Even if by some miracle a first creature were to come to be, it is for naught. It will be destroyed and have no offspring.

Already on proof done.
No it is not. All we have are your ignorant and uninformed opinions presented as facts.

Your calculations are consistently wrong, and based on numbers you pull out of your backside. You have no clue about science - even what the word means. You clearly do not understand what mathematical induction is. Your theology is simplistic.

You make stuff up.

And, of course, you evade any difficult question, and pretend you do not.
 
No it is not. All we have are your ignorant and uninformed opinions presented as facts.

Your calculations are consistently wrong, and based on numbers you pull out of your backside. You have no clue about science - even what the word means. You clearly do not understand what mathematical induction is. Your theology is simplistic.

You make stuff up.

And, of course, you evade any difficult question, and pretend you do not.
Let's see how you do.
Start with the official first living creature. I like humor.
 
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. The. OFFICIAL. Anything.
All that time, effort, and money wasted with no answers. That is truly embarrassing.

At least they proved evolution and billions of years to be false.
And they proved 6-day creation about 6000 years ago.
And they proved the Bible is the word of God.
 
Let's see how you do.
Start with the official first living creature. I like humor.
Still evading I see.

Why is that?

Let's see how you do.
Start with the official first living creature. I like humor.
There is no official first living creature.

For one thing this happened 4 billion years ago, and no one with a clue about science would expect any trace of it to still be around today.

For another, there is no clear definition of what would count as "living".
 
Still evading I see.

Why is that?


There is no official first living creature.

For one thing this happened 4 billion years ago, and no one with a clue about science would expect any trace of it to still be around today.

For another, there is no clear definition of what would count as "living".
The earth is only about 6000 years old.

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.

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?

And please give the official answers. No more evading.
 
And please give the official answers. No more evading.
More than anything, this illustrates the absolute pointlessness of talking to you. You have been told that there's no such thing as "official answers". It's a meaningless phrase. You might as well ask for the tangerine answers or the baroque answers. You don't listen. You don't read what is said to you and adapt your responses accordingly. Thus you miss the serious problems that your "proofs" face. You ignore rebuttals as they happen, then two posts later say "So, no rebuttal?" What is the point in converting with you? Everything you say was said decades ago, and was ripped up for toilet paper then. We get more response from talking to our pets.

The next time you ask for an "official" position on anything, I for one wil put you on ignore.
 
Please explain how anything that is irreducibly complex evolves.
Certainly. Professor Behe (yes, that Professor Behe) explained it in a paper: Behe and Snoke (2004) Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. That paper shows how a simple IC system can evolve within about 20,000 years.
 
Certainly. Professor Behe (yes, that Professor Behe) explained it in a paper: Behe and Snoke (2004) Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. That paper shows how a simple IC system can evolve within about 20,000 years.
And a big problem is that there was only 6000 years.
 
The science seems to have identified mitochondrial Eve and the recent origin of x chromosome Adam. This matches recent creation and destroys evolution. Why?
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. You need to learn more about genetics. Mitochondrial Eve lived about 155,000 years ago. Y-Adam lived about 250,000 years ago.

Both mt-Eve and Y-Adam are MRCAs (Most Recent Common Ancestors), Neither was the first human, and they had no need to meet, any more than your great-great-great-grandmother on the female line needed to meet your great-great-great-grandfather on the male line. Both mt-Eve and Y-Adam are further back on those two lines, with a lot more 'greats' thrown in.

You are providing us with yet more data showing that your ludicrous date of 6,000 years ago is very wrong. Could it be that you don't actually understand what the data says? Either you, or the risible YEC website you got this from.
 
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. You need to learn more about genetics. Mitochondrial Eve lived about 155,000 years ago. Y-Adam lived about 250,000 years ago.

Both mt-Eve and Y-Adam are MRCAs (Most Recent Common Ancestors), Neither was the first human, and they had no need to meet, any more than your great-great-great-grandmother on the female line needed to meet your great-great-great-grandfather on the male line. Both mt-Eve and Y-Adam are further back on those two lines, with a lot more 'greats' thrown in.

You are providing us with yet more data showing that your ludicrous date of 6,000 years ago is very wrong. Could it be that you don't actually understand what the data says? Either you, or the risible YEC website you got this from.
So they have offspring without ever seeing each other? You are confused.
And Eve was a monkey in South America and Adam an ape in Asia?

This sounds like pagan myths.
 
So they have offspring without ever seeing each other? You are confused.
No. You are confused. You evidently do not know what an MRCA is. Both mt-Eve and Y-Adam had offspring, but not with each other.

For example, my mother's ancestors are English and Cornish. My father's ancestors are Irish. Go back a few 'greats' and those ancestors never met, but they did have children. All that is needed is that my parents met. Their great-great- ... great grandparents did not need to meet. Only my parents needed to meet.

This is yet another example of your arguments being ineffective due to a lack of the relevant knowledge.

And Eve was a monkey in South America and Adam an ape in Asia?
Both were apes, Hominidae. All humans are Hominidae, and they were humans.

This sounds like pagan myths.
No, a myth would include magic trees and a talking serpent. Better you go and learn more about what an MRCA is.
 
Back
Top