MarkNigro

I only asked that they admit that they have a religious assumption. Any chance you will admit you don't have proof that the earth is only 6000 years old? None at all. Any chance that you will admit that you do not have a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than 6,000 years. Any chance that you will admit that you have a religious assumption in how you approach determining origins. Any chance that you will admit that the teaching of evolution from atoms to mankind and long ages of the universe in public schools violates the establishment clause of the US constitution. Any chance that you will admit that of the other questions that I asked you do not have an answer. I never made any of those claims so I have nothing to admit. Now, you have made a claim about the age of the earth, and you now refuse to support it or to withdraw it. Why do you ask others to do something that you refuse to do? Because my claim isn't being taught in the public schools. Theirs is.

I only asked that they admit that they have a religious assumption. Any chance you will admit you don't have proof that the earth is only 6000 years old? None at all. Any chance that you will admit that you do not have a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than 6,000 years. Any chance that you will admit that you have a religious assumption in how you approach determining origins. Any chance that you will admit that the teaching of evolution from atoms to mankind and long ages of the universe in public schools violates the establishment clause of the US constitution. Any chance that you will admit that of the other questions that I asked you do not have an answer.

I only asked that they admit that they have a religious assumption.

This answer was written as the discussion partner was wanting to opt out. This is setting somebody under pressure, I think. Furthermore, the author categorizes a priori any answer as false. Go to a library, museum, and/or university and look! I already know what most of the answers that evolutionists would give to these questions. Here are the answers: Here again, the author is telling us he already knows before asking his quesions. 3) sources unrevealed The author was asked to be specific which books he cited. In a scientific debate I understand quoting sources as vital. If anybody doesn't want to name his sources, nobody could go read and verify. I think, hiding sources is unfair and further diminishes the quality of the discussion. Have a good day Thomas I do not take offense. I am only trying to get people to see that in trying to determine origins everyone has an approach that is based on a religious assumption. As to the naming of books that I have read, that was a little silly. Here is why. I have read many books over the course of the last 40+ years about Math, Statistics, Physics, Biology, Logic, and Chemistry. I do not even have all these books with me. I could not possibly remember the names of these books. I do have a number of these books and I could go and get the info on these books. But as I was on my way to do so, I realized that it is wasting my time. In effect, whether intentional of not, it was a demeaning request. The same holds for all the articles I have read and internet site I have looked at. I believe I am more than qualified to discuss these matters. The matter started when I asked for information as to what do evolutionist believe were the answers to some very important questions. In all my years of looking at any literature about these I have never come across a single answer to these questions. When I posted the question, I could not know that there was no answer since I had not looked at ALL literature. When no answer was given by anyone on these topics from people who are knowledgeable on this subject, it was then that it dawned on me that there were no answers to the questions I asked. This is a major problem with evolutionary theory as it stands. It is important to know that there are no answers to these important questions. Thus it really isn't a theory that should be taught in public school. Also it makes it extremely difficult to refute a theory which in essence is just a conjecture. Because then you need to go through all possibilities. That is why I wanted the answers to my questions so I can show that the answer must be false from simple Biology, Chemistry, Math, Logic, Physics and Statistics. When I got no answer, now I must have to disprove the following combinations. First creature: protein or RNA or DNA or something else Frist creature: long chain of amino acid or nucleotides or a small chain of either. Second creature: small jump from first creature or large jump from creature. ​The reason the perosn might feel pressure is that in essence he might not understand that the theory of evolution is just a conjecture based on a religious assumption and there are no answers yet on key points. The problem is that most evolutionist literature is a conclusion but without sound facts and logic behind them. Thanks, Mark

None of us know. But laws are not random; they are put in place by someone...regardless of what they are. God is the source of all natural laws and to say otherwise is ridiculous. All laws come from a lawgiver. The laws of nature are created by God Almighty the Creator.

Exactly! So is the origin of the universe. It is a spiritual thing. You either believe in the Almighty God the Creator who can do everything and who plainly tells the truth and can be believed. Or you believe in a lie.

Or I guess I would have to tell the others Jews who believe in 6000 years that they are wrong. This is a spiritual thing, not a reading comprehension issue.

Which books, websites, and technical articles? What are their titles? I'm a biologist, and have been for about 15 years. I have a BS in biology and an MS in ecology. Thanks for the info.

But not all Jews. Christians have had the text fro 2000 years also. Obviously there is a difference of opinion among Jews. Obviously there is a difference of opinion among Christians. I have studied the Holy Bible extensively. It clearly says everything created in 6 days about 6,000 years ago.

I have read a number of books, looked at many sites, read some technical articles, and other things. I do not like revealing too much about myself on the internet. If you would like to correct any of the answers I had to fill in for you to those questions by all means do. Since you seem so knowledgeable then you should know these answers. Are you a scientist is a field related to the discussion at hand? What is your highest degree? I have a MSEE and BSEE in Electrical Engineering from many years ago. But I do keep up with the news from science and other things.

Go to a library, museum, and/or university and look! I already know what most of the answers that evolutionists would give to these questions. Here are the answers: I asked for a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than about 6,000 years old. BTW, not a single evolutionist can do this. THEY HAVE NO FACT. I asked for an explanation of how the universe came into being. Nothing just exploded and became the universe. IMPOSSIBLE. I asked for the following But where did DNA even come from? They do not know. What was the first life form (I do not know if it would be considered living)? They have no answer. Was it just proteins? How many proteins? How many amino acids were in each of the proteins? What was the amino acid sequence? Might have been proteins. No answer for other 2 questions. Did it have RNA? How many nucleotides did it have in the RNA? What was the nucleotide sequence? Might have been RNA. No answer for other 2 questions. Did it have DNA? How many nucleotides did it have in the RNA? What was the nucleotide sequence? Might have been DNA. No answer for other 2 questions. I asked for the dates (how many years ago) that the transition creature existed, the ancestor species existed, and the descendant species existed of just one supposed transitional creature. I'll talk about dates separately.

In fact just quote me just one date of any creature discovered say from the dinosaur ere or before.

I asked for a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than about 6,000 years old. BTW, not a single evolutionist can do this. I asked for an explanation of how the universe came into being. I asked for the following But where did DNA even come from? What was the first life form (I do not know if it would be considered living)? Was it just proteins? How many proteins? How many amino acids were in each of the proteins? What was the amino acid sequence? Did it have RNA? How many nucleotides did it have in the RNA? What was the nucleotide sequence? Did it have DNA? How many nucleotides did it have in the RNA? What was the nucleotide sequence? I asked for the dates (how many years ago) that the transition creature existed, the ancestor species existed, and the descendant species existed of just one supposed transitional creature. Is there any answer for any of these questions by anybody? How can the theory of evolution win hands down if there is nothing to back it?

Exactly...."as far as you know". Then just give me the information as far as you know.

How? Did you see the material I posted on the fossil record of Foraminifera? Just in that taxon alone there are "tons" of transitional fossils. How do you account for that? Are you suggesting that you know more about the researchers' work than they do? So, you personally have "tons" of Foraminifera fossils? I asked for the dates of just one of these tons. I asked for the dates (how many years ago) that the transition creature existed, the ancestor species existed, and the descendant species existed of just one supposed transitional creature. There is none I guess.

The reason is that you do not have an answer. Furthermore any answer given would just further prove the evolution of atoms to mankind false. As far as I know there is no answer from the evolutionists on these questions. How can evolution win if this vital point is not even answered yet? How can it ever be sold as remotely true if there is no answer?

How? Did you see the material I posted on the fossil record of Foraminifera? Just in that taxon alone there are "tons" of transitional fossils. How do you account for that? Are you suggesting that you know more about the researchers' work than they do? Can you provide me the dates (how many years ago) that a transition creature existed, the ancestor species existed, and the descendant species existed of just one supposed transitional creature? How about a link between the dinosaurs and some other creature?

Why don't you give the dates (how many years ago) that the transition creature existed, the ancestor species existed, and the descendant species existed of just one supposed transitional creature. The reason for my request for dates will become apparent when I can get an answer. The information must be there to make any claim of any transition creature.

Why don't you give the dates (how many years ago) that the transition creature existed, the ancestor species existed, and the descendant species existed of just one supposed transitional creature.

Sorry there are none at all. in fact there should be millions of chains of missing links between all these species. None have been found. Besides all of your dating techniques are based on an already proven false religious assumption.

Just want to point out a verse from the Holy Bible. God spoke this once and twice wrote it in stone with His own finger. Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. This is saying that from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:1 took 6 days. Since the Jews who heard and read this knew that a day is 24 hours, it means 144 hours. Now look in Genesis 1 at what was created during that 6 days. It is more than just Adam and Eve.

Yes they do and it's so easy to demonstrate in real-time, it's a common lab experiment in introductory biology courses. But where did DNA even come from? What was the first life form (I do not know if it would be considered living)? Was it just proteins? How many proteins? How many amino acids were in each of the proteins? What was the amino acid sequence? Did it have RNA? How many nucleotides did it have in the RNA? What was the nucleotide sequence? Did it have DNA? How many nucleotides did it have in the RNA? What was the nucleotide sequence? Please provide specific answers.

Obviously you do not have one single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than about 6,000 years ago. All your conclusions are now false. The answer to the topic question is the Theory of Evolution (atoms to mankind) is false and is just a modern form of a pagan belief.

The theory of evolution from atoms to mankind has no facts, not based on a religious assumption, that support it. Besides all the evidence proves it wrong. But here is a big issue. There is not one single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than about 6,000 years in the universe or the universe itself. Therefore there is not a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, that supports atoms to molecules evolution. Provide one single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than about 6,000 years ago. If I show that you have an religious assumption in your reasoning, you lose all your arguments. I will give you one free try. After that I will up the ante. Agreed?

As to many scientists who believe in evolution they do not have a secret agenda. They are just being used as pawns by Satan.