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

[ChristineM]

I'm sure you are both aware that you will only receive more regurgitated Bible verses, further deflection, more accusations, and more Gish gallop. I think that it has become abundantly clear that neither of you will receive a sensible answer to your questions. It's like trying to reason with a solid brick wall.

I won't, he's on ignore

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

My suggestion, go take some science courses at your local college. That's if you're sincerely seeking answers to these ten thousand questions.

Or you could just go here, where just about every single one of them is addressed (these are some pretty outdated and inaccurate claims creationists have been trying out for decades):

An Index to Creationist Claims

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those are fictional characters, but the God of the Bible is real. All will eventually meet Him.

Prove it then. So far you have not. You could try repeating your failed argument. Make it clear when you start I will gladly show you when you fail.

The God of the Bible appears to be just as fictional as all of those other characters.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My suggestion, go take some science courses at your local college. That's if you're sincerely seeking answers to these ten thousand questions.

Or you could just go here, where just about every single one of them is addressed (these are some pretty outdated and inaccurate claims creationists have been trying out for decades):

An Index to Creationist Claims

He won't check that out. He knows that he has no answer. He is not interested in the truth of the matter. He only wants to believe.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Prove it then. So far you have not. You could try repeating your failed argument. Make it clear when you start I will gladly show you when you fail.

The God of the Bible appears to be just as fictional as all of those other characters.

Proof what that those characters you mentioned are fictional.

I already proved the Bible to be the true word of God.
It is irrefutable.
I used the law of non contradiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Proof what that those characters you mentioned are fictional.

I already proved the Bible to be the true word of God.
It is irrefutable.
I used the law of non contradiction.

No, you abused a law of logic that you do not understand. And you know that argument was pure BS. I have asked multiple times for you to post it again, but you are too afraid to do so.

And the burden of proof is upon you. I have explained to you why your god is fictional. You had no response. The burden of proof is upon you. Telling whoppers about using a logical argument will not fly here.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, you abused a law of logic that you do not understand. And you know that argument was pure BS. I have asked multiple times for you to post it again, but you are too afraid to do so.

And the burden of proof is upon you. I have explained to you why your god is fictional. You had no response. The burden of proof is upon you. Telling whoppers about using a logical argument will not fly here.

No the burden of proof is on the evolutionists. You are forcing the teaching of that religious dogma in schools, etc.
I have already proved your theories false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No the burden of proof is on the evolutionists. You are forcing the teaching of that religious dogma in schools, etc.
I have already proved your theories false.

Scientists have already met that burden of proof. It is your fault that you keep yourself ignorant of the sciences. You have only yourself to blame. Look at how many times I offered to go over the basics of science with you. I can understand why you are afraid. If you actually understood the sciences then you would be openly lying and you do not want to go that far. Instead you only have to lie to yourself.

And no, you only proved that you do not understand logic. Once again your fear puts the lie to your claim. If you really believed that you would have reposted that argument. But even you know that it is failed BS.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Scientists have already met that burden of proof. It is your fault that you keep yourself ignorant of the sciences. You have only yourself to blame. Look at how many times I offered to go over the basics of science with you. I can understand why you are afraid. If you actually understood the sciences then you would be openly lying and you do not want to go that far. Instead you only have to lie to yourself.

And no, you only proved that you do not understand logic. Once again your fear puts the lie to your claim. If you really believed that you would have reposted that argument. But even you know that it is failed BS.

What was the first living thing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was the first living thing?

A single celled organism.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

A single celled organism.

Absurd. Way too complex. Impossible.
And what was its DNA code?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Absurd. Way too complex. Impossible.
And what was its DNA code?

Prove it. Your claim, your burden of proof..

And there are questions where it is perfectly reasonable and correct to say "I don't know'. And in fact there are some even weaker questions where the answer is "I do not know and it does not matter." That is the answer to your question about the DNA.

By the way, you do not just get to ask questions. If you ask a question you need to be able to justify asking it.

 

[sayak83]

What was the first living thing?

This actually is an incorrect answer. There was no first living thing as there was no first chicken. Instead what we had was a long chemically evolving population of self-perpetuating organic systems that, over time, gradually acquired more and more features that we consider as features of "life".

 

[Subduction Zone]

This actually is an incorrect answer. There was no first living thing as there was no first chicken. Instead what we had was a long chemically evolving population of self-perpetuating organic systems that, over time, gradually acquired more and more features that we consider as features of "life".

I can go with that. I gave a very simplified answer. But yours is more correct.

As you well know but our interlocutor apparently does not , there are multiple traits that something must have to be considered "alive" and there is some debate about which of those properties are needed. They definitely did not all show up at once. So how do we decide when it has crossed that boundary?

 

[sayak83]

I can go with that. I gave a very simplified answer. But yours is more correct.

As you well know but our interlocutor apparently does not , there are multiple traits that something must have to be considered "alive" and there is some debate about which of those properties are needed. They definitely did not all show up at once. So how do we decide when it has crossed that boundary?

We do not have to. That is the happy thing. In a near continuous spectra of color gradation which frequency exactly do we transition from orange to red is subjective and is an discretization that we put on nature. Life is contiguous with energy flux driven organic chemical systems...a specialized form of it. Hence, we would not expect a clear-cut separation point here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We do not have to. That is the happy thing. In a near continuous spectra of color gradation which frequency exactly do we transition from orange to red is subjective and is an discretization that we put on nature. Life is contiguous with energy flux driven organic chemical systems...a specialized form of it. Hence, we would not expect a clear-cut separation point here.

Yep. I should have pointed out that my question was rhetorical but you appear to have been answering for our interlocutor. He could use that explanation, though I doubt if he will let himself understand it. That question is the same as asking "what was the first man's name?" Just as there was no "first cell" there was no first man.

Would an article on emergent processes help? Probably not. But just in case:

Emergence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yep. I should have pointed out that my question was rhetorical but you appear to have been answering for our interlocutor. He could use that explanation, though I doubt if he will let himself understand it. That question is the same as asking "what was the first man's name?" Just as there was no "first cell" there was no first man.

Would an article on emergent processes help? Probably not. But just in case:

Emergence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What was the first living thing?
What existed 100 trillion years before the supposed Big Bang?

 

[sayak83]

What was the first living thing?
What existed 100 trillion years before the supposed Big Bang?

I now know why Chat GPT is threatening the jobs of so many people......

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was the first living thing?
What existed 100 trillion years before the supposed Big Bang?

Your first question was already answered.

As to your second question: What makes you think that there was a before the Big Bang?


Oh, and it is highly hypocritical of you to use the word "supposedly" If you want to be consistent since there is no evidence for you beliefs you would have to describe your deity as "My mythical belief".

Let's try to be consistent. It is the only way to move forward.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Your first question was already answered.

As to your second question: What makes you think that there was a before the Big Bang?


Oh, and it is highly hypocritical of you to use the word "supposedly" If you want to be consistent since there is no evidence for you beliefs you would have to describe your deity as "My mythical belief".

Let's try to be consistent. It is the only way to move forward.

If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then what caused it.