• 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.

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So you allow for some god but not the God of the Bible?
No, you are not paying attention. You keep trying to use prejudicial language. I am not allowing for any assumptions about a god either way. I am not allowing for an assumption that a god exists. I am not allowing for an assumption that god does not exist.

A god does not appear to be needed for life. That is not an assumption either way about whether a god exists or not.

The problem is that you keep making assumptions and you seem to think that other people have to make assumptions as well. That is not always the case. If life arose naturally that says nothing about the existence of a god. Life arising naturally does not refute God. Nor does it confirm a God. It is god neutral.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
No, you are not paying attention. You keep trying to use prejudicial language. I am not allowing for any assumptions about a god either way. I am not allowing for an assumption that a god exists. I am not allowing for an assumption that god does not exist.

A god does not appear to be needed for life. That is not an assumption either way about whether a god exists or not.

The problem is that you keep making assumptions and you seem to think that other people have to make assumptions as well. That is not always the case. If life arose naturally that says nothing about the existence of a god. Life arising naturally does not refute God. Nor does it confirm a God. It is god neutral.
So you do not know anything. Why are you so sure of what you believe?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So you do not know anything. Why are you so sure of what you believe?
No, I know quite a bit. You are projecting again. I am showing you how one can reason without assuming either way that a God exists. You clearly do not know if a God exists. You believe that one exists but since you do not understand the concept of evidence you cannot provide a valid reason for anyone else to believe.


I do try to teach people that concept of evidence, but for some reason they always end up running away.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
No, I know quite a bit. You are projecting again. I am showing you how one can reason without assuming either way that a God exists. You clearly do not know if a God exists. You believe that one exists but since you do not understand the concept of evidence you cannot provide a valid reason for anyone else to believe.


I do try to teach people that concept of evidence, but for some reason they always end up running away.
So you have admitted that you do not know whether God exists or not, nor the identity of God.
That is a start.
I do know God.
I do not know if it is allowed, but I do have 2 topics that prove the Bible is the word of the true God,
One has to do with prophecies made 2000 to 3000 years ago that have come true, especially in our time and advanced scientific knowledge in the Bible that have only been discovered in modern times,
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So you have admitted that you do not know whether God exists or not, nor the identity of God.
That is a start.
I do know God.
I do not know if it is allowed, but I do have 2 topics that prove the Bible is the word of the true God,
One has to do with prophecies made 2000 to 3000 years ago that have come true, especially in our time and advanced scientific knowledge in the Bible that have only been discovered in modern times,
No, it is clear that you do not "know" God. You are misusing that term. You have demonstrated the opposite here. You believe in God but that is not the same as knowing. If you did you could properly justify your beliefs and you do the opposite of that.

And you probably do not even know when your prophecies were written or why they fail. That is a topic for another thread some day. I only know of failed biblical prophecies. I do not know of any successful ones. Nor do you in all probability. You may believe them, but once again that is not knowing.

By the way, do you not know that most Christians worldwide accept the fact of evolution?
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
"Official answer"? Sorry, but science is not a dogma. There are no official answers. And do you know what moving the goalposts is? Here is a freebie. The theory of evolution does not depend upon natural abiogenesis. If you cannot understand evolution there is absolutely no way that you can understand abiogenesis. So I will not answer abiogenesis questions unless you admit that evolution is a fact.
It's like a comedy. Creationists say, "This is how everything is in this world. All these claims are absolutely true". Using science gives wrong answers. So you ask and ask and ask and ask and ask and ask them to explain and support their claims. If they are correct any reasonable person would want to know. If they are not, then a rational person making those claims would want to know that. You get nothing but silence, diversion and veiled ad hominem. You walk away shaking your head as they repeat their "truth" yet again as the same series of empty claims that need explanation, evidence and support that they will not get.

I believe where this is comedy is that creationists think they are accomplishing something.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
It's like a comedy. Creationists say, "This is how everything is in this world. All these claims are absolutely true". Using science gives wrong answers. So you ask and ask and ask and ask and ask and ask them to explain and support their claims. If they are correct any reasonable person would want to know. If they are not, then a rational person making those claims would want to know that. You get nothing but silence, diversion and veiled ad hominem. You walk away shaking your head as they repeat their "truth" yet again as the same series of empty claims that need explanation, evidence and support that they will not get.

I believe where this is comedy is that creationists think they are accomplishing something.
And yet you have used veiled ad hominem. Creationist do not say "Using science gives wrong answers". They say that using false science, as in the case of evolution and billions of years" gives wrong answers.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

The following all show that evolution and billions of years are false.

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 beds 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.

Quote Reply
Report Edit
All Answers in One Link
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
And all suffer from the same false assumptions
There are many real science sites that have the answer that you need. God created all things.

See ice.org, creation.com, AnswersInGenesis.org. There are many others. There are many scientific papers, books and videos that prove that evolution and billions of years are false.
The link I provided gives the actual scientific answers to all your questions. Since all your questions have been answered, your position stands refuted.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
And yet you have used veiled ad hominem. Creationist do not say "Using science gives wrong answers". They say that using false science, as in the case of evolution and billions of years" gives wrong answers.
That isn't ad hominem and it is what you are saying. The science that you don't like hasn't been established to be false. You haven't done it. You can't and you refuse even to try.

I understand. Science has been used very successfully and has a solid track record.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
And all suffer from the same false assumptions
There are many real science sites that have the answer that you need. God created all things.

See ice.org, creation.com, AnswersInGenesis.org. There are many others. There are many scientific papers, books and videos that prove that evolution and billions of years are false.
That would be the pseudoscience you mentioned. I'm not surprised that it what you think of as science.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
And all suffer from the same false assumptions
There are many real science sites that have the answer that you need. God created all things.

See ice.org, creation.com, AnswersInGenesis.org. There are many others. There are many scientific papers, books and videos that prove that evolution and billions of years are false.
AiG is one of the sites that requires anyone to publish there to swear that they will not follow the scientific method. That makes them a pseudoscience source.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
False accusation.
Accurate conclusion.
I love science.
No you don't. Your stated position is against science, knowledge and learning.
I am against false science like evolution and billions of years.
They are not false science. They just don't agree with the interpretation you were told you had to have in order to be a Christian. That isn't a criteria for Christianity. Your interpretation isn't sound.
 
Top