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

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know what you're talking about. There is so much in the Bible that makes sense to those who appreciate life and the Creator. There are those described in the Bible who didn't understand everything but were blessed by God. I find it a blessing to have been taught the Bible as well as what God wants, also shown the inconsistency and morbidity of the actions by people and events as the world stands now. Anyway, have a good evening.
Job 19:25 - For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
Psalm 71:2 - Save me and rescue me, for you do what is right. Turn your ear to listen to me, and set me free.
I look forward to the time that I and other righteous ones as considered by God (you and I are not the decision-makers) will be free. But He has set me free to a large extent. Not there yet -- but hope to be. Take care.

I was talking about your interpretation of Genesis. It is rather sad that you refuse to learn even the basics of science, and do not pretend that you understand these basics. If you understood the basics you would see that for Genesis to be literally true God would have had to have planted endless false evidence that tell us that it did not happen. Planting false evidence is a form of lying. It makes much more sense to read it as allegory and morality tales. Then God does not have to lie. In other words, Adam and Eve are a morality tale, not history. The same goes for Noah's Ark. They still work that way. They do not work when interpreted literally because then, once again, God would have had to have planted false evidence since all of the scientific evidence out there tells us that those events never happened.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I was talking about your interpretation of Genesis. It is rather sad that you refuse to learn even the basics of science, and do not pretend that you understand these basics. If you understood the basics you would see that for Genesis to be literally true God would have had to have planted endless false evidence that tell us that it did not happen. Planting false evidence is a form of lying. It makes much more sense to read it as allegory and morality tales. Then God does not have to lie. In other words, Adam and Eve are a morality tale, not history. The same goes for Noah's Ark. They still work that way. They do not work when interpreted literally because then, once again, God would have had to have planted false evidence since all of the scientific evidence out there tells us that those events never happened.

It is an historic narrative nor a fable .

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is an historic narrative nor a fable .

It can't be since we know that it is false. Unless you want to claim that God is a liar again.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It can't be since we know that it is false. Unless you want to claim that God is a liar again.

Never have claimed that, just that all evolutionists are deceived in this area of knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never have claimed that, just that all evolutionists are deceived in this area of knowledge.

Yes, you did. You just cannot understand how you did so. I need to remind you that you ran away from the discussion on evidence.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yes, you did. You just cannot understand how you did so. I need to remind you that you ran away from the discussion on evidence.

Life requires catalysts and catalysts require living things .

The Central Role of Enzymes as Biological Catalysts - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Subduction Zone]

Life requires catalysts and catalysts require living things .

The Central Role of Enzymes as Biological Catalysts - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

You keep making this same mistake. That is in modern life. With a 3.7 billion year history even "simple" life is going to be quite complex.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can't speak for the poster but I really do believe the questions are valid and simply cannot be answered except maybe by conjecture even by scientists. I cannot say much beyond what the Bible says although to my mind (I won't include others in my opinion) it seems amazing, let's say, that Noah lived several hundred years. But I accept it. Now there are two possibilities. (1) I will find out the validation about this in the future, or (2) I will never find out.

So you accept completely unevidenced just-so stories with people living for 700 years (you think it's "amazing" but you just blindly accept it anyway???), in place of demonstrable, verifiable scientific evidence.
Whatever gets you through the night, I guess. But please don't pretend that all of your questions haven't been asked and answered over and over again, ad nauseum.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh and the theory of evolution actually disproves itself. Starting from the first proposal such as ?? maybe sponges and the like.

Oh shoot! Somebody should notify all the scientists from practically every field of science over the last 160+ years! This is breaking news!
You get a Nobel Prize!

Oh wait, your comment doesn't even make sense. Darn it.

 

[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.

Of course abiogenesis is the start of living chemical systems, so yes, it is the foundation of evolution via natural selection, in a certain sense. However we study already living processes and populations with the theory of evolution via natural selection. The theory is not directly applicable to abiogenesis. Although there may well be selection processes at even the level of abiogenesis.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Oh and the theory of evolution actually disproves itself. Starting from the first proposal such as ?? maybe sponges and the like.

I agree.

 

[Little Dragon]

I agree.

You agree with a nonsensical statement?

 

[McBell]

You agree with a nonsensical statement?

To be fair, they also agree with all manner of articles that flat out refute their claims.....

 

[John53]

To be fair, they also agree with all manner of articles that flat out refute their claims.....

And refute their own irrefutablnous (sp?)

 

[McBell]

And refute their own irrefutablnous (sp?)

Irrefutability?

 

[John53]

Irrefutability?

Probably.

I wouldn't trust an Aussie when it comes to speaking English goodly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree.

Great. Two people that have no clue agree. Do you think that helps you? She runs away from offers of education so that she can understand too. In fact she often makes arguments that support evolution without even knowing it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Irrefutability?

Because of these types of responses, although having been a non-believer of God and the Bible for many years, yet now I believe and reject the theory of evolution as it stands because -- it no longer makes sense to me in the conjectural details and proposals, instead I have come to realize the standard responses and retorts and insults towards those who do not believe in evolution, I have come to realize after a time of posting and asking questions and reading responses that evolutionists really have no basis in truth, only conjecture. I am speaking now of biologic conjecture, not cultural or societal or archaeological claims. The questions asked by those who believe in creation rather than the theory of evolution are valid and evolutionists cannot refute the premise of producing life with certainty as if it happened by chance meeting. As Jesus said, if the foundation is weak, the building will not stand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because of these types of responses, although having been a non-believer of God and the Bible for many years, yet now I believe and reject the theory of evolution as it stands because -- it no longer makes sense to me in the conjectural details and proposals, instead I have come to realize the standard responses and retorts and insults towards those who do not believe in evolution, I have come to realize after a time of posting and asking questions and reading responses that evolutionists really have no basis in truth, only conjecture. I am speaking now of biologic conjecture, not cultural or societal or archaeological claims. The questions asked by those who believe in creation rather than the theory of evolution are valid and evolutionists cannot refute the premise of producing life with certainty as if it happened by chance meeting. As Jesus said, if the foundation is weak, the building will not stand.

And there go the false accusations again. You were never attacked for "not believing" the theory of evolution. You were corrected for your countless scientific errors.

Unlike your religious beliefs we do not need to "believe" in the theory of evolution. If you were only honest enough with yourself to learn the basics of science you could see that it is the only idea supported by scientific evidence. Your claims of "conjecture" are false. You have no justifiable reason to reject the theory.

You could still learn the basics of science, but I predict that you will run away again.

 

[McBell]

it no longer makes sense to me in the conjectural details and proposals,

Your not understanding it does not detract from it.

As for the allegedly valid questions that have been asked in this and several other of the OPs threads, how exactly do you figure they are valid?
The one asking them has shown they have no idea what the question is actually asking about.
Then they post links to articles that thoroughly refute their claims because all they do (and they have flat out admitted to it) is read the title.

And the more they are shown to be flat out wrong, the more nonsense they post.
Now if it is your belief that these dishonest tactics are approved by god, then that is on you and them, not one any of the rest of us.