The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.

[metis]

Y

Proved it already by using the law of non contradiction.

No, it's you have proved nothing except that you really don't have a clue how science "works", plus you have repeatedly failed to prove unquestionable proof that there are deities. For example, prove there's only one, and don't cite scripture as that is not a peer-reviewed science source.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Y

No, it's you have proved nothing except that you really don't have a clue how science "works", plus you have repeatedly failed to prove unquestionable proof that there are deities. For example, prove there's only one, and don't cite scripture as that is not a peer-reviewed science source.

I do know.

Creation scientists have produced many peer-reviewed papers which show that evolutionists have a false interpretation of the facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do know.

Creation scientists have produced many peer-reviewed papers which show that evolutionists have a false interpretation of the facts.

No, "creation scientist" is an oxymoron. You cannot seem to find any scientific peer reviewed papers of creation scientists. To do so you need a source that follows the scientific method. And it is rather easy to show that creationist sources require their writers to swear that they will not follow the scientific method. That means that they are not scientific. Do you understand this?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, "creation scientist" is an oxymoron. You cannot seem to find any scientific peer reviewed papers of creation scientists. To do so you need a source that follows the scientific method. And it is rather easy to show that creationist sources require their writers to swear that they will not follow the scientific method. That means that they are not scientific. Do you understand this?

Evolution is bizarre.
What was the first living creature?
What caused the Big Bang?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is bizarre.
What was the first living creature?
What caused the Big Bang?

Christianity is bizarre
What was Jesus's middle name (in other words what does "H" stand for)?
How does God wipe his nose after he sneezes?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Christianity is bizarre
What was Jesus's middle name (in other words what does "H" stand for)?
How does God wipe his nose after he sneezes?

Evolution is as nuts as you can get.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is as nuts as you can get.

Really? I doubt it. I can ask just as nutty of questions as you have. Do my questions disprove God? If not then do you really believe that the nonsensical questions that you ask disprove anything?

One of the rules of logic is that one must reason consistently, and you do not do that.

 

[metis]

Creation scientists have produced many peer-reviewed papers which show that evolutionists have a false interpretation of the facts.

Maybe post some.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Really? I doubt it. I can ask just as nutty of questions as you have. Do my questions disprove God? If not then do you really believe that the nonsensical questions that you ask disprove anything?

One of the rules of logic is that one must reason consistently, and you do not do that.

What was the first living creature?
What caused the Big Bang?

 

[metis]

Evolution is as nuts as you can get.

Nah, I think there's something even more so.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nah, I think there's something even more so.

Evolution, billions of years, biogenesis, and the Big Bang together would be.

 

[Soandso]

Evolution is as nuts as you can get.

Curious, but since evolution is so out of left field, do you think microevolution is nuts too? Every YEC person I've seen talk about Noah's ark at least acknowledges that all of the species in the planet couldn't fit on the ark without microevolution playing a part in diversifying the various "kinds" that made it into the ark

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was the first living creature?
What caused the Big Bang?

What is Mary's cell phone number? Asking for a friend.
Does God use Charmin or Cottonelle?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Curious, but since evolution is so out of left field, do you think microevolution is nuts too? Every YEC person I've seen talk about Noah's ark at least acknowledges that all of the species in the planet couldn't fit on the ark without microevolution playing a part in diversifying the various "kinds" that made it into the ark

Actually what the propose is massive macroevolution. Sadly creationists do not even understand the definitions of terms that they use.

 

[McBell]

Really? I doubt it. I can ask just as nutty of questions as you have. Do my questions disprove God? If not then do you really believe that the nonsensical questions that you ask disprove anything?

One of the rules of logic is that one must reason consistently, and you do not do that.

Consistently?
I am still waiting for even a little hint of reasoning from them.....

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Curious, but since evolution is so out of left field, do you think microevolution is nuts too? Every YEC person I've seen talk about Noah's ark at least acknowledges that all of the species in the planet couldn't fit on the ark without microevolution playing a part in diversifying the various "kinds" that made it into the ark

If you mean variation in created kinds, then yes that is true.
The dog genus would be the equivalent of a created kind.

As to the ark, just 2 of each kind (some were more) are needed. Not all species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution, billions of years, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang together would be.

Reality. Oh, and I added an "a" to biogenesis for you. You are welcome.

 

[Soandso]

If you mean variation in created kinds, then yes that is true.
The dog genus would be the equivalent of a created kind.

As to the ark, just 2 of each kind (some were more) are needed. Not all species.

So if microevolution is legit, what makes macroevolution so crazy? If things change over time and never stop changing, surely they would just keep changing if given an incomprehensible amount of time to do so, no?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

So if microevolution is legit, what makes macroevolution so crazy? If things change over time and never stop changing, surely they would just keep changing if given an incomprehensible amount of time to do so, no?

That is bad science. Linear projection outside of the observed range is almost always wrong.

 

[Soandso]

That is bad science. Linear projection outside of the observed range is almost always wrong.

Except there is evidence from many different independent fields of science all correlating this one fact - the earth is absolutely ancient. Why is that so crazy if all of the evidence all over points to this?