What do you say the first living creature was?
On what basis do you say it?
If you don't know, how can you say any other answer is wrong?
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
On what basis do you say it?
If you don't know, how can you say any other answer is wrong?
Astrophile
Active Member
Probably from supernovae. The source of your information is A.L. Strom et al., 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 958 (1), L11, ShieldSquare Captcha .
The galaxies that Strom et al. observed have redshifts z = 2-3, implying that we see them as they were about 10-11 billion years ago, or 2.5-3.4 billion years after the origin of the universe. This gives enough time for stellar nucleosynthesis to produce measurable amounts of heavy elements.
I should also be interested to learn how you fit this time-scale into your theory of cosmology.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I doubt it. Remember you are the one that constantly uses circular reasoning. If I had someone willing to bet with me I would give that person ten to one odds.
And I would have won. No, we know evolution is true because all of the scientific evidence supports it. You remember what scientific evidence is. That is the concept that you do not understand and are too afraid of to learn.
Oh my, such projection. You are conflating scientists with people that work at creationist sites. One has to swear that one will not follow the scientific method at places like AiG.
I would have easily have won my bet. Are you still afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?
This is your claim, where is your evidence and coherent explanation?
That was a rhetorical question because you are wrong, and educated folks, like those on this forum, know it.
False. We know the universe is billions of years old because space telescopes allow us to observe the past and age of the universe. And evolution is known because it is a conclusion based on many types of evidence, like the fossil record, genetics, geology, and observed species evolving.
This isn't accurate or coherent. If this is what you think science is I suggest you go back to the 7th grade and learn. The odd thing is that this is how religious belief works.
There is none. Your flwed interpretation of the Bible isn't evidence.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You have not presented a single irrefutable proof, at all, ever here on RF.
That you think you have is most reveling.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Simply untrue. That is how creationists think and they admit it in their 'statements of faith'. They 'know' that their interpretation of the bible must be right, so they are the ones who are staring with their conclusions and claiming everything must fit in with that.
Real science doesn't work like that and saying that it does is bearing false witness. You may be just repeating it in good faith because you trust those who told you, but whoever originated it was either lying or speaking from complete ignorance.
Matthew 7:5
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Well there are a lot of interpretations of the Bible out there and that is reflected in statements of faith.
However the Bible is quite clear and so there is just one faith.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
If the Bible was as 'clear' as you claim it is, why are there so many different interpretations of it?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Is it? They insist on a literal interpretation of the creation myth. That only represents rather small cult. Most mainstream Christian denominations accept evolution and the science about the age of Earth and the universe.
So why do we have endless different denominations, cults, and sects that think so differently....?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
And you still seem to have missed the point. You criticised science for doing what creationist pseudoscience does quite openly without even much attempt to hide it. You said:
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.
Which is untrue about science, however this is perfectly true about creationist pseudoscience:
We know literal bible creation story is true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know the bible creations story is true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have been specially created because we know the bible creations story is true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts bible creation story must be false because we bible creation story is true.
And they make thins perfectly plain when they insist on their 'statements of faith' and the like. They literally don't allow anybody to contribute unless they sign up to thinking like that.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
In other words the Bible was wrong. Again.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
No.
Just Satan deceiving people so they will not see the truth.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Well...
Seems to me that you can not really blame the Bible for being wrong when the person making claims about the Bible is wrong much more often then they are right....
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I have told you that an unbeliever cannot understand the Bible.
It is a clear as crystal.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Yes you have.
Which you seem to have twisted into some of (ir)rational belief that because you are a believer you by default have to understand the Bible.
Problem is that your posts reveal you know less about the Bible than my 12 year old grandchild.
And I am willing to bet my five year old grandchild can give you a serious run for your money.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You don't understand it either. If you did you could justify your claims.
Your viws reveal two things: 1. that you don't undrstand science. 2. that you don't understand the history of both parts of the Bible, nor who wrote the parts, nor how it was compiled, nor how it was edited in copying, and translated over he last few thousand years to fit various agendas.
Judaism? Or the splinter sect that became Catholicism? Or the many tens of thousands of sects that came after Martin Luther protested some 1400 years later?
And what maks you certain it isn't you given how much you deny facts and observations that are explained by science?
Yet there are millions of Christian believers who accept evolution and science as a whole. Are you saying these believers don't understand the Bible? If so, how is your claim here correct and not a contradiction?
Not according to all the Christian believers who disagree with your interpretation. Explain.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Of course they are
And when you say Christians Christ said that the majority that believed on Him were not saved and will be in hell.
And where is this clearly stated?
All Christians I have talked to think they are going to heaven, and hell only applies to non-believers of the Jesus story. So why deny your fellow Christians heaven?
Do you think you are one of the saved? If so, why?