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

[Twilight Hue]

Well Answers in Genesis is peer reviewed, uses the scientific method and publishes papers, etc.
Floods can produce many valves in a short time and the worldwide flood was very large.

AIG had a simple solution to that.

They just created their own self made 'science' journal and peer reviewed themselves, and published their own findings in their own 'journal' and then called themselves self credible.

Of course, in real legitimate science journals like Nature, there is not a single published paper to be found from AIG.

Wanna know why? Its because their so called 'science' is actually pure pseudoscience bunk.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

AIG had a simple solution to that.

They just created their own self made 'science' journal and peer reviewed themselves, and published their own findings in their own 'journal' and then called themselves self credible.

Of course, in real legitimate science journals like Nature, there is not a single published paper to be found from AIG.

Wanna know why? Its because their so called 'science' is actually pure pseudoscience bunk.

Evolution and billions of years are pseudoscience.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Evolution and billions of years are pseudoscience.

No. It isn't. I used to think that way myself in the past, however real actual science backs those facts up.

All it takes is looking at the experiments and research itself, reading real and not fake 'journals' to see how it's been arrived at and best way of all is to become a scientist yourself in the appropriate field of study to see for yourself if you have the money, patience , and time for it.

 

[Esteban X]

Answers in genesis is a science site.

Thanks, I needed a good laugh

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Thanks, I needed a good laugh

Why do you they are not?
Just because they disagree with evolution and billions of years?
There are many scientists that know that theses are false theories and have the evidence to prove it.

 

[Watchmen]

Why do you they are not?
Just because they disagree with evolution and billions of years?
There are many scientists that know that theses are false theories and have the evidence to prove it.

We’ve proven you wrong countless times and you’ve failed to respond each time the going gets tough for your decidedly unscientific beliefs about creation. Enough is enough.

 

[John53]

There are many scientists that know that theses are false theories and have the evidence to prove it.

No there's not. There's a handful of nuts with who the vast majority of scientists disagree.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why do you they are not?

AiG is a joke. A propaganda site full of misinformation, misrepresentation, and blatant falsehoods. Last time I looked at it I felt like I needed a shower to wash the dirt off.

Just because they disagree with evolution and billions of years?

Because they simply don't do science. It's not like they even hide it very well. Everybody has to sign up to their "Statement of Faith", which is doing the exact opposite of science, by starting with the conclusion and trying to make the facts and evidence conform to it.

There are many scientists that know that theses are false theories and have the evidence to prove it.

No, there aren't. Very, very few scientists with relevant qualifications disagree with the main conclusions of the relevant theories, and they pretty much all have an obvious vested interest in the form of their religious convictions.

In contrast, the real science is supported by people who have many different faiths as well as none.

Also:

Project Steve - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SavedByTheLord]

AiG is a joke. A propaganda site full of misinformation, misrepresentation, and blatant falsehoods. Last time I looked at it I felt like I needed a shower to wash the dirt off.


Because they simply don't do science. It's not like they even hide it very well. Everybody has to sign up to their "Statement of Faith", which is doing the exact opposite of science, by starting with the conclusion and trying to make the facts and evidence conform to it.


No, there aren't. Very, very few scientists with relevant qualifications disagree with the main conclusions of the relevant theories, and they pretty much all have an obvious vested interest in the form of their religious convictions.

In contrast, the real science is supported by people who have many different faiths as well as none.

Also:

Project Steve - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Could you give examples?

As to the statement of faith, that is very common for all Christian organizations.
In their case it is to be an employee.

 

[ratiocinator]

Could you give examples?

Pick a page, pretty much at random...

Evolution: No Chance in a Billion Years

A single-celled organism slowly and gradually changes into something more complex—is this possible? According to evolutionists it is—given eons of time!

answersingenesis.org

"To hear evolutionists tell it, all you need is time. Take a few billion years here to get galaxies up and running, a gross of millennia there to line up those pesky organic chemicals the right way for life, and an epoch or two to morph some ape-like creatures into humans."

Utter drivel. That has never been the approach of evolution. Of course, you need enough time, but this is a complete misrepresentation.

"While evolutionists toss years around like a football, they ignore a fundamental flaw in Darwin’s idea. What’s that? Even trillions of years wouldn’t be enough time to produce the simplest cell."

Now doing the good old dishonest creationist trick of trying to conflate evolution with abiogenesis. Darwin didn't produce a theory or hypothesis for abiogenesis, so calling it a "flaw in Darwin's idea" is basically, a lie (even if the flaw was real, which it isn't). You can search the rest of the page in vain for any valid supporting evidence. Even clicking the "some numbers here" link gets you to another load of unsupported assertions and a very old experiment.

I could go on. The rest of the page is full of dishonest misrepresentation and baseless, unsupported assertion, but I need a shower...

As to the statement of faith, that is very common for all Christian organizations.

And the beliefs they sign up to are the conclusions they are expected to come to no matter what the evidence. As I said, this is the exact opposite of doing science. Hence, it is not a science site. It's a blind faith propaganda site.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Pick a page, pretty much at random...

Evolution: No Chance in a Billion Years

A single-celled organism slowly and gradually changes into something more complex—is this possible? According to evolutionists it is—given eons of time!

answersingenesis.org

"To hear evolutionists tell it, all you need is time. Take a few billion years here to get galaxies up and running, a gross of millennia there to line up those pesky organic chemicals the right way for life, and an epoch or two to morph some ape-like creatures into humans."

Utter drivel. That has never been the approach of evolution. Of course, you need enough time, but this is a complete misrepresentation.

"While evolutionists toss years around like a football, they ignore a fundamental flaw in Darwin’s idea. What’s that? Even trillions of years wouldn’t be enough time to produce the simplest cell."

Now doing the good old dishonest creationist trick of trying to conflate evolution with abiogenesis. Darwin didn't produce a theory or hypothesis for abiogenesis, so calling it a "flaw in Darwin's idea" is basically, a lie (even if the flaw was real, which it isn't). You can search the rest of the page in vain for any valid supporting evidence. Even clicking the "some numbers here" link gets you to another load of unsupported assertions and a very old experiment.

I could go on. The rest of the page is full of dishonest misrepresentation and baseless, unsupported assertion, but I need a shower...


And the beliefs they sign up to are the conclusions they are expected to come to no matter what the evidence. As I said, this is the exact opposite of doing science. Hence, it is not a science site. It's a blind faith propaganda site.

Wow an evolutionist said.
Evolutionists run and hide from abiogenesis and pretend that the first living creature is not needed for the existence of all living things.
Of course it is part of evolution because there is no evolution without the first living thing.
And that which is impossible will always be impossible even with an infinite amount of time.

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?

What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?

How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?

Where did it come into being? In space? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? In a tide pool?

In clay or mud? What protected it from UV rays? What was the composition of the atmosphere at that time?

If it was in water, how did the amino acids keep from being dissipated by the water?

What was the energy source for these reactions?

Where there any enzymes in it? Which ones? Certain required reactions need enzymes as catalysts. If not, the reaction may take a vast number of years. Surely the primitive thing could not last more than a minute much less than many years.

How did it survive? Where did the protective layer come from? What was the protected layer? How did that part get reproduced?

How was it able to divide itself? The protective layer must also divide and then close.

What was its food source? How did it remove waste? How did it repair itself? How did these things move in and out of the protective layer since they must be gated.

Please explain how it was ever able to reproduce itself.

If the first living thing was just proteins, how did it ever get evolve to use RNA and DNA? They are irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

If it was just RNA based, how did it to ever evolve to use DNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

If it was just DNA based, how did it to ever evolve to use RNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

It is was any mixture of these, then how could it or DNA, RNA, or proteins have evolved at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow an evolutionist said.
Evolutionists run and hide from abiogenesis and pretend that the first living creature is not needed for the existence of all living things.
Of course it is part of evolution because there is no evolution without the first living thing.
And that which is impossible will always be impossible even with an infinite amount of time.

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?

What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?

How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?

Where did it come into being? In space? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? In a tide pool?

In clay or mud? What protected it from UV rays? What was the composition of the atmosphere at that time?

If it was in water, how did the amino acids keep from being dissipated by the water?

What was the energy source for these reactions?

Where there any enzymes in it? Which ones? Certain required reactions need enzymes as catalysts. If not, the reaction may take a vast number of years. Surely the primitive thing could not last more than a minute much less than many years.

How did it survive? Where did the protective layer come from? What was the protected layer? How did that part get reproduced?

How was it able to divide itself? The protective layer must also divide and then close.

What was its food source? How did it remove waste? How did it repair itself? How did these things move in and out of the protective layer since they must be gated.

Please explain how it was ever able to reproduce itself.

If the first living thing was just proteins, how did it ever get evolve to use RNA and DNA? They are irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

If it was just RNA based, how did it to ever evolve to use DNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

If it was just DNA based, how did it to ever evolve to use RNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

It is was any mixture of these, then how could it or DNA, RNA, or proteins have evolved at all?

You used a lying pseudoscience source. Why should anyone believe you?

 

[ratiocinator]

Evolutionists run and hide from abiogenesis and pretend that the first living creature is not needed for the existence of all living things.

You are just reinforcing the point that creationists are being dishonest. This objecting is mind-numbingly silly. They are simply different subjects.

Do you complain about economics because it doesn't cover why money exists? History because it doesn't cover the why humans exist?

And yet again, you've just run away from the points I made and gone off into already answered questions about abiogenesis.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You are just reinforcing the point that creationists are being dishonest. This objecting is mind-numbingly silly. They are simply different subjects.

Do you complain about economics because it doesn't cover why money exists? History because it doesn't cover the why humans exist?

And yet again, you've just run away from the points I made and gone off into already answered questions about abiogenesis.

Evolutionists run and hide from abiogenesis and pretend that the first living creature is not needed for the existence of all living things.
Of course it is part of evolution because there is no evolution without the first living thing.
And that which is impossible will always be impossible even with an infinite amount of time.

What was the first living thing made of? What features did it have?
Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?

 

[ratiocinator]

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?

What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?

How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?

Where did it come into being? In space? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? In a tide pool?

In clay or mud? What protected it from UV rays? What was the composition of the atmosphere at that time?

If it was in water, how did the amino acids keep from being dissipated by the water?

What was the energy source for these reactions?

Where there any enzymes in it? Which ones? Certain required reactions need enzymes as catalysts. If not, the reaction may take a vast number of years. Surely the primitive thing could not last more than a minute much less than many years.

How did it survive? Where did the protective layer come from? What was the protected layer? How did that part get reproduced?

How was it able to divide itself? The protective layer must also divide and then close.

What was its food source? How did it remove waste? How did it repair itself? How did these things move in and out of the protective layer since they must be gated.

Please explain how it was ever able to reproduce itself.

If the first living thing was just proteins, how did it ever get evolve to use RNA and DNA? They are irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

If it was just RNA based, how did it to ever evolve to use DNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

If it was just DNA based, how did it to ever evolve to use RNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

It is was any mixture of these, then how could it or DNA, RNA, or proteins have evolved at all?

So what if we said (falsely) that we have no clue at all and it's a complete mystery? Then what?

All the evidence for subsequent evolution would still be there. It would still be 'proved' beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence for the age of the earth and the universe would all still be there.

You could use an argument from ignorance fallacy and claim that your god must have magicked the first living thing into existence about 3.7 billion years ago, but your claim of 6,000 years would still be obviously and comically wrong.

Of course that wouldn't be a sound argument, which is yet another falsehood that AiG uses. You cannot prove that something is impossible (0 probability) within physical laws (unless there is some logical contradiction) without claiming to be omniscient yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionists run and hide from abiogenesis and pretend that the first living creature is not needed for the existence of all living things.
Of course it is part of evolution because there is no evolution without the first living thing.
And that which is impossible will always be impossible even with an infinite amount of time.

What was the first living thing made of? What features did it have?
Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?

No, once again, a god could have magically poofed the first cell into existence. It does not matter to evolution. In fact since evolution does not care about the original source of life by moving the goal posts to abiogenesis you just admitted that evolution is a fact.

Thank you.

 

[ratiocinator]

Evolutionists run and hide from abiogenesis and pretend that the first living creature is not needed for the existence of all living things.

You really should stop bearing false witness. Nobody denies that there has to be a start to life but it isn't a problem that falls within the scope of the theory of evolution. Is this really too hard for you to understand?

And that which is impossible will always be impossible even with an infinite amount of time.

See #1,535.

 

[McBell]

You really should stop bearing false witness.

I do not see this happening.
Bearing false witness is all they have.
Without it, they would not have anything to post.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You really should stop bearing false witness. Nobody denies that there has to be a start to life but it isn't a problem that falls within the scope of the theory of evolution. Is this really too hard for you to understand?


See #1,535.

Not me.
Abiogenesis is impossible and that is why the evolutionists are not being honest by evading it at all cost,

 

[ratiocinator]

Abiogenesis is impossible and that is why the evolutionists are not being honest by evading it at all cost,

More false witness. Nobody is avoiding it. You have been given many honest and detailed answers that you've chosen to ignore.

Everybody acknowledges that we don't fully understand exactly what happened. You keep returning to it (much like AiG) with (apparently) the false idea that the lack of a full explanation is somehow fatal for evolution (not to mention cosmology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, geology, palaeontology, archaeology, genetics, etc.) and without a full explanation, somehow we'd all have to believe your fairytale about 6,000 years.

As I pointed out in #1,535 (which you ignored) all the evidence for subsequent evolution and all the other evidence for the age of the Earth and universe would still be there even, if abiogenesis was actually magic.

Your other approach (and the dishonest AiG site's) is to try to prove that abiogenesis is impossible. Quite apart from the endless baseless assumptions this approach has to rely on, trying to prove something is impossible (unless it's actually self-contradictory) is always a fool's errand. Even if you could show that no known physical laws could do the job, we know that don't know everything about the physical world. You can't rule out unknown unknowns. And, of course, no amount of improbability can make something impossible, for the reasons I've gone into before.

The above is just basic rationality, regardless of the subject. AiG, and other dishonest sites, tend to compound their dishonesty by making straw man versions of abiogenesis hypotheses to then attack.