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

[SavedByTheLord]

Not to my recollection you didn't - you were still yet to figure out the assumptions in your calculation last we left off -- the odds of the first living creature arising ..and demonstrating a lack of understanding of what evolution actually is ..and how it works.

Mutations happen friend - you in fact are such a mutant - an abberation in the fabric of the space time continuum .. rowing a boat .. gently down the stream .. merrily merrily merrily merrily .. life is but a dream. and fortunatly for you .. you can have that dream over and over .. re-incarnating from one state to another .. a dance with the Wu Li Masters

BTW the James Webb Telescope has now produces enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.

Your own guys are starting to abandon the Big Bang is droves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did use the basics and with that refuted evolution and the Big Bang.

No, you never did that. You do not even know what the basics are. I doubt if you could explain the scientific method accurately and I am sure that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. Your posts keep telling us that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

BTW the James Webb Telescope has now produces enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.

Your own guys are starting to abandon the Big Bang is droves.

Really? Once again, where are the peer reviewed articles?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Really? Once again, where are the peer reviewed articles?

I peer reviewed and fact checked, and all articles that say evolution is true and things are older than 6000 years old, I found them false with flawed reasoning,

 

[Eddi]

I peer reviewed and fact checked, and all articles that say evolution is true and things are older than 6000 years old, I found them false with flawed reasoning,

You personally peer reviewed them????????

But then you are an expert when it comes to flawed reasoning

 

[John53]

I peer reviewed and fact checked, and all articles that say evolution is true and things are older than 6000 years old, I found them false with flawed reasoning,

Besides a massive ego what are your qualifications for such an undertaking?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I peer reviewed and fact checked, and all articles that say evolution is true and things are older than 6000 years old, I found them false with flawed reasoning,

You are not a "peer". You are almost totally illiterate in the sciences so you are disqualified from doing that.

But, we can begin the long road here. Are you ready to learn what is and what is not evidence in the sciences and why? Are you ready to learn what the scientific method is and how it is used?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Besides a massive ego what are your qualifications for such an undertaking?

he read parts of a poorly translated book.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You are not a "peer". You are almost totally illiterate in the sciences so you are disqualified from doing that.

But, we can begin the long road here. Are you ready to learn what is and what is not evidence in the sciences and why? Are you ready to learn what the scientific method is and how it is used?

Of course I am.

Here is more that refutes the Big Bang.

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory by Tom Van Flandern

www.spaceandmotion.com

 

[ratiocinator]

Of course I am.

Here is more that refutes the Big Bang.

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory by Tom Van Flandern

www.spaceandmotion.com

Spam, spam, spam, spam.....

Do you really have to post everything on multiple threads?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Spam, spam, spam, spam.....

Do you really have to post everything on multiple threads?

Not true,

Here is evidence for the worldwide flood.

Scientific Evidence for a Global Flood-part 2 of series ‹ The Bible Can Be Proven

 

[Eddi]

Not true,

Here is evidence for the worldwide flood.

Scientific Evidence for a Global Flood-part 2 of series ‹ The Bible Can Be Proven

"someone accused me of spamming, how should I respond? an unsolicited link to a junk website that has nothing to do with what I am replying to!"

 

[SavedByTheLord]

"someone accused me of spamming, how should I respond? an unsolicited link to a junk website that has nothing to do with what I am replying to!"

Can you refute the scientific article from that very scientific and reputable site?

 

[McBell]

Can you refute the scientific article from that very scientific and reputable site?

You will have to first present an article from a "very scientific and reputable site".

thebiblecanbeproven.com is not scientific or reliable.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You will have to first present an article from a "very scientific and reputable site".

thebiblecanbeproven.com is not scientific or reliable.

Of course it is.
What is the recipe for primordial soup?
The scientists must know by now?

 

[Eddi]

@SavedByTheLord

You do realise that literally anyone can make a website, right?

I've seen you cite assorted websites as evidence but they are all rubbish

A Google search is not a literature review and neither does it count as research

Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it authoritative

You need to be aware of this if you hope to convince others

Just thought I'd point this out

 

[SavedByTheLord]

@SavedByTheLord

You do realise that literally anyone can make a website, right?

I've seen you cite assorted websites as evidence but they are all rubbish

A Google search is not a literature review and neither does it count as research

Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it authoritative

You need to be aware of this if you hope to convince others

Just thought I'd point this out

So why don't you refute their evidence?

Why aren’t there multiple trees of life? Afterall if abiogenesis is such a slam dunk, it should have occurred multiple times in the billions of years in the history of the earth. Each of these trees would have found their own niche so that each would have had their own descent tree.

If indeed there were multiple trees, it would not refute 6-day creation by Gold Almighty as God can do anything. But the lack of any other tree shows that abiogenesis is not a slam dunk. Actually, it is impossible.

So, what was the first living creature and what features did it have?


Afterall, if abiogenies is such a slam dunk and the scientists know so much about the conditions that were in the early earth that led to the first living creature, why can’t they run experiments that produce a living thing?
What brand of primordial soup should they use?

 

[Eddi]

So why don't you refute their evidence?

Why aren’t there multiple trees of life? Afterall if abiogenesis is such a slam dunk, it should have occurred multiple times in the billions of years in the history of the earth. Each of these trees would have found their own niche so that each would have had their own descent tree.

If indeed there were multiple trees, it would not refute 6-day creation by Gold Almighty as God can do anything. But the lack of any other tree shows that abiogenesis is not a slam dunk. Actually, it is impossible.

So, what was the first living creature and what features did it have?


Afterall, if abiogenies is such a slam dunk and the scientists know so much about the conditions that were in the early earth that led to the first living creature, why can’t they run experiments that produce a living thing?
What brand of primordial soup should they use?

I was trying to be helpful and you just ignored what I said with your usual spam that had nothing to do with what I said

You're a time waster

Putting your statements into the form of questions is particularly dishonest and shoddy as they aren't really questions

You've had it explained to you many times before but you don't learn

You are either unwilling, incapable, or both

And you treat the issue as if it is a debate and it isn't

And the worse thing is you pretend to be doing science whilst being totally opposed and ignorant of it

Why don't you quit trying to use science to dress up your ignorant opinions and just say "**** science I'm doing religion"?

That would be way more honest

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I was trying to be helpful and you just ignored what I said with your usual spam that had nothing to do with what I said

You're a time waster

Putting your statements into the form of questions is particularly dishonest and shoddy as they aren't really questions

You've had it explained to you many times before but you don't learn

You are either unwilling, incapable, or both

And you treat the issue as if it is a debate and it isn't

And the worse thing is you pretend to be doing science whilst being totally opposed and ignorant of it

Why don't you quit trying to use science to dress up your ignorant opinions and just say "**** science I'm doing religion"?

That would be way more honest

I am here to help you. You seem to need help.

Why aren’t there multiple trees of life? Afterall if abiogenesis is such a slam dunk, it should have occurred multiple times in the billions of years in the history of the earth. Each of these trees would have found their own niche so that each would have had their own descent tree.

If indeed there were multiple trees, it would not refute 6-day creation by Gold Almighty as God can do anything. But the lack of any other tree shows that abiogenesis is not a slam dunk. Actually, it is impossible.

So, what was the first living creature and what features did it have?

 

[Eddi]

I am here to help you. You seem to need help.

Why aren’t there multiple trees of life? Afterall if abiogenesis is such a slam dunk, it should have occurred multiple times in the billions of years in the history of the earth. Each of these trees would have found their own niche so that each would have had their own descent tree.

If indeed there were multiple trees, it would not refute 6-day creation by Gold Almighty as God can do anything. But the lack of any other tree shows that abiogenesis is not a slam dunk. Actually, it is impossible.

So, what was the first living creature and what features did it have?

You are just repeating yourself

These have been explained to you many times before

You are demonstrating nothing more than wilful ignorance

Why don't you satisfy your ignorance by looking at reputable websites?

We both know the answer to that, don't we?

You're a spammer and a time waster and your deeds here do nothing other than make creationism look as desperate and weak as it truly is

You don't accept scientific answers so quit demanding them

You're a time waster extraordinaire