you figured out why that 5th dentist doesn't recommend Trident?

What do you mean?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What do you mean?

Well, 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident for their patients that chew gum. What's holding the 5th one back?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Well, 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident for their patients that chew gum. What's holding the 5th one back?

Bad analogy.

This could not have happened due to evolution.

Figure 6-78, The translational frameshifting that produces the reverse transcriptase and integrase of a retrovirus - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Bad analogy.

This could not have happened due to evolution.

Figure 6-78, The translational frameshifting that produces the reverse transcriptase and integrase of a retrovirus - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

It wasn't an analogy.

Please provide a full and complete explanation of the linked graphic and tell us what that means in regards to your position.

You wouldn't just be making random links for no reason would you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Bad analogy.

This could not have happened due to evolution.

Figure 6-78, The translational frameshifting that produces the reverse transcriptase and integrase of a retrovirus - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

I'm still waiting for my answers.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I'm still waiting for my answers.

They are no random at all. And can you explain them using evolution?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They are no random at all. And can you explain them using evolution?

I didn't ask if they were random or claim that and I'm waiting for your explanation.

 

[Valjean]

Oh right. Earliest multicellular life. As opposed to unicellular life, which existed before sponges did.

Life can be remarkably variable -- and flexible.
Multicellularity in primitive life can get pretty tricky. Unicellular organisms, like Dictyosteliid slime molds or certain poymorphic Bryozoid zooids can come together, specialize, and morph into multicellular organisms, with specialized cells and structures.

 

[Valjean]

They are no random at all. And can you explain them using evolution?

??? -- Huh?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They are no random at all. And can you explain them using evolution?

Why did you run off? I was looking forward to your answers.

 

[ratiocinator]

Lol ok I will. It disproves itself because it cannot be proved.

Non sequitur. Something that disproves itself is very different from something that cannot be proved.

Meaning it is impossible to prove.

That will be because it's a scientific theory and not a mathematical theorem.

There is, however, endless evidence for evolution, that puts is way, way beyond reasonable doubt.

It doesn't matter if someone says it has been or can be proved. It has not been and logic should show that when the evidence (such as sponges as said to be maybe one of the first living things) is spoken of it is so out-of-this-world by imagination that it disputes/refutes itself when looked at with an honest eye. I'm speaking now primarily of the start. The beginning through subsequent supposedly early stages of the said process.

Vague hand-waving.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Non sequitur. Something that disproves itself is very different from something that cannot be proved.


That will be because it's a scientific theory and not a mathematical theorem.

There is, however, endless evidence for evolution, that puts is way, way beyond reasonable doubt.


Vague hand-waving.

There is no evidence for evolution just assumptions with no real answers born of circular reasoning,

This refutes evolution.

Figure 6-80, The structure of a molten globule - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no evidence for evolution just assumptions with no real answers born of circular reasoning,

Exodus 23:1

This refutes evolution.

Figure 6-80, The structure of a molten globule - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

The same source refutes your absurd assertions:

The RNA World and the Origins of Life - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf