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

[SavedByTheLord]

No, you offered flawed interpretations. If you give up with what you posted so far, then you have lost. What you have posted isn't factual, nor conclusive. You can't even answer the simple questions I asked you. If you have absolute knowledge then you would be able to answer. You aren't even trying.

if you can refute any or meet my challenge feel free to try.

 

[ratiocinator]

Maybe that is why they have the windows close when a woman gives birth, just in case the new born has wings and flies away.

The Wonderful Egg. A dinosaur hatched from an egg and had wings which its parents did not. 1950s book to indoctrinate kids.

Where are the magnetic monopoles?

Where are the pop 3 stars?

Why is there an abundance of heavy elements in the early universe, especially nickel?

Why does Venus rotate backwards?

Why does Uranus rotate on its side?
What is Titan retrograde?

Why is the microwaves from the Cosmic Background Radiation not polarized in primordial B mode?

More running away.

What's so terrifying to you about actually addressing the points being made that you have to run away by posting a whole load of unrelated (but equally absurd) questions.....?

Do you really believe what you say at all, or is it that you believe it but you actually know that your own arguments are flimsy to non-existent, or perhaps that you're parroting some source without understanding and know that you can't defend it in detail yourself?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

More running away.

What's so terrifying to you about actually addressing the points being made that you have to run away by posting a whole load of unrelated (but equally absurd) questions.....?

Do you really believe what you say at all, or is it that you believe it but you actually know that your own arguments are flimsy to non-existent, or perhaps that you're parroting some source without understanding and know that you can't defend it in detail yourself?

Why does Venus rotate backwards?

Why does Uranus rotate on its side?

What is Titan retrograde?

Why does galaxy 4622 have arms that are leading?

 

[ratiocinator]

if you can refute any or meet my challenge feel free to try.

There's no point in doing it yet again. You just ignore it when your arguments are refuted and pretend it hasn't happened.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why does Venus rotate backwards?

Why does Uranus rotate on its side?

What is Titan retrograde?

Why does galaxy 4622 have arms that are leading?

See #1,602. You're just illustrating my point by running away again.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

There's no point in doing it yet again. You just ignore it when your arguments are refuted and pretend it hasn't happened.

The Big Bang died, the evidence has killed it.

Where are the magnetic monopoles?

Where are the pop 3 stars?

Why is there an abundance of heavy elements in the early universe, especially nickel?

Why does Venus rotate backwards?

Why does Uranus rotate on its side?

What is Titan retrograde?

Why does galaxy 4622 have arms that are leading?

Why is the microwaves from the Cosmic Background Radiation not polarized in primordial B mode?

 

[ratiocinator]

The Big Bang died, the evidence has killed it.

Where are the magnetic monopoles?

Where are the pop 3 stars?

Why is there an abundance of heavy elements in the early universe, especially nickel?

Why does Venus rotate backwards?

Why does Uranus rotate on its side?

What is Titan retrograde?

Why does galaxy 4622 have arms that are leading?

Why is the microwaves from the Cosmic Background Radiation not polarized in primordial B mode?

See #1,602.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

See #1,602.

Where did the universe come from?

If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?

 

[ratiocinator]

Where did the universe come from?

If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?

See #1,602.

Not to mention that I have personally answered this question, in terms of general relativity and in some detail, many times already. I'll answer it again if you can explain to me what the point would be as you totally ignored it before and are now pretending that you haven't had an answer at all.

There is literally no point in giving you answers to any of your questions if you just ignore them, run away, and ask a load of other nonsense questions instead.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

See #1,602.

Not to mention that I have personally answered this question, in terms of general relativity and in some detail, many times already. I'll answer it again if you can explain to me what the point would be as you totally ignored it before and are now pretending that you haven't had an answer at all.

There is literally no point in giving you answers to any of your questions if you just ignore them, run away, and ask a load of other nonsense questions instead.

Which question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually,
you need to start with nothing then get that to become all the matter, every and forces of nature
Then you have to get that to become the first living creature
and then prove that became all the living things in the world that have ever lived.

BTW, where are the magnetic monopoles?

Nope, I do not. It is not my problem if you are unable to reason. But like it or not now you have admitted that abiogenesis is a fact by moving the goalposts.

Moving the goalposts is a logical fallacy. One does that when they cannot defend a claim that the person started with, as you did with your denial of science in regards to evolution. You first moved it to abiogenesis. Since the source of first life does not matter to the theory of evolution by moving the goalposts that far you have conceded the earlier argument.

Now you are trying to move the argument to the Big Bang. Since abiogenesis does not rely on how the universe started you just acknowledged that you lost the abiogenesis argument by moving it to the Big Bang.

Do you want to defeat yourself again?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope, I do not. It is not my problem if you are unable to reason. But like it or not now you have admitted that abiogenesis is a fact by moving the goalposts.

Moving the goalposts is a logical fallacy. One does that when they cannot defend a claim that the person started with, as you did with your denial of science in regards to evolution. You first moved it to abiogenesis. Since the source of first life does not matter to the theory of evolution by moving the goalposts that far you have conceded the earlier argument.

Now you are trying to move the argument to the Big Bang. Since abiogenesis does not rely on how the universe started you just acknowledged that you lost the abiogenesis argument by moving it to the Big Bang.

Do you want to defeat yourself again?

Well why not start with the 2nd living creature where did that come from and what were its features?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe that is why they have the windows close when a woman gives birth, just in case the new born has wings and flies away.

The Wonderful Egg. A dinosaur hatched from an egg and had wings which its parents did not. 1950s book to indoctrinate kids.

Where are the magnetic monopoles?

Where are the pop 3 stars?

Why is there an abundance of heavy elements in the early universe, especially nickel?

Why does Venus rotate backwards?

Why does Uranus rotate on its side?
What is Titan retrograde?

Why is the microwaves from the Cosmic Background Radiation not polarized in primordial B mode?

No arms slowly changed to wings as creatures evolved. "Half a wing" is very useful for critters that brood eggs. They can create a larger brood and keep them warm. You are making a common creationist error of thinking that the present state was a goal all along. The present state is not a goal, it is a result.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well why not start with the 2nd living creature where did that come from and what were its features?

The second critter came from the first. It may have even have been identical. At that time The genome would have been incredibly short compared to today and perfect copying may have been the norm for quite a while.

 

[ratiocinator]

Which question?

I know this might seem like an alien concept (as you never seem to do it) but it's traditional to quote a part of somebody's post and then give them a response underneath it. This is what I did. The question I was referring to is the one I quoted in my post.

If this is too confusing for you, perhaps you should reconsider posting on forums.....?

[Edited for typo.]

 

[F1fan]

if you can refute any or meet my challenge feel free to try.

There’s nothing to refute. You have a bad habit of making claims that lack evidence. That is what you need to provide to have a reasonable argument. Making claims without evidence is invalid immediately.

So where is the evidence that your version of God exists objectively? We have been waiting.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well why not start with the 2nd living creature where did that come from and what were its features?

It was a bit of a dud; only reproduced once and then went extinct. We are all descended from the 243rd living creature.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God created it all.
Maybe that is why they have the windows close when a woman gives birth, just in case the new born has wings and flies away,
The Wonderful Egg. A dinosaur hatched from an egg and had wings which its parents did not. 1950s book to indoctrinate kids.

Where are the magnetic monopoles?

Where are the pop 3 stars?

Why is there an abundance of heavy elements in the early universe, especially nickel?

Why does Venus rotate backwards?

Why does Uranus rotate on its side?

So nothing. You have no answers.
This pile of words above certainly doesn't provide any answers to anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

if you can refute any or meet my challenge feel free to try.

Been there done that, bought the tee shirt. You even admitted that you lost.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Been there done that, bought the tee shirt. You even admitted that you lost.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

This is it in a nutshell.

We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).

Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.