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

[SavedByTheLord]

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.

Wrong again.
If abiogenesis is impossible without God then God exists and everything else that evolutionists believe will be falsified.

 

[ratiocinator]

If abiogenesis is impossible without God then God exists and everything else that evolutionists believe will be falsified.

Logic is just something for other people, eh?

This claim is utterly nonsensical and underlines your complete lack of understanding of science, evidence, and basic reasoning.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that says how life got started. There is no dependence on any specific mechanism for how that happened. The evidence for evolution does not rest on any assumption about how life started, so none of it would be falsified.

And that's before we get to the endless evidence for the age of the Earth and universe, which has nothing to do with biology and life at all.

Not only that, but disproving natural abiogenesis (which is actually a logical impossibility, for reasons that I gave in my post and you ignored) would not prove the existence of a god, and the existence of a god does not falsify evolution, as many believers here will tell you, it is perfectly possible to believe both.

If you believe liars, you will end up passing on their lies. You really should try to think this through for yourself.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Logic is just something for other people, eh?

This claim is utterly nonsensical and underlines your complete lack of understanding of science, evidence, and basic reasoning.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that says how life got started. There is no dependence on any specific mechanism for how that happened. The evidence for evolution does not rest on any assumption about how life started, so none of it would be falsified.

And that's before we get to the endless evidence for the age of the Earth and universe, which has nothing to do with biology and life at all.

Not only that, but disproving natural abiogenesis (which is actually a logical impossibility, for reasons that I gave in my post and you ignored) would not prove the existence of a god, and the existence of a god does not falsify evolution, as many believers here will tell you, it is perfectly possible to believe both.

If you believe liars, you will end up passing on their lies. You really should try to think this through for yourself.

Evolutionists and billions of years people run and hide from abiogenesis because they have no rational idea of how it could have occurred.
God must have created all things and God has told us exactly how He did it.
Evolution and billions of years are false.

 

[ratiocinator]

Evolutionists and billions of years people run and hide from abiogenesis because they have no rational idea of how it could have occurred.

This is more false witness. It's simply not true. Nobody has hidden from this and you've had your questions addressed. The evidence that people haven't run away is still right here on this forum.

The only person actually running away from anything here is you. This reply is yet another example. You didn't actually address any of the points I made. Here are a few point I've made that you have simply ignored (run away from)

1. Proving that something is impossible via natural means is, itself, logically impossible.
2. No amount of improbability makes something impossible.
3. That a disproof of natural abiogenesis (even if that was possible) would not falsify evolution or the endless evidence for it and the other theories that tell us the age of the Earth and universe.

God must have created all things and God has told us exactly how He did it.
Evolution and billions of years are false.

Baseless, unargued assertions.

 

[McBell]

Evolutionists and billions of years people run and hide from abiogenesis because they have no rational idea of how it could have occurred.
God must have created all things and God has told us exactly how He did it.
Evolution and billions of years are false.

Where does God explain how He created everything?
Not the Bible.
The Bible only says he did it.
Not how he did it.

So you just told a bold face lie.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Where does God explain how He created everything?
Not the Bible.
The Bible only says he did it.
Not how he did it.

So you just told a bold face lie.

Genesis 1 and 2 without evolution and in just 6 days.

 

[McBell]

Genesis 1 and 2 without evolution and in just 6 days.

Again, that just says god did it.
it does not explain "exactly" (YOUR word, not mine) how.

So you lie is still a lie.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Problem is they never ever show and explain the so called 'evidence' because they simply have no evidence.

They just say they do.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Genesis 1 and 2 without evolution and in just 6 days.

All that from a book that nobody knows who actually wrote it and when it was written.

 

[ratiocinator]

Genesis 1 and 2...

That contradict each other.

 

[blü 2]

The following all show that evolution and billions of years are false. They also prove the Bible is true, and that God created all things in 6-day, about 6000 years ago.

Each of these either directly refute evolutionists claims and/or are questions they have no answer for. It is like a comedy where the evolutionists say, “ask us anything about origins”. So, you start asking them questions. And each time they say, “I do not know”. After a while you give up, they then say, “is there any other question that you want answered?”

If you do not refute everyone of these, then evolution and billions of years are falsified. A theory can be refuted by just one fact.
Example of a false theory: the sum of any 2 numbers is 100. Proof by results: 10+90, 54+46, pi + 100-pi
Falsified: 1+1=2 and for each pair given above, an infinite number of pairs refutes it.

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? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.
If it was 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.
Please explain how anything that is irreducibly complex evolves.
Please explain how the eye came to be. It is irreducibly complex. It happened independently more than once. Please explain all of these plus hearing, smell, and taste.
Please explain how flight came to be. It is irreducibly complex. It happened independently more than once. Please explain all of these.
Please explain how blood clotting came to be. It is irreducibly complex.
Please explain how the first multi cell creature came to be.
Please explain how the bone tissue came to be.
Please explain how the citrus cycle came to be. It is irreducibly complex.
Please explain how ATP came to be and how the first creature that used it evolved that capability. The mechanism is irreducibly complex.
In fact, there are many things in living things that are irreducibly complex. Please explain how any of them evolved.
The science seems to have identified mitochondrial Eve and the recent origin of x chromosome Adam. This matches recent creation and destroys evolution. Why?

Short lived comets are a problem for long ages of the universe. Why?

Where are all the remains of all the people that have died? Where are all their artifacts? If mankind has been around for 100,000 years, there must be a lot more than has been found. Why?
If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why? There should also be partially developed organs, etc. in all individual creatures right now and that have ever lived. There are not why? The odds against these 2 things are mind boggling.
They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?
How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? Within a short time, all the basic body types appear fully developed. The trilobite just appears and yet it has one of the most complex eyes.
Why are there living fossils?
How does one explain polystrate trees?
How does one explain soft tissue and blood vessels in dinosaur tissue?
How does one explain dinosaur tissue with DNA and other biomolecules still being intact?
How does one explain dinosaur tissue, and diamonds that are not C-14 dead?
Why is there too much C-14 in some samples of coal and fossilized wood?
How do you explain ancient microbes revived?
How do you explain parentless polonium 210 radiohaloes in granites?
How do you explain elliptical polonium 210 halos in the same strata with circular halos?
There is a great deception in some of the ages that are quoted by evolutionists. Why the deception?
There are inconsistencies in the radioactive dating results of many things. So isochron dating has been used. But even then, there are many large discrepancies. Why?
The inconsistencies in the dating of things and in all “clocks” used to set the age of things can be simply explained if some miraculous events occurred. These would be 6-day creation, the fall of man and the curse on creation and the worldwide flood about 4500 years ago.
What is the recipe for primordial soup, and can I buy a can of it?
There is a lack of a 50-50 racemization of amino acids in fossils. Why?
Why do living things have all left-handed amino acid. How did that happen by random processes?
There are discontinuous fossil sequences in the fossil record. Why?
Oil, coal, and opals can be formed rapidly under certain conditions. Why the deception?
The evidence is that the coal beads and fossilized wood were formed rapidly. Why?
There are missing layers representing millions of years. Why?
Why are there ephemeral markings at the boundaries of layers? That shows rapid deposit.
The Great Barrier reef is only 4200 years old; the oldest tree is only 4300 years old. Why?
The age of the Sahara Desert is only 4000 years old. Why?

If intelligent man was around for 100,000 years or more, Cro-Magnon for about 40,000 years, why did he not figure out how to drop a seed in the ground and farm? How did they go from nothing to farming? Why does this phenomenon occur in diverse places around the world at the same?
Where are all the structures that the built? The pyramids are about 4200 years old. How did they go from nothing to that? And this phenomenon occurs in many parts of the world about the same time?
Where are all the writings from before 6000 years ago? Yet they go from nothing to writings. Why does this phenomenon occur in a number of places around the world at the same?
Why are there no calendars over 6000 years?
History is too short. Why?
There is too much helium in radioactive rocks. Why?
There is helium in old zircon crystals. Why?
Thick sedimentary rock layers bent beyond the fracturing point, yet not fractured. Why?
The Mississippi river delta and deltas around the world show the result of one large flood like the worldwide flood. Why?
The arms of spiral galaxies should no longer exist, but they do. Why?
There is not enough helium in the earth’s atmosphere to support an old atmosphere. Why?
There is not enough sediment at the bottom of the sea to support an old earth. Why?
High speed objects in globular clusters show that they are young. Why?
Living fossils invalidate not only the age and origin of the sedimentary rock but refute evolution over eons.
The natural direction of life is degeneration not evolution.
The genetic load in all creatures means they would have ceased to exist after so much time. They have not. Why?
The DNA, RNA, and proteins with some of these being enzymes is a triply interconnected irreducibly complex system. Evolution could not be the mechanism to produce these.
There are depictions of dinosaurs from ancient cultures. Why?
Job 40:15-19 describes a plant eating dinosaur, probably Brachiosaurus. Why?
Almost all ancient cultures have a record of a worldwide blood and a remnant saved on a great boat, sometimes 8 people. How do explain that?
There are about 30,000 figurines of dinosaurs date about 2500 years ago. How do you explain that?
All population growth statistics invalidate mankind being around for more than 6000 years old but match only 8 people being saved in the ark. It also matches the world population at the time of Christ and today.
It does not seem that there is enough force for the Indian sub-continent to have crashed into Asia and raised the Himalayan Mountain range with just plate tectonics. Why?

The dim young sun paradox invalidates long ages for the sun, evolution, and life on the earth.
The rate of recession of the moon from the earth limits the age of the moon.
The rapid decline of the Earth’s magnetic strength limits the age of the earth. Why?
The salt content of the oceans is too low for an old earth. Why?
The concentration of various minerals in the ocean limits the age of the oceans. Why?
The rock layers show no signs of erosion between layers. Why?
There is no time between rock layers for slow deposition. Why?
There is not enough erosion of continental plates for an old earth. Why?
Earth is not cooled enough for it to be old. Why?
Earth’s rotation rate is slowing for it to be old. Why?
Haeckel’s drawings were not accurate, yet his drawings are still used for evolution. Why the fraud?
Nebraska man was not a man. Why the fraud?
The Milken experiment is a disaster for evolutionists. Why the deception.
Beware of the old con “the building blocks of life”. Why the deception?

Please explain how asexual reproduction evolved into sexual reproduction. Without all things working the switch over leads to the destruction of the creature. But there is no survival advantage to the incomplete system.
Please explain how asexual reproduction evolved. It too is irreducibly complex.

Blah blah blah.

You still haven't got back to me with the three things about Noah's flood that I asked you for ─ the single universal flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor, and dated to the last 10,000 years, AND the genetic bottleneck in every species of land animal all the bottlenecks having the same date as the flood layer, AND the one billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth.

After all, if you can't find those, then you know that Noah's flood never happened in reality.

Despite anything the bible might say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well Answers in Genesis is peer reviewed, uses the scientific method and publishes papers, etc.

What a (bad) joke.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Indeed. It's also exactly what excludes them from being scientific in any way, shape or form.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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 asked for examples. You got them.
Your response?

Same old, same old... Completely ignoring them and then doubling down on the very same type of lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations that the examples in fact just pointed out.

It would be hilarious if you weren't actually serious.
But since you are, it's just depressingly sad.

Another mind binds the dust.
Another human brain lost to the blind faith indoctrination of make-belief.

Always sad, no matter who it is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Nobody on this side of the fence is avoiding it.

All the avoiding is on your end. How many times has the strawman been pointed out to you?
How many times must it be repeated?

What do you hope to accomplish by insisting on being wrong?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolutionists and billions of years people run and hide from abiogenesis because they have no rational idea of how it could have occurred.

Here's something for you to think about.... The fact that the word "abiogenesis" even exists, shows that it isn't being ignored at all.
It's the name of the scientific field that studies the origins of life.

If it were really ignored, then why is there an entire field of study dedicated to it?

God must have created all things and God has told us exactly how He did it.

Yeah, he "spoke" it into existence.

Great "explanation" you got there.

Evolution and billions of years are false.

Repeating false claims won't make them true.

 

[Sargonski]

Blah blah blah.

You still haven't got back to me with the three things about Noah's flood that I asked you for ─ the single universal flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor, and dated to the last 10,000 years, AND the genetic bottleneck in every species of land animal all the bottlenecks having the same date as the flood layer, AND the one billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth.

After all, if you can't find those, then you know that Noah's flood never happened in reality.

Despite anything the bible might say.

True -- and we can't even say for certain that the Bible is claiming 6000 year old Earth .. and certainly not 6000 yr old universe.

The Bible is talking about the formation of the earth and solar system .. not the universe .. separation of the salty water from the Fresh .. and the light from dark .. but we don't have any separation of light from dark until the end of the 4th day .. prior to which there are no days .. no way to guage time .. and so the first few days could be billions of years. Genesis 1


And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

It is quite clear - there are no lights in the sky to mark the days and years until the 4th day

Now this flood nonsense .. if you go by the Bible Noah still alive at the time of Abe's Birth -- the Flood ~ 300 years prior .. Abe ~ 1800 -2000 BC (scholarly consensis is closer to 1800 - around the time of Hammurabi or there-abouts. ) .. but either way . we have a flood date of 2100-2300 BC which adds even more highly problematic factors .. such as the fact that we have written history going back this far .. one of the first Law codes Ur Nammu comes to us from round 2100 BC .. Sargon of Akkad uniting the City states of Sumeria in 2300 BC.. -- continuous civilization in numerous places around the world .. China - India - Australia - South America Egypt - Africa and so on

and similar to the genetic bottleneck -- if there had been an abrupt end .. you would dig and find this abrupt end to the culture .. pottery - art - language - Customs and so on .. then when the flood hits .. you have this big gap .. and something and completely different starting when occupied later by different people .. with different genetics and traits as well ..

Simply doesn't happen .. what we get is what shold not happen .. continuous culture throughout this time period. -- there was no flood covering the entire planet 2300 BC to present -- that wiped out all land species .. simply didn't happen. ... there were Spectacled Bears in South America before the time of the Flood .. and they were still walking around after the time of the flood. but nowhere else on the planet can they be found .. same with Kangaroo's in Australia .. and so on.. but nevermind .. we have written history from this time period from different places in different languages .. different societies -- none recording a huge flood that wiped out everyone cept Noah and family .. and sorry .. "maybe it happened but wasn't recorded" doesn't work

 

[F1fan]

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

The problem for you is that abiogenesis IS not only possible, but highly probable. It offers an explanation, and there is no factual alternative. Your rebellion against science and nature is much like the rebellion of Adam and Eve, yet you interpret the stories so badly due to Fraud in the name of God: creationism and the deceptions for profit. Have you once considered that you are incorrect given the lack of evidence for your religious beliefs, and the massive evidence for science?

You have engaged enough in these threads to understand that you are on the wrong side of nature, evidence, and reason that your consistency in posting false claims must be deliberate fraud itself. Have you noticed it doesn't work against the well educated?

 

[F1fan]

Evolutionists and billions of years people run and hide from abiogenesis because they have no rational idea of how it could have occurred.

False. Evolution is a fact-based explanation for how species evolved over time. And abiogenesis is a fact-based hypothesis that has levels of successful tests.

God must have created all things and God has told us exactly how He did it.

There is no evidence of any Gods existing, so irrelevant. Your conclusion here is not fact-based.

Evolution and billions of years are false.

This is a false claim that is contrary to observation. The photos from space telescopes gives us the ability to see how old the universe actually is, and it is over 13 billion years old. Why you deny this is due to bad religion.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

False. Evolution is a fact-based explanation for how species evolved over time. And abiogenesis is a fact-based hypothesis that has levels of successful tests.

There is no evidence of any Gods existing, so irrelevant. Your conclusion here is not fact-based.

This is a false claim that is contrary to observation. The photos from space telescopes gives us the ability to see how old the universe actually is, and it is over 13 billion years old. Why you deny this is due to bad religion.

So nothing of a real answer for the origin of anything.
What was the 2nd living thing?