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

[ratiocinator]

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

Running away, yet again....

 

[F1fan]

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

See, you have no intention of addressing your fraudulent belief system, your bad religion. You can't engage with others over what facts and evidence shows. Bad faith. Your Fraud in the name of God does not get taught to children in the civilized world, they are taught science.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

See, you have no intention of addressing your fraudulent belief system, your bad religion. You can't engage with others over what facts and evidence shows. Bad faith. Your Fraud in the name of God does not get taught to children in the civilized world, they are taught science.

What are you talking about?
I engage quite a bit,

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

 

[Soandso]

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

Peer reviewed by who? Who are these peers? Are you talking about the guys that couldn't get past peer review in actual scientific communities so they made their own up? I guess it's easier to pass peer review when the bar is set lower

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

I haven't seen anything you have posted is a demonstration that abiogenesis is impossible.

The phenomenon and the theory of evolution are independent of the origin of life, so anyone accepting that science has honestly recognized that independence and attempts to obviously and erroneously conjoin them.

I agree that you believe certain things and that is these beliefs form the basis of your world view, but in all these threads, you have failed to do anything to convince others to reject valid science in favor of believing like you do. You have not convinced some believers to believe like you do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What are you talking about?
I engage quite a bit,

You post a lot. You respond to posts. I don't really see much of what I would call engagement. It seems that my observations are consistent with those of others.

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

This to me is a very closed-minded approach repeated on heavy rotation that eliminates, rather than fosters, engagement. It is or else without reason or real meaning other than it seems to sooth you to do it.

 

[F1fan]

What are you talking about?
I engage quite a bit,

You don’t engage by answering the questions of others, and you ignore facts and expertise in the sciences. That is your liability on any forum, and it is bad manners. You engage through your religious beliefs and bad faith approach.

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

Here is an example of your bad faith. It has been answered numerous times. Your rebellion against science, reason, facts, and your fellow forum members is a huge failure on your part. As I pointed out your behavior is much like that of Adam and Eve, and you haven’t learned the lesson yet.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You don’t engage by answering the questions of others, and you ignore facts and expertise in the sciences. That is your liability on any forum, and it is bad manners. You engage through your religious beliefs and bad faith approach.

Here is an example of your bad faith. It has been answered numerous times. Your rebellion against science, reason, facts, and your fellow forum members is a huge failure on your part. As I pointed out your behavior is much like that of Adam and Eve, and you haven’t learned the lesson yet.

And what was that answer again?

 

[McBell]

And what was that answer again?

What was the first living creature?
what features did it have?

 

[blü 2]

And what was that answer again?

That you know the bible account of Noah's flood is false because you know there's no universal geological flood layer, no simultaneous genetic bottlenecks in all land animals and no extra billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth.

The bible is very fallible indeed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

No, I am more than happy to discuss it. You only have to show a small degree of honesty. You have already tacitly admitted that evolution is a fact many many times. Now all that you have to do is to admit it explicitly.

 

[ratiocinator]

And what was that answer again?

Why should people repeat all the reasons why its a daft question to ask and that does nothing but expose your own ignorance....?

You've had many detailed reposes and all you do is act like a broken record.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, I am more than happy to discuss it. You only have to show a small degree of honesty. You have already tacitly admitted that evolution is a fact many many times. Now all that you have to do is to admit it explicitly.

Obviously scientists have tried to come up with some mechanism for the first living creature to have come into being.
They have theorized, run experiments and looked for some trace of this having happened of possibly happening today.
Based on all that what is the leading theories?
And can you give a reasonable first living creature?
Remember the more primitive the first living creature, the more impossible that it could have evolved into all living creatures.

I have done a number of analyses and presented calculations based on them.
But I will work with any reasonable first living creature.

 

[ratiocinator]

Obviously scientists have tried to come up with some mechanism for the first living creature to have come into being.

Running away and blatantly changing the subject again. Evolution and its evidence stands without a theory of abiogenesis. They are separate subjects with different evidence.

The evidence for evolution is beyond reasonable doubt regardless of how abiogenesis happened. It is beyond reasonable doubt even if abiogenesis was god-magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously scientists have tried to come up with some mechanism for the first living creature to have come into being.
They have theorized, run experiments and looked for some trace of this having happened of possibly happening today.
Based on all that what is the leading theories?
And can you give a reasonable first living creature?
Remember the more primitive the first living creature, the more impossible that it could have evolved into all living creatures.

I have done a number of analyses and presented calculations based on them.
But I will work with any reasonable first living creature.

Besides your terminology being all wrong you forgot to admit that evolution is a fact.

 

[McBell]

I have done a number of analyses and presented calculations based on them.

Presented them where?
Are you talking about the heavily refuted math posts of yours here on RF?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Besides your terminology being all wrong you forgot to admit that evolution is a fact.

Which kind of evolution.
Microevolution which is really just variation within created kinds?
That is about it.
Not macroevolution which is on kind evolving into another kind.
That has never happened nor could.

 

[ratiocinator]

Which kind of evolution.
Microevolution which is really just variation within created kinds?
That is about it.
Not macroevolution which is on kind evolving into another kind.
That has never happened nor could.

And another creationist misrepresentation. 'Macroevolution' is just a lot of 'microevolution'. It relies on exactly the same mechanisms. If you accept microevolution you've basically accepted all the aspects of the theory of evolution that lead directly to macroevolution.

You'd need to introduce some additional mechanism that would stop the processes that lead to microevolution from producing macroevolution.

Evolution at different scales: micro to macro

evolution.berkeley.edu

"Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection."

 

[blü 2]

Obviously scientists have tried to come up with some mechanism for the first living creature to have come into being.
They have theorized, run experiments and looked for some trace of this having happened of possibly happening today.
Based on all that what is the leading theories?
And can you give a reasonable first living creature?
Remember the more primitive the first living creature, the more impossible that it could have evolved into all living creatures.

I have done a number of analyses and presented calculations based on them.
But I will work with any reasonable first living creature.

As @Subduction Zone said, you've got your terminology in a knot.

The question of how the first self-reproducing cell came into being is a matter for abiogenesis studies ─ the processes that led from chemistry to biochemistry. Only AFTER that is it possible for evolution to occur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which kind of evolution.
Microevolution which is really just variation within created kinds?
That is about it.
Not macroevolution which is on kind evolving into another kind.
That has never happened nor could.

Nope. Not even close. Read @ratiocinator 's post.