What was the first living thing like according to evolutionists

[MarkNigro]

 

 

 

Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis

That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science.

 

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short

 

http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

  

Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution;  http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution.  Disproving one does not prove the other.  That would be a logical fallacy.

 

The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God.

 

This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts.

 

If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true.

 

Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true.

 

Therefore God created all things.

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

A great proof against atheistic origin science is that it can't be defended in a simple discussion.

 

What is usually done is that a one sided debate is carried out by those that support atheistic origin science. The present a straw man for creation science. Again that is a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

In public schools they actually try to silence any questioning of it.

 

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

If any questions are even allowed the forum is small by a single student. The professor or teacher acts as moderator even though they believe in atheistic origin science and give the student their grades.

 

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

Everything about atheistic origin science is just a few stories with all the hard questions never answered and hidden away.

[JDavis]

And none of that leads to proving your view of creation is correct.

Each theory must stand on its own.

Why not try supporting your view instead of knocking others.

It leads on to think you have no support for your view.

Try this....prove the world didn't come from Tiamat

[MarkNigro]

And none of that leads to proving your view of creation is correct.

Each theory must stand on its own.

Why not try supporting your view instead of knocking others.

It leads on to think you have no support for your view.

Try this....prove the world didn't come from Tiamat

Step 1. disprove atheistic origin theory

 

Step 2. the Holy Bible is the word of God

 

Step 3. The Holy Bible clearly declares how God did it.

 

The last post was for step 1.

[JDavis]

And none of that leads to proving your view of creation is correct.

Each theory must stand on its own.

Why not try supporting your view instead of knocking others.

It leads on to think you have no support for your view.

Try this....prove the world didn't come from Tiamat

Step 1. disprove atheistic origin theory

Step 2. the Holy Bible is the word of God

Step 3. The Holy Bible clearly declares how God did it.

The last post was for step 1.

You use no logic, you make leaps that have no connection.

You make fact claims that you refuse to support.

You ignore questions asked of you.

"because I said so" does not make something true.

These things make it increasingly difficult to have any discussions with you

[MarkNigro]

 

 

And none of that leads to proving your view of creation is correct.

Each theory must stand on its own.

Why not try supporting your view instead of knocking others.

It leads on to think you have no support for your view.

Try this....prove the world didn't come from Tiamat

Step 1. disprove atheistic origin theory

Step 2. the Holy Bible is the word of God

Step 3. The Holy Bible clearly declares how God did it.

The last post was for step 1.

You use no logic, you make leaps that have no connection.

You make fact claims that you refuse to support.

You ignore questions asked of you.

"because I said so" does not make something true.

These things make it increasingly difficult to have any discussions with you

 

I never said "because I said so"

 

It seems impossible to discuss the theories of  atheistic origin science since they actually give no answers

 

I ignore some questions because they are really an attempt to evade the questions I asked. Like the name of this very topic.

[MarkNigro]

 

 

And none of that leads to proving your view of creation is correct.

Each theory must stand on its own.

Why not try supporting your view instead of knocking others.

It leads on to think you have no support for your view.

Try this....prove the world didn't come from Tiamat

Step 1. disprove atheistic origin theory

Step 2. the Holy Bible is the word of God

Step 3. The Holy Bible clearly declares how God did it.

The last post was for step 1.

You use no logic, you make leaps that have no connection.

You make fact claims that you refuse to support.

You ignore questions asked of you.

"because I said so" does not make something true.

These things make it increasingly difficult to have any discussions with you

 

Here are just a few of the questions I have for those that support evolution from atoms to mankind and old ages of things.

 

 

What was the first living thing like according to evolutionists?

 

Was just comprised of proteins and other atoms?

If so how many amino acids were in each protein?

What was the sequence of the amino acids?

 

Or

 

Was it composed of RNA and proteins?

For the proteins, how many amino acids were in each protein?

What was the sequence of the amino acids?

 

For the RNA,

How many nucleotides total was there?

What was the sequence of nucleotides?

 

Or

 

did it have DNA and all the other things needed to be DNA based?

How many nucleotides total was there?

What was the sequence of nucleotides?

 

For those that believe in the Big Bang, what was there before?

 

What kind of God would have used evolution over billions of years?

 

Can any evolutionist provide a single fact, not based on an assumption, of anything older than 5000 years?

 

Can evolutionist give dates (years ago) for when a  single transitional creature (missing link) lived. Also provide the same for the ancestor and the descendant?

 

Is it possible that man descended from some apelike creature in 5 million years?

 

No answer to any of these questions. Just an attempt to evade the issues. I have many many more questions that evolutionists cannot answer.

[JDavis]

And none of that leads to proving your view of creation is correct.

Each theory must stand on its own.

Why not try supporting your view instead of knocking others.

It leads on to think you have no support for your view.

Try this....prove the world didn't come from Tiamat

Step 1. disprove atheistic origin theory

Step 2. the Holy Bible is the word of God

Step 3. The Holy Bible clearly declares how God did it.

The last post was for step 1.

You use no logic, you make leaps that have no connection.

You make fact claims that you refuse to support.

You ignore questions asked of you.

"because I said so" does not make something true.

These things make it increasingly difficult to have any discussions with you

I never said

"because I said so"

It seems impossible to discuss the theories of atheistic origin science since they actually give no answers

I ignore some questions because they are really an attempt to evade the questions I asked. Like the name of this very topic.

Do you realize that your step 1 does not prove step 2.

If your goal is to support steps 2 & 3 then step 1 is a waste of time as step 1 does not lead to step 2 or 3

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

 

 

Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis

That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science.

 

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short

 

http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

  

Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution;  http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution.  Disproving one does not prove the other.  That would be a logical fallacy.

 

The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God.

 

This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts.

 

If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true.

 

Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true.

 

Therefore God created all things.

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

A great proof against atheistic origin science is that it can't be defended in a simple discussion.

 

What is usually done is that a one sided debate is carried out by those that support atheistic origin science. The present a straw man for creation science. Again that is a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

In public schools they actually try to silence any questioning of it.

 

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

If any questions are even allowed the forum is small by a single student. The professor or teacher acts as moderator even though they believe in atheistic origin science and give the student their grades.

 

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

Everything about atheistic origin science is just a few stories with all the hard questions never answered and hidden away.

 

The intention of the link wasn't for you to practice the fallacies! 

Edited August 12, 2013 by TsukinoRei

[MarkNigro]

 

 

 

 

 

Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis

That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science.

 

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short

 

http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

  

Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution;  http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution.  Disproving one does not prove the other.  That would be a logical fallacy.

 

The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God.

 

This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts.

 

If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true.

 

Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true.

 

Therefore God created all things.

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

A great proof against atheistic origin science is that it can't be defended in a simple discussion.

 

What is usually done is that a one sided debate is carried out by those that support atheistic origin science. The present a straw man for creation science. Again that is a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

In public schools they actually try to silence any questioning of it.

 

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

If any questions are even allowed the forum is small by a single student. The professor or teacher acts as moderator even though they believe in atheistic origin science and give the student their grades.

 

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

Everything about atheistic origin science is just a few stories with all the hard questions never answered and hidden away.

 

The intention of the link wasn't for you to practice the fallacies! 

 

Name a fallacy that I am practicing.

 

I already have identified a number that atheistic origin science does.

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis

That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science.

 

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short

 

http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

  

Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution;  http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution.  Disproving one does not prove the other.  That would be a logical fallacy.

 

The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God.

 

This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts.

 

If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true.

 

Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true.

 

Therefore God created all things.

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

A great proof against atheistic origin science is that it can't be defended in a simple discussion.

 

What is usually done is that a one sided debate is carried out by those that support atheistic origin science. The present a straw man for creation science. Again that is a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

In public schools they actually try to silence any questioning of it.

 

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

If any questions are even allowed the forum is small by a single student. The professor or teacher acts as moderator even though they believe in atheistic origin science and give the student their grades.

 

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

Everything about atheistic origin science is just a few stories with all the hard questions never answered and hidden away.

 

The intention of the link wasn't for you to practice the fallacies! 

 

Name a fallacy that I am practicing.

 

I already have identified a number that atheistic origin science does.

 

There are plenty of theistic evolution scientists.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis

That is not a peer-reviewed scholarly article, and therefore not a reliable source when it comes to science.

 

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.short

 

http://63.198.242.16/people/BIOs/john%20smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/sci_78.pdf

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.short

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

  

Here, this is at least better list of source materials for arguing against evolution;  http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

That said I would complain that while these people claim to be arguing for/providing evidence for intelligent design the only thing they actually appear to be doing is pointing out problems with Evolution.  Disproving one does not prove the other.  That would be a logical fallacy.

 

The proof is simple. Assume that atheistic origin science is correct that all things came into being without God.

 

This leads to a contradiction in logic and facts.

 

If something is assumed true and the leads to a contradiction, then its opposite is proven true.

 

Thus proving atheistic origin science fasle proves theistic origin science true.

 

Therefore God created all things.

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

A great proof against atheistic origin science is that it can't be defended in a simple discussion.

 

What is usually done is that a one sided debate is carried out by those that support atheistic origin science. The present a straw man for creation science. Again that is a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

In public schools they actually try to silence any questioning of it.

 

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

If any questions are even allowed the forum is small by a single student. The professor or teacher acts as moderator even though they believe in atheistic origin science and give the student their grades.

 

Again a great proof against atheistic origin science.

 

Everything about atheistic origin science is just a few stories with all the hard questions never answered and hidden away.

 

The intention of the link wasn't for you to practice the fallacies! 

 

Name a fallacy that I am practicing.

 

I already have identified a number that atheistic origin science does.

 

 

• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).^[13]
• Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.^[14][15]
• Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
• Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.
• (shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
• False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
• Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position^[66]
• Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. 
  • Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says^[49]  (in this case, you point to specific negative behaviour by unspecified individualize and generalize it to all people who believe in Evolution, then apply it as evidence against the idea itself)

^{Also, none of the things that you just listed as proofs against Evolution have anything to do with the theory of Evolution, they have everything to do with the debate etiquettes of the individuals in question!  Being rude to someone doesn't prove that a theory is untrue, it proves that someone is being rude!  The use of the term atheistic origin science although there are Christian Biologists who work with Evolution could be considered an example of;}

 

• Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.

By mischaracterising the theory of evolution as 'atheistic origin science' you purposefully deny all of the evolution scientists who are also theistic.

 

  If you read and consider all of the fallacies you will be better equipped to make more bulletproof arguments for your case, AND you'll be able to accurately point out when people who believe in Evolution are using the same fallacies against you!  Win/win! 

Edited August 12, 2013 by TsukinoRei