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

[SavedByTheLord]

It got its head stuck in a car door while the car was moving.

Kettle...
Pot...
and all that

So, evolutionists can’t explain the long neck of the giraffe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, evolutionists can’t explain the long neck of the giraffe.

What the heck is an "evolutionist"?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What the heck is an "evolutionist"?

Some who believes in evolution, like you.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

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.

I like this thread. The point is not that there are no answers to any of these questions, but that they are all supportive of a literal reading of the Genesis accounts of Creation, the Flood, and human genealogies in the Bible!

Food for thought. Well done and thank you.

unfortunately for YEC Christians, the above information is not even allowed on many forums in the public space. I posted these on another forum and it got immediately stripped down to just the link citing bandwith and storage restrictions and threatened me with sanction if i reposted it again! Its a real shame that an honest reading of scripture cannot be supported by any science...as soon as that is done, the Young Earth conclusions in science are immediately discredited claiming its conclusions are wrong. The problem with that is that errors are found in all science study...numerous experiemental conclusions have been thrown out even in secular world views due to errors...however, apparently, YEC are not allowed that same grace even among Theistic Evolutionary Christian Scientist circles even when there is merit in pursuing the YEC scientific conclusions

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I like this thread. The point is not that there are no answers to any of these questions, but that they are all supportive of a literal reading of the Genesis accounts of Creation, the Flood, and human genealogies in the Bible!

Food for thought. Well done and thank you.

unfortunately for YEC Christians, the above information is not even allowed on many forums in the public space. I posted these on another forum and it got immediately stripped down to just the link citing bandwith and storage restrictions and threatened me with sanction if i reposted it again! Its a real shame that an honest reading of scripture cannot be supported by any science...as soon as that is done, the Young Earth conclusions in science are immediately discredited claiming its conclusions are wrong. The problem with that is that errors are found in all science study...numerous experiemental conclusions have been thrown out even in secular world views due to errors...however, apparently, YEC are not allowed that same grace even among Theistic Evolutionary Christian Scientist circles even when there is merit in pursuing the YEC scientific conclusions

That is true in many venues.
There are many who have been censored. It is the only way that evolution and billions of years can be pushed. With censorship, propaganda, and deceit.
This forum has let me post info so that is to their credit.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

That is true in many venues.
There are many who have been censored. It is the only way that evolution and billions of years can be pushed. With censorship, propaganda, and deceit.
This forum has let me post info so that is to their credit.

You know what i find really uncanny about this particular topic (ie a literal reading of Genesis Creation and Flood accounts)...

theologically one of the best defenses is found in Exodus 20:8-11

8Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

Unfortuntaly, most modern Christian denominations do not believe in the modern adhearance to the 4th commandment (ie that we must worship on Saturday) as a salvation issue. This inadvertantly discredits the keeping of the law and in particular, Seventh Day Sabbath worship, with salvation. Theistic Evolution is then able to ignore that commandment in order to avoid anything to do with TEism and salvation.

Fortunately, there is a bit of a workaround...

If Genesis is an allegory, and the sin of Adam and Eve resulted only in spiritual death:

why did Christ "physically" die on the cross as atonement for "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23) as evidenced by the Old Testament Sanctuary Service?

I have not once ever had a TEist be able to biblically support any counterclaim to the above question.

the actual biblical statement concerning the law and salvation is as follows:

Christ died in fulfillment of the wages of sin is death, but that does not in any way mean we are no judged according to the Law of Love.
What we actually find is that the Apostle Paul in Hebrews explains very concisely:

First, he explains:

Hebrews 4: 8For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9There remains, then, a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10For whoever enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from His. 11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following the same pattern of disobedience.​

Then Paul states that contrary to modern Sunday worship claims, Christ is not the one who started the New Covenant. In fact what Christ has done is become the guarantor of the new covenant (and that is a big distinction). The new covenant is actually found in Jeremiah 21:36-40. Paul tells us that Christ became a priest of the order of Melchizedek in order to become a mediator for that new covenant and that it already existed prior to His atoning death and this is perfectly harmonious with the Day of Atonement in the Old Testament Sanctuary Service.

Anyway, the important part about the law and salvation is that those who have confessed their sins are not judged by the law...Paul states in Hebrews:

Hebrews 12: 15See to it that no one falls short of the grace of God, and that no root of bitternessf springs up to cause trouble and defile many. 16See to it that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his birthright. 17For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected. He could find no ground for repentance, though he sought the blessing with tears.​

Then we may hold fast to the most important part of Christ's atonement i think...we are cloaked in Christs righteousness...we are judged righteous not because the law is no longer applicable but because of Christ has paid the wages of sin is death already and therefore in judgement we lay claim to the promise made by Christ:

Hebrews 4:16Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.​

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I like this thread. The point is not that there are no answers to any of these questions

Sounds like you didn't actually read the thread.
I know, it's quite long... but a lot of it is just spam by the OP though.

unfortunately for YEC Christians, the above information is not even allowed on many forums in the public space. I posted these on another forum and it got immediately stripped down to just the link citing bandwith and storage restrictions and threatened me with sanction if i reposted it again!

Cool story bro

Its a real shame that an honest reading of scripture cannot be supported by any science

Yeah well...

...as soon as that is done, the Young Earth conclusions in science are immediately discredited claiming its conclusions are wrong.

No science supports any YEC nonsense.

The problem with that is that errors are found in all science study...numerous experiemental conclusions have been thrown out even in secular world views due to errors...however, apparently, YEC are not allowed that same grace even among Theistic Evolutionary Christian Scientist circles even when there is merit in pursuing the YEC scientific conclusions

What merit?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Sounds like you didn't actually read the thread.
I know, it's quite long... but a lot of it is just spam by the OP though.



Cool story bro



Yeah well...




No science supports any YEC nonsense.



What merit?

Evolution is the theory of Nothing as it never has nor will answer the question of the origin of anything.

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 origin question that you want us to answer?”

It is all based of the no God assumption which has been proven false by all creation.

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.

 

[YoursTrue]

In reference to the sabbath day of res and what it meanst, please notice what Jesus said about that:
"And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. 17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5)
Jesus knew his heavenly father worked on the Sabbath Day. It goes further, but I'll leave it there for now, considering when the Sabbath day laws were effected and how they work.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So, evolutionists can’t explain the long neck of the giraffe.

Not fully yet, but that fact doesn't refute the theory of evolution. We don't have a good theory for gravity either, but things still fall.

The evolution of the giraffe is established in the fossil record and among extant relatives of giraffes.

Sorry. Better luck next time. Or just keep repeating the same thing over and over hoping for a different result. You've seen how well that works.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution is the theory of Nothing as it never has nor will answer the question of the origin of anything.

Of course it won't explain the origin of life. It isn't a theory about the origin of life. But it explains the ancestry and diversity of living things just fine.

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 origin question that you want us to answer?”

It is a comedy, but not the one you claim. The theory of evolution hasn't been refuted.

You don't give up. You keep repeating the same thing over and over and then declare victory. It's a game.

It is all based of the no God assumption which has been proven false by all creation.

There is no "no God" assumption behind the theories of science. While I believe, there is no hypothesis about God to test. Scientifically, claims of God are unfalsifiable.

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

The methods you use are circular. The reasoning behind the theory of evolution and the age of the Earth and the universe is sound, logical and based on evidence. Something you don't bring to this.

This is it in a nutshell.

So an empty nutshell is all you have to offer. By no means unexpected.

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).

That is a straw man argument that in no way depicts the science and conclusions behind the theory of evolution or dating of the material world.

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

Once again, you are incorrect. Congratulations! A perfect score.

I don't recall you ever offering anything that would remotely be confused as evidence contradicting evolution . None has yet been found and offering evidence isn't part of your operation anyway.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is true in many venues.
There are many who have been censored. It is the only way that evolution and billions of years can be pushed. With censorship, propaganda, and deceit.
This forum has let me post info so that is to their credit.

Actually no. Failing to meet the standards of science is not censorship. It is sloppy scholarship, misinformation and pandering to a non-science, nonsense agenda that has no place in a science publication. If there were actual evidence and a rational explanation demonstrating the conclusions of the evidence, then it would get published.

However, the best that creationists appear to have to offer is what we see in threads like this one. None of what I would consider to be very good fruit.

 

[YoursTrue]

What the heck is an "evolutionist"?

It is the opposite of a creationist. See? there you have it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is the opposite of a creationist. See? there you have it.

Actually no. The theory of evolution isn't a theory of the origin of life and would fit created life just as well as it would fit if the origin is by natural causes.

Really, it is an attempt to turn part of science into an "ism" to bring it down to the level of religious views. As it were a belief system and not science.

It is science and accepted based on logic, reason and evidence. That's why creationists and literalists have so much trouble with it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Actually no. The theory of evolution isn't a theory of the origin of life and would fit created life just as well as it would fit if the origin is by natural causes.

Really, it is an attempt to turn part of science into an "ism" to bring it down to the level of religious views. As it were a belief system and not science.

It is science and accepted based on logic, reason and evidence. That's why creationists and literalists have so much trouble with it.

It is a religion and a Satanic one at that.

 

[Astrophile]

Catholics are Catholic. I have never met one who when asked what religion they are say anything other than Catholic.
It is the Roman CATHOLIC Church. No mention of Christ.
Christians are Christians.

My wife was a Catholic. When we first met, she told me that she was a Christian.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution is the theory of Nothing as it never has nor will answer the question of the origin of anything.

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 origin question that you want us to answer?”

Nice imaginary conversation you got there.

It is all based of the no God assumption which has been proven false by all creation.

You are wrong about gravity due to your no-graviton-pixies assumption.

We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption)

We know it's true because we can demonstrate it with independent factual verifiable objective evidence.
No assumptions.

You willfully ignoring that evidence, doesn't make it disappear.

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).

Since your first premise was a falsehood, the rest is junk also
GIGO: garbage in, garbage out

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

There is no evidence that contradicts it.

 

[ratiocinator]

It is a religion and a Satanic one at that.

***STAFF EDIT***

Evolution is science and it isn't the only science you have to deny to support your silly claims. You have to deny evolution and cosmology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, geology, palaeontology, archaeology, genetics, and statistics.

All in all, it's blind faith trying to deny vast swathes of science in order to desperately cling to a long discredited creation myth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is a religion and a Satanic one at that.

No. It is not.

I believe your efforts are misguided and poorly informed.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No. It is not.

I believe your efforts are misguided and poorly informed.

Satan deceives all evolutionists and all billions of years believers.