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

[TagliatelliMonster]

The observation is that no one has ever seen one kind change into another kind.

Evolution would be disproven if such would happen.

An analysis of the genetics proves that too.

Indeed, genetics support evolution as it doesn't show that one "kind" evolves into another.
Species never outgrow their own ancestry.

But what limits them from making even larger dogs?

On a practical level, commercial demand.
On a principle level, physics.

So macro evolution is falsified .

Arguing strawmen doesn't disprove actual theories.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As every other poster on this thread has pointed out to you, nobody who understands evolution expects to see one "kind" turn into another "kind."

I can only assume that they mean a lineage. So "kind" can be any branch on the tree of life.
So a change in "kind" would be a species jumping branches. A species giving rise to a species that is thus not a subspecies of the ancestral one.
Like cats evolving into dogs or any mammal producing non-mammals or alike.

After all, a human is a "kind" of ape, a "kind" of mammal, a "kind" of tetrapod, a "kind" of vertebrate, a "kind" of eukaryote...
Apes won't produce non-apes. Apes will produce more apes.

All you've demonstrated here is that you have no idea what macroevolution is in the first place.

Which is strange because it's been explained to him/her quite clearly and in very simple, non-jargon, terms.

But off course, the willfully ignorant will obviously remain ignorant.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can only assume that they mean a lineage. So "kind" can be any branch on the tree of life.
So a change in "kind" would be a species jumping branches. A species giving rise to a species that is thus not a subspecies of the ancestral one.
Like cats evolving into dogs or any mammal producing non-mammals or alike.

After all, a human is a "kind" of ape, a "kind" of mammal, a "kind" of tetrapod, a "kind" of vertebrate, a "kind" of eukaryote...
Apes won't produce non-apes. Apes will produce more apes.

I was thinking along the same lines. We always get the "dogs produce dogs" type of Kent Hovind assertions from certain people.

Which is strange because it's been explained to him/her quite clearly and in very simple, non-jargon, terms.

But off course, the willfully ignorant will obviously remain ignorant.

I've seen you do it yourself, I don't know how many times at this point.

 

[blü 2]

And yet it is all true and certain.

You really think that?

You seem to need to shout a lot here to convince yourself.

 

[blü 2]

The observation is that no one has ever seen one kind change into another kind.
An analysis of the genetics proves that too.

Alas, you speak from ignorance. Read >this< carefully, and keep re-reading it until you understand what it says.

Note the changes in the genetics.

 

[McBell]

I now you repeated yourself. It's like, your M.O.

It is my opinion that it is more like a tell.
When ever they know they just got their arse handed to them they ramble off a bunch of unrelated questions in the hopes that no one else will notice it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Alas, you speak from ignorance. Read >this< carefully, and keep re-reading it until you understand what it says.

Note the changes in the genetics.

Well that is all interesting.
Of course they are all still bacteria.
Kind produces kind and this verifies what the Bible says.

 

[ratiocinator]

Kind produces kind and this verifies what the Bible says.

What's the exact definition of 'kind'? Do you actually know what you're talking about when you use the term?

 

[blü 2]

Well that is all interesting.
Of course they are all still bacteria.
Kind produces kind and this verifies what the Bible says.

But if you can do all that in a matter of months, imagine what you can achieve given at least three and a half billion years!

As for verifying what the bible says, where's that universal geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor?

And where's that genetic bottleneck in every species of land animal, all of them dating to the same date as the flood?

And where's that extra billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth?

Or can't you find them?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

But if you can do all that in a matter of months, imagine what you can achieve given at least three and a half billion years!

As for verifying what the bible says, where's that universal geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor?

And where's that genetic bottleneck in every species of land animal, all of them dating to the same date as the flood?

And where's that extra billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth?

Or can't you find them?

Well almost sedimentary rock layers were formed during the flood.
And they exist all over the world.
As to the water, God raised the mountains and lowered the ocean basins near the end of the flood to drain off all that water .

As to the genetic bottleneck, scientists have identified one, they attribute it to Toba and off course also get the date wrong.

Study Shows How Humanity Survived The Toba Supervolcano Eruption

A massive volcanic eruption in Indonesia about 74,000 years ago likely caused severe climate disruption in many areas of the globe, but early human populations were sheltered from the worst effects.

www.forbes.com

 

[blü 2]

Well almost sedimentary rock layers were formed during the flood.

I'd say that was outright nonsense. But please feel free to produce a report by a reputable geologist in a peer-reviewed magazine of geological science [as distinct from fundamentalist theology] who demonstrates from evidence that your proposition is correct.

As to the water, God raised the mountains and lowered the ocean basins near the end of the flood to drain off all that water .

Drained it off to where? It's not on the earth anywhere ─ if it was, the tops of the highest mountains would still be under water.

Was that before or after the pixies brought Christmas Hershey Bars for Shem and Ham, but only coal for Japheth?

As to the genetic bottleneck, scientists have identified one, they attribute it to Toba and off course also get the date wrong.

One won't do. Every 'kind' of land animal was on the ark, with no more than seven pairs and very usually only one pair, so the bottlenecks were universal ─ including the humans, though of course there's no such genetic bottleneck in humans either.

No, with the flood story, the bible is simple reporting Mesopotamian folklore, as I pointed out you before.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I'd say that was outright nonsense. But please feel free to produce a report by a reputable geologist in a peer-reviewed magazine of geological science [as distinct from fundamentalist theology] who demonstrates from evidence that your proposition is correct.


Drained it off to where? It's not on the earth anywhere ─ if it was, the tops of the highest mountains would still be under water.

Was that before or after the pixies brought Christmas Hershey Bars for Shem and Ham, but only coal for Japheth?


One won't do. Every 'kind' of land animal was on the ark, with no more than seven pairs and very usually only one pair, so the bottlenecks were universal ─ including the humans, though of course there's no such genetic bottleneck in humans either.

No, with the flood story, the bible is simple reporting Mesopotamian folklore, as I pointed out you before.

God of course would have chosen the right ones of each kind that would produce the greatest diversity immediately after the flood.
Using His Almighty power, God would have also increased that diversity. It is obvious from the word of God, that God made some genetic changes to man, so God may have done so with all creatures. Many species bear offspring at a young age and so their diversity would have increased quickly. The animals were sent throughout the world and this would have given them very different environments thus further increasing diversity.

 

[ratiocinator]

Using His Almighty power, God would have also increased that diversity.

Calling your god a liar again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course they are all still bacteria.
Kind produces kind and this verifies what the Bible says.

Any other observation would disprove evolution.

This is only the, what.... 15th time this is pointed out to you.

 

[ratiocinator]

I can only assume that they mean a lineage. So "kind" can be any branch on the tree of life.

The problem is, of course, that creationists never provide a proper definition of 'kind'. It means whatever they want it to at the time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As to the genetic bottleneck, scientists have identified one, they attribute it to Toba and off course also get the date wrong.

Study Shows How Humanity Survived The Toba Supervolcano Eruption

A massive volcanic eruption in Indonesia about 74,000 years ago likely caused severe climate disruption in many areas of the globe, but early human populations were sheltered from the worst effects.

www.forbes.com

That's one genetic bottleneck in one species dated to a completely different time frame.
You need a universal genetic bottleneck in all species which all date to the same time frame.

And that does not exist.


Furthermore, the human bottleneck is not a reduction of the population to a handful of humans. We are still talking about a population of a few thousand. You're clearly grasping at straws here.

 

[F1fan]

Well that is all interesting.
Of course they are all still bacteria.

There are thousands of kinds of bacteria. Some beneficial to humans, some deadly, so obviously not all the same. And still no explanation whay your idea of God would create bactria that kills humans. It was only recently that humans, through science, wre abl to create antibiotics to hlp save human lives. But as the ducatd know, bacteria are evolving resistance to antibiotics and science has to keep working to stay one step ahead.

Your Bible stories never mention bacteria or how it is fatal to humans. If offered no "heads up" to humans about this threat.

Kind produces kind and this verifies what the Bible says.

That is why the Bible is wrong. Or rather, your interpretation is flawed and in contrary to facts and observations.

You still haven't explained how millions of species today (and millions more that have died off) came from a small collection of animals on a boat. Your notion of "kinds" doesn't explain anything, nor does microevolution claims. Wher is your gnetic maps that prove your model correct? You don't have any. Where are the fossils that show you are correct? You have none. Where is the chart that shows how "kinds" from the Ark evolved to be the huge diversity of life w see today? You offer none. Why should we take your flawed opinion for granted when you don't offer us evidence that you are correct?

 

[McBell]

God of course would have chosen the right ones of each kind that would produce the greatest diversity immediately after the flood.
Using His Almighty power, God would have also increased that diversity. It is obvious from the word of God, that God made some genetic changes to man, so God may have done so with all creatures. Many species bear offspring at a young age and so their diversity would have increased quickly. The animals were sent throughout the world and this would have given them very different environments thus further increasing diversity.

Seems i am going to need a boat for this level of bovine feces....

 

[F1fan]

God of course would have chosen the right ones of each kind that would produce the greatest diversity immediately after the flood.

Then your God selected bacteria that is fatal to humans, as well as the good king. Why is that? What was the intetion of your God to do this when it results in th deaths of humans, including children?

Using His Almighty power, God would have also increased that diversity. It is obvious from the word of God, that God made some genetic changes to man, so God may have done so with all creatures. Many species bear offspring at a young age and so their diversity would have increased quickly. The animals were sent throughout the world and this would have given them very different environments thus further increasing diversity.

This is a guess. Where is the evidence? Where are the facts? Where is the data?

You make claims, yet there is no genetic bottleneck in genetic maps. And if God is going to use magic to diversify life, why bother with a global flood (of which there is no global sediment layer)? God could have just zapped all the sinners and avoid killing all the life on the planet. And let's not ignore that the Flood didn't work. Sin prevailed. It was such a failure that God had to try fixing things again by impregnating a women so she would have a son that would later be executed as a sacrifice to God to pay for the sins rampant in humanity. And how well has this worked? Not very good. Christians and Muslims fighting for land during the Crusades. Christians killing Jews in what is called the Holocaust (Lutherans and Catholics). And what about that Christians organization called the KKK? And today, Christians can't agree with each other, and you condemn many of them to hell given your recent comments. Not very Christian, to my thinking. But it illustrates the corruption of the religion and how it offers no truth.

As I have said, God is either incompetent, or a sociopath.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Then your God selected bacteria that is fatal to humans, as well as the good king. Why is that? What was the intetion of your God to do this when it results in th deaths of humans, including children?

This is a guess. Where is the evidence? Where are the facts? Where is the data?

You make claims, yet there is no genetic bottleneck in genetic maps. And if God is going to use magic to diversify life, why bother with a global flood (of which there is no global sediment layer)? God could have just zapped all the sinners and avoid killing all the life on the planet. And let's not ignore that the Flood didn't work. Sin prevailed. It was such a failure that God had to try fixing things again by impregnating a women so she would have a son that would later be executed as a sacrifice to God to pay for the sins rampant in humanity. And how well has this worked? Not very good. Christians and Muslims fighting for land during the Crusades. Christians killing Jews in what is called the Holocaust (Lutherans and Catholics). And what about that Christians organization called the KKK? And today, Christians can't agree with each other, and you condemn many of them to hell given your recent comments. Not very Christian, to my thinking. But it illustrates the corruption of the religion and how it offers no truth.

As I have said, God is either incompetent, or a sociopath.

Some bacteria is beneficial .
And death and sickness are the result of the fall.
And God wanted to clean the whole earth. He could have done it some other way, butGod chose water.
Lutherans and Catholics are not saved because they trust in works.
So they count as unbelievers. So there atrocities counts toward the unbelievers like Hitler, Mao, Stalin and the abortionists.