Some of the evidence which disproves evolution and the billions of years for the age of the earth.

SavedByTheLord said:
Here are just some of the evidence which disproves evolution and the billions of years for the age of the earth.
The evolutionists will not have valid answers
Click to expand...
MUCH SIMPLER than that -

Gen 1:1

Let the philosophical FOOLS believe what they want, and when (if) God Convicts them of their SIN, and blows all their silly "reasonings" away, The can start to learn of HIM.
 
Temujin said:
Nonsense. They all would work. We just haven't enough data to choose between them. Your view of the world is very odd. You clearly cannot cope with uncertainty or options.
Click to expand...
No of course they do not.
But if you want to post one and show that it is even plausible then go ahead.
 
SavedByTheLord said:
No of course they do not.
But if you want to post one and show that it is even plausible then go ahead.
Click to expand...
Not my job squire. You have been told all this already, several times. Your memory is too fragile, though less fragile than your honesty or good faith, for me to waste my time repeating what I and other posters have patiently explained to you for months. Statements such as " Venus spins backwards therefore the universe is not old, evolution is not true and Genesis is literal truth. Prove me wrong" are neither sensible nor honest. Nor is it honest to say that if there is more than one possible explanation, then all are false. No-one with a basic understanding of logic would claim this. If experts in a particular field agree that a solution to a problem is possible but unproven, that doesn't mean that it is proven false, particularly by a nonexpert with an axe to grind.

You are very fortunate as it is that so many people are prepared to talk to you in good faith here. The least you could do is reciprocate. We all might learn something if you were to use common courtesy and engage with what people say to you.
 
Temujin said:
Not my job squire. You have been told all this already, several times. Your memory is too fragile, though less fragile than your honesty or good faith, for me to waste my time repeating what I and other posters have patiently explained to you for months. Statements such as " Venus spins backwards therefore the universe is not old, evolution is not true and Genesis is literal truth. Prove me wrong" are neither sensible nor honest. Nor is it honest to say that if there is more than one possible explanation, then all are false. No-one with a basic understanding of logic would claim this. If experts in a particular field agree that a solution to a problem is possible but unproven, that doesn't mean that it is proven false, particularly by a nonexpert with an axe to grind.

You are very fortunate as it is that so many people are prepared to talk to you in good faith here. The least you could do is reciprocate. We all might learn something if you were to use common courtesy and engage with what people say to you.
Click to expand...
How did the giraffe gets its long neck?
Evolutionists have no rational answer.
 
SavedByTheLord said:
How did the giraffe gets its long neck?
Evolutionists have no rational answer.
Click to expand...
You are lying again. You have been given the answer several times, and haven't even attempted to criticise it. Not surprising as it is not just rational but obvious and well evidenced. Instead you lie. Keep this up. You are making your peculiar branch of Christianity look rubbish.
 
And that is not counting the answers he has received on the other boards that he has spammed the same questions on. Interesting, The same questions, the same answers, the same denials, the same arrogance, on non-christian boards, the language is a little freer but no support for his ideas. Even the King James only sub on this board laughs at him for his irrationality and arrogance.

The one scary thought I saw was that Poe is old school and this is an AI chat bot beta. countering human disinformation is difficult enough already as is obvious from the SEPtic forum. Will reason survive or is this the apogee?
 
Forgot Same assertions, Same "proofs" etc.

But for those who know more about AI bots, how hard is it to train them with creationist math?
 
Temujin said:
You are lying again. You have been given the answer several times, and haven't even attempted to criticise it. Not surprising as it is not just rational but obvious and well evidenced. Instead you lie. Keep this up. You are making your peculiar branch of Christianity look rubbish.
Click to expand...
How did the giraffe get its long neck?

There was no reason for a longer neck as there was plenty of food at the ground and lower levels even up to 10 feet. A few giraffes that were a foot taller does not provide any survival advantage, as they cannot reach the upper vegetation.

And a longer neck presents all kinds of blood pressure and blood flow problems between a giraffe with head bent to the ground and a neck stretched up.
In fact, the giraffe has special valves in its neck to allow such, but how did they evolve?
That change is too complex to have evolved all at once and provides no advantage until all in place.
In fact, it would cause a real problem with survival if only partially formed.
So, God made the giraffe with the longer neck and the special valves.
 
Pogo said:
Forgot Same assertions, Same "proofs" etc.

But for those who know more about AI bots, how hard is it to train them with creationist math?
Click to expand...
Interesting thought, but I think that AI would be more convincing. It wouldn't keep using exactly the same words on multiple boards. It wouldn't ignore input and it wouldn't put up with being called a liar so frequently.

It's a sad state to be in when you are a less convincing human being than a robot would be.
 
SavedByTheLord said:
The recurrent laryngeal nerve proves design, aka creation.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Quite the reverse. Stop lying. There is nothing that proves design. That would require observation of a structure that it is proven to be impossible through evolution. No such structure has been discovered.
 
rossum said:
This is not evidence, these are questions. This is the kind of rubbish that YEC websites put out, and we have seen it many times before.

Because we have seen this stuff before, we already have a set of answers: Index to Creationist Claims.

Go through your list, and remove any that are already answered at that link. Repost a much shorter list of the questions that are not already answered.
Click to expand...
Mammals with different chromosome numbers cannot produce fertile offspring,
So all mammals should have the same chromosome count.

That destroys macroevolution and refutes the dating of the rock layers.

news.berkeley.edu

With interspecies hybrids, it makes a difference who's the dad and who's the mom

Two closely related species of Xenopus: the larger X. laevis, or African clawed frog (center) and the smaller X. tropicalis, or Western clawed frog. While the two can interbreed, the offspring survive only if the mother is African. With the occasional ...
news.berkeley.edu news.berkeley.edu
 
SavedByTheLord said:
Mammals with different chromosome numbers cannot produce fertile offspring,
So all mammals should have the same chromosome count.

That destroys macroevolution and refutes the dating of the rock layers.

news.berkeley.edu

With interspecies hybrids, it makes a difference who's the dad and who's the mom

Two closely related species of Xenopus: the larger X. laevis, or African clawed frog (center) and the smaller X. tropicalis, or Western clawed frog. While the two can interbreed, the offspring survive only if the mother is African. With the occasional ...
news.berkeley.edu news.berkeley.edu
Click to expand...
Oh please. Frogs are not mammals. No mammal is a frog.

At least copy something relevant from your YEC source. And here is something for you to think about: Morocco's Miracle Mule. And horses and mules have a different number of chromosomes.
 
rossum said:
Oh please. Frogs are not mammals. No mammal is a frog.

At least copy something relevant from your YEC source. And here is something for you to think about: Morocco's Miracle Mule. And horses and mules have a different number of chromosomes.
Click to expand...
You missed this in the article.

While mammals with different numbers of chromosomes cannot produce fertile offspring – which is the case with offspring of donkeys and horses – amphibians, fish, plants and yeast sometimes can.
 
SavedByTheLord said:
You missed this in the article.

While mammals with different numbers of chromosomes cannot produce fertile offspring – which is the case with offspring of donkeys and horses – amphibians, fish, plants and yeast sometimes can.
Click to expand...
Ah. You accept as true what it written in a science article. I am glad that you now accept that the universe is 13.5 billion years old and that Noah's flood was not worldwide.

You missed this in my post: Morocco's Miracle Mule. That proves that your source is wrong.
 
rossum said:
Ah. You accept as true what it written in a science article. I am glad that you now accept that the universe is 13.5 billion years old and that Noah's flood was not worldwide.

You missed this in my post: Morocco's Miracle Mule. That proves that your source is wrong.
Click to expand...
And where are the offspring of the miracle mule?
That is why you need to account for 20 generations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top