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

[Subduction Zone]

Or the evolutionist who says the eye evolved because if not we are wrong.

No one says that. We have evidence. We do not need to say silly things.

Too bad that you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No one says that. We have evidence. We do not need to say silly things.

Too bad that you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.

And how specifically did the eye evolve?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm laughing. I don't think I'm alone.

I think we're all just playing with our food now so to speak.

What a laugh.

Agreed. So does Dan.

Document how any foot evolved

"The first known standard foot measure was from Sumer, where a definition is given in a statue of Gudea of Lagash from around 2575 BC. Some metrologists speculate that the imperial foot was adapted from an Egyptian measure by the Greeks, with a subsequent larger foot being adopted by the Romans." Hope that helps.

Give times and descriptions of all proteins and genes involved

Proteins and genes work 24/7, and they're little and squiggly. And wet.

Also include all calculations

Is this where you thought you'd end up when you chose to believe in a god and take it to the Internet? Did you see yourself in this role? This can't be pleasant for you. I can't think of any reason for you to subject yourself to ridicule except that you imagine that you're martyring yourself performing for an imagined audience of one in hope of a reward. Good luck with that.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I think we're all just playing with our food now so to speak.

Agreed. So does Dan.

"The first known standard foot measure was from Sumer, where a definition is given in a statue of Gudea of Lagash from around 2575 BC. Some metrologists speculate that the imperial foot was adapted from an Egyptian measure by the Greeks, with a subsequent larger foot being adopted by the Romans." Hope that helps.

Proteins and genes work 24/7, and they're little and squiggly. And wet.

View attachment 83286

Is this where you thought you'd end up when you chose to believe in a god and take it to the Internet? Did you see yourself in this role? This can't be pleasant for you. I can't think of any reason for you to subject yourself to ridicule except that you imagine that you're martyring yourself performing for an imagined audience of one in hope of a reward. Good luck with that.

I asked abuty the foot and not the foot measure. But I can see the errors in your "calculations".

You have a linear graph and typically linear projection is wrong.
Also not all the axes are labeled. could you resubmit for further eval.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And how specifically did the eye evolve?

Sorry, but until you learn at least the basics of science you cannot demand answers. I may volunteer them, but you have shown that you are not following the rules of polite debate. Are you forgetting my refutation of your claim that the difference in chromosomes between humans and other great apes shows evolution to be wrong? Instead that is now evidence for evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think we're all just playing with our food now so to speak.

Agreed. So does Dan.

"The first known standard foot measure was from Sumer, where a definition is given in a statue of Gudea of Lagash from around 2575 BC. Some metrologists speculate that the imperial foot was adapted from an Egyptian measure by the Greeks, with a subsequent larger foot being adopted by the Romans." Hope that helps.

Proteins and genes work 24/7, and they're little and squiggly. And wet.

View attachment 83286

Is this where you thought you'd end up when you chose to believe in a god and take it to the Internet? Did you see yourself in this role? This can't be pleasant for you. I can't think of any reason for you to subject yourself to ridicule except that you imagine that you're martyring yourself performing for an imagined audience of one in hope of a reward. Good luck with that.

At this point, I can't imagine what value a person would find in the approach everyone sees being taken on these threads of proof by declaration and unintended comedy.

This is the oldest and most useless approach to denying science. It isn't anything novel or functional.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The point is generally presented as the impossibility of the eye (say) having developed by a series of small steps, each having a survival advantage over the previous state. It does seem unlikely at first, but then I read someone who set out a series of steps that could have done the job. It started with a small group of light sensitive cells that would warn the creature of the approach of a predator. Of course, that can't be demonstrated as there would be no record of most of it, but it did suffice to answer the "impossible" claim.

Something else that I liked was a statement to the effect that if the entire ToE was to be falsified, that wouldn't cause the scientific community to cry "It must be God!".

Incidentally, I wish the YEC crowd would more often address the likelihood of a being like the Christian God existing at all. It's usually along the lines of "God exists because ..." and ignores all the questions that then arise.

The spectrum of eye variety, from light sensitive patches, that are not what we typically think of as eyes, to the complex eyes of squids and much in between exists in living organisms today. That existing variety on its own rules out a claim of irreducibility.

Correct. No belief is a default for the falsification of a scientific theory. Much as creationists wish that were so.

As seen in this thread and those related. Serious questions or points get ignored and the empty claims and declarations get repeated in heavy rotation. There isn't even a pretense of interest in a serious discussion and debate.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The spectrum of eye variety, from light sensitive patches, that are not what we typically think of as eyes, to the complex eyes of squids and much in between exists in living organisms today. That existing variety on its own rules out a claim of irreducibility.

Correct. No belief is a default for the falsification of a scientific theory. Much as creationists wish that were so.

As seen in this thread and those related. Serious questions or points get ignored and the empty claims and declarations get repeated in heavy rotation. There isn't even a pretense of interest in a serious discussion and debate.

Document how any eye evolved. Give times and descriptions of all proteins and genes involved and of course the actual species involved. Also document how this was possible given sexual reproduction.
Also include all calculations and give the location of where the fossil evidences were found and all dating information with properly documented error ranges.
Evolutionists have made the claim and so you must prove it.

 

[John53]

The spectrum of eye variety, from light sensitive patches, that are not what we typically think of as eyes, to the complex eyes of squids and much in between exists in living organisms today. That existing variety on its own rules out a claim of irreducibility.

Correct. No belief is a default for the falsification of a scientific theory. Much as creationists wish that were so.

As seen in this thread and those related. Serious questions or points get ignored and the empty claims and declarations get repeated in heavy rotation. There isn't even a pretense of interest in a serious discussion and debate.

The whole has been beyond silly from the beginning. Even a quick look in the dictionary would help with the wording of the questions so they at least made sense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The whole has been beyond silly from the beginning. Even a quick look in the dictionary would help with the wording of the questions so they at least made sense.

I agree. Silly and poorly executed.

No one is fooled.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Document how any eye evolved. Give times and descriptions of all proteins and genes involved and of course the actual species involved. Also document how this was possible given sexual reproduction.
Also include all calculations and give the location of where the fossil evidences were found and all dating information with properly documented error ranges.
Evolutionists have made the claim and so you must prove it.

It does not look as if anyone else will be taking your demand seriously.

You know what would change people's minds? Follow the same rules that they have. When you pretend that refutations did not happen you lose the right to demand evidence. You need to deal with the posts where your claims were refuted.

 

[Alien826]

Document how any eye evolved. Give times and descriptions of all proteins and genes involved and of course the actual species involved. Also document how this was possible given sexual reproduction.
Also include all calculations and give the location of where the fossil evidences were found and all dating information with properly documented error ranges.
Evolutionists have made the claim and so you must prove it.

Document how God created life and the various species. What mechanism was used? How was something created from nothing? What is the nature of God? How can we detect his existence, and where did he come from? I want exact details and calculations. You can take the Bible as a starting point, but realize that it just makes statements, it doesn't explain how these things were done.

I don't seriously expect you to do that, but my point is that if you are positing God as an alternative explanation for all the scientific stuff you don't like you should at least subject your claims to the same level of evidence that you demand of us. Don't you think?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Document how God created life and the various species. What mechanism was used? How was something created from nothing? What is the nature of God? How can we detect his existence, and where did he come from? I want exact details and calculations. You can take the Bible as a starting point, but realize that it just makes statements, it doesn't explain how these things were done.

I don't seriously expect you to do that, but my point is that if you are positing God as an alternative explanation for all the scientific stuff you don't like you should at least subject your claims to the same level of evidence that you demand of us. Don't you think?

Your questions are answered in Genesis 1. God created all things with His Almighty power.

Because the universe is not an intelligent creator.
Therfore, the intelligent Creator must be a being, aka, God.

The atheist has no almighty so he must deny the real Almighty God and try and make a god for himself to worship, aka, the devil. Just as the old pagans worshipped a statue or the sun in their delusion, so the atheist must worship a thing, in this case the universe so he does not look so stupid as worshipping a statue.
So the atheist says the universe always was, and that with time all things are possible, What an hypocrisy. With God all things are possible but with time not all things are possible,
That is why I have concentrated on some of the biggest delusions of evolution and billions of years like the first living creature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your questions are answered in Genesis 1. God created all things with His Almighty power.

Because the universe is not an intelligent creator.
Therfore, the intelligent Creator must be a being, aka, God.

The atheist has no almighty so he must deny the real Almighty God and try and make a god for himself to worship, aka, the devil. Just as the old pagans worshipped a statue or the sun in their delusion, so the atheist must worship a thing, in this case the universe so he does not look so stupid as worshipping a statue.
So the atheist says the universe always was, and that with time all things are possible, What an hypocrisy. With God all things are possible but with time not all things are possible,
That is why I have concentrated on some of the biggest delusions of evolution and billions of years like the first living creature.

No, those are just claims. He asked for a lot more than that. Just as you asked for quite a bit in your questions. You can't complain about others ignoring your questions if you do the same to others.

By the way, there really is no difference between you and a "pagan". You make the error of worshipping the Bible.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, those are just claims. He asked for a lot more than that. Just as you asked for quite a bit in your questions. You can't complain about others ignoring your questions if you do the same to others.

By the way, there really is no difference between you and a "pagan". You make the error of worshipping the Bible.

I worship the God who authored the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I worship the God who authored the Bible.

But those were men.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

But those were men.

Inspired by God. That attempt is silly.
Your lack of knowledge of the Bible shows.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Inspired by God. That attempt is silly.
Your lack of knowledge of the Bible shows.

How are you going to prove that? I would think that the errors in it show that it was not "inspired by God".

 

[SavedByTheLord]

How are you going to prove that? I would think that the errors in it show that it was not "inspired by God".

Please show any error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please show any error.

I already have. Your only answers were denial. Denial is not a refutation. i showed you the ten year difference between the date of birth of Jesus in Luke and in Matthew. You had no coherent response. All that you had was denial and nonsense. By the way, I did not find that. Biblical scholars found that. Real scholars. Not apologists. I am betting that you do not know the difference. And most of those scholars probably were Christians.

I brought up the failed Tyre prophecy. You demonstrated that you did not understand it.

And then of course there are Genesis and Exodus, if one makes the mistake of reading the Bible literally.