Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

even worse than a false accusation is to subtly imply the same.

And your educational and professional credentials are what?
Asked and answered. Why did you ignore the questions below? Remember: Thou shalt not lie.

Why can't you provide a truth table for material implication? Can you name one thing about logic you actually learned from any of these alleged courses?
 
Asked and answered. Why did you ignore the questions below? Remember: Thou shalt not lie.

Why can't you provide a truth table for material implication? Can you name one thing about logic you actually learned from any of these alleged courses?
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.
 
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.
It is dishonest to divert like that. We were discussing your claims to have successfully studied a topic for which you show precisely zero subject knowledge. How about a truth table for the negation operator? Could you manage that? Why would you claim to have aced courses in a topic you clearly know nothing about? When you do things like this while also claiming to believe in a deity who may punish liars with everlasting torture, people are going to question whether you really believe the things you claim.
 
What was the first living thing?
Asked and answered. Diverting from simple questions like this makes you look dishonest. You know that, right?

Are you really incapable of giving a truth table for negation?

Were you not being entirely honest when you said you know what truth tables are?
 
He is, but that's not the issue. You said very intelligent people (aka, "yecs"), have no explanation for the origin of life. They do: the revelation given in Gen 1 and 2.
If God is alive and has always existed, how could you possibly have an explanation for the origin of life? It would never have originated.
 
If God is alive, then 'life on this planet' is only a subset of that for which I said you have no explanation.
I told you, I have an explanation for life on this planet -- Gen 1 and 2 -- God created the universe and all that is in it.

Is that too simple and foolish for you?
 
Here is simple challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give real evidence of anything that is more than 6000 years old.
And the result WILL BE, no matter what ANYBODY SAYS, You'll reply: "doesn't prove anything".

We know how the game is played here, y'all!!
 
Back
Top