A Challenge for Evolutionists

[Sum1sGruj]

This is a rarity, but nonetheless appropriate. After all, on both sides of the coin, there exists a sword as well as a shield.

The Theory of Evolution. It states that over the past 3 billion years, an RNA sequence from an unknown or chanced happening occurred.
It is easy to think of it as a combination of material that, over time, developed into a self-sustained system. And then, as DNA took over, evolution began.

Science simply cannot account for how this could possibly have happened, as the odds are so extremely astronomical that it being labeled impossible is in all practicality a truth.
But that is not the subject I want to put up. Everyone here has a common view that God made this happen. The subject I want to talk about is ToE masquerading as being true, to the extent that even the religious must heed it.

Let's be honest- when it all comes down to it, no evidence can prove anything. All it does is facilitate a rationale subjective to cause and effect.
Because we see the age of a rock that a fossil is embedded in, or what stratum the rock is embedded in, we come to see a paradigm that matches a theory.
But what is scientific theory? It is a hypothesis that, despite scrutiny, assembles evidence and solves a problem. With ToE, it solved the problem of life having no origin. But did it?
Let's look at what is wrong with ToE:

Many organisms do not even fit into the ToE canon.
How about the truth that all it takes is one simple anomaly and ToE goes down? Nobody wants to face that, and so every unfounded idea keeps the theory floating. Even if one an idea is not established, scientists just push into the shadows and say there must be a cause because evolution must be true.
Anyone who is educated on a real science, like physics, knows that without symmetry, theory is nothing to get bent out of shape about.
Look at Einstein's Relativity- it is the only explanation of gravity this far, providing a mathematical constant for gravity at a grand scale.
However, time and space may after all be anything but a fabric of reality.

The same can definitely apply to ToE. It may be an explanation for evolution, but it may also be completely wrong in it's contexts. That is, the idea that we started out as an RNA sequence is just subjective and anti-Genesis, holding no weight for Christians to heed.

So far, you can clearly see that is not a notion supporting Solipsism. This is rather a direct criticism to OEC having dismissal for YEC.

So, here's the key element of going about ToE. Think about these few things before addressing it, as this is the paradox of observation:

-Can you prove that the DNA 'hierarchy' that ToE shows to be evidence of evolution is not just similar coding for similar organisms and nothing more?

-Can you prove or provide a rationale that God would or wouldn't initially make something 'old' form the start, as in He wouldn't create an ore of uranium already turning into lead?

-Can you prove that fossils being aged are more then base assumption on their desired location in the fossil record and the rock they are found in?

If you cannot solve all three of these, then you rationale is obsolete.
Godspeed.

 

[Incariol]

Parsimony, God does not lie (Titus 1:2) and radiometric dating.

 

[KerrMetric]

Science simply cannot account for how this could possibly have happened, as the odds are so extremely astronomical that it being labeled impossible is in all practicality a truth.

This is a false statement.

With ToE, it solved the problem of life having no origin.

This is a false statement.

providing a mathematical constant for gravity at a grand scale.

This is a false statement.


How do ya think you are doing so far?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

This is a false statement.



This is a false statement.



This is a false statement.


How do ya think you are doing so far?

< staff edit > < staff edit >
Ever seen a 'G' in mathematics? That is the formula of gravity, friend.
E=mc2 is a formula allowing Relativity. Relativity still holds today. These were used to land us competently on the moon without feeling like we were being slingshot into an abyss.

That's number one.

With the second one, that is just the usual straw man that evolutionists hypocritically put in the face of creationists. I never said ToE solved anything, only that it masquerades as having found a rationale behind the origin of species as they are now. That is, from microscopic jelly to human being.

That's number two.

Saying that material shifted around in an enclosed vent at the bottom of an ocean for a billion years and forming life is not an explanation.

That's number three.

Sorry, but your failing to show the concrete evolution theory as being anymore then an illusion.

 

[Incariol]

Sorry, but your failing to show the concrete evolution theory as being anymore then an illusion.

Wait. What? Since when was that the point of this thread?

 

[Mallon]

-Can you prove that the DNA 'hierarchy' that ToE shows to be evidence of evolution is not just similar coding for similar organisms and nothing more?

What do you mean "nothing more"? The fact that such a hierarchy exists is itself evidence for evolution because evolution is the only theory that requires such a hierarchy. Creationism predicts no such hierarchy, nor can it explain it.

-Can you prove or provide a rationale that God would or wouldn't initially make something 'old' form the start, as in He wouldn't create an ore of uranium already turning into lead?

God can do anything He likes. He could have created the fossil record in situ, if He wanted. The question is: Do you want to worship a God who embedded a false history in His creation? Rom 1:20 tells us that creation accurately reflects God's characteristics. How can this be so if God created the world to look one way and yet be another?

-Can you prove that fossils being aged are more then base assumption on their desired location in the fossil record and the rock they are found in?

Sure. Creationists themselves admit that there's a distinct order to the fossil record, with fossils appearing in distinct sequences (see Kurt Wise's work, for example). Therefore, the order of the fossil is real and not just a lie promoted by evolutionists, as you're implying.

Challenge met.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

What do you mean "nothing more"? The fact that such a hierarchy exists is itself evidence for evolution because evolution is the only theory that requires such a hierarchy. Creationism predicts no such hierarchy, nor can it explain it.

Circularity. A hierarchy is required for ToE, ToE is not required for a hierarchy. Similar DNA can simply be that of similar organisms, much like a bar code to a given product.

God can do anything He likes. He could have created the fossil record in situ, if He wanted. The question is: Do you want to worship a God who embedded a false history in His creation? Rom 1:20 tells us that creation accurately reflects God's characteristics. How can this be so if God created the world to look one way and yet be another?

God did not embed a false history in His creation. Man has simply gone awol with their assumptions. Science misleads people from God's Word.
You are pinning backward accusations that all Christian Deists put on YEC's.

Sure. Creationists themselves admit that there's a distinct order to the fossil record, with fossils appearing in distinct sequences (see Kurt Wise's work, for example). Therefore, the order of the fossil is real and not just a lie promoted by evolutionists, as you're implying.

Not a lie, just not an established truth. Not even so much as to tell YEC's they are wrong. It's not scientists that promote a lie, it is those that defend it that do. This should be dually noted.

Challenge met.

Challenge not even really acknowledged. Is anyone actually going to try? Not that there is a competent answer to it all. Admittingly, it's supposed to show the flaw of OEC logic. But I figure there must be a great mind with a cure for that anomaly in logic. Maybe.. seeing how half the world goes by it, I figure there should be at least several, especially the way YEC gets taxed by just about everyone.

 

[Mallon]

Circularity. A hierarchy is required for ToE

Right. And a hierarchy is observed. That is, ToE predicts a hierarchy, and we observe a hierarchy, both in organismal morphology and genetics. That is evidence for evolution.
Creationism neither predicts nor explains the existence of such a hierarchy.

God did not embed a false history in His creation.

And yet you're suggesting that God created the universe to look old when it does not. If you're going to run with that argument, what's to stop you from arguing that God also created the fossil record and meteor craters in situ?

Not a lie, just not an established truth.

If you think you're more intelligent and more learned than 200 years worth of geologists, knock yerself out. It's a conspiracy!

 

[KerrMetric]

..dealing with a liar, to put it negatively. Ever seen a 'G' in mathematics? That is the formula of gravity, friend.

< staff edit > < staff edit > < staff edit >
G is the gravitational constant (not a formula - do you even know what these terms mean???) an empirically determined number. In your first post you said that Einsteins theory of gravity (general relativity) provides a mathematical constant for gravity i.e. G. This is WRONG sunshine. G is determined by experiment. It is NOT a consequence of the theory.

Hence I was correct in saying you made a false statement. Now do you really want to argue physics with me?

E=mc2 is a formula allowing Relativity.

More rubbish.

With the second one, that is just the usual straw man that evolutionists hypocritically put in the face of creationists. I never said ToE solved anything, only that it masquerades as having found a rationale behind the origin of species as they are now. That is, from microscopic jelly to human being.

NO - you stated it solved for the origin of life. GO BACK and read what you posted. I said this was a false statement. Again, I am correct and you are not.

Saying that material shifted around in an enclosed vent at the bottom of an ocean for a billion years and forming life is not an explanation.

That's number three.

Sorry, but your failing to show the concrete evolution theory as being anymore then an illusion.

< staff edit > < staff edit > < staff edit >

 

[metherion]

The Theory of Evolution. It states that over the past 3 billion years, an RNA sequence from an unknown or chanced happening occurred.
It is easy to think of it as a combination of material that, over time, developed into a self-sustained system. And then, as DNA took over, evolution began.

Wrong.

1)RNA-DNA-life is not part of the ToE. It is a separate field called abiogenesis.
2) RNA and DNA would not be coming together by chance, but by chemical reactions, which are FAR less random and far more predicatable.
3) As soon as the system was self sustaining, then evolution would begin. It would not need to wait for DNA. Assuming that is the order it went in.

Science simply cannot account for how this could possibly have happened, as the odds are so extremely astronomical that it being labeled impossible is in all practicality a truth.

4)Odd of it spontaneously forming, yes. But that is not the claim in the field of abiogenesis, which is not even the ToE.

Let's be honest- when it all comes down to it, no evidence can prove anything. All it does is facilitate a rationale subjective to cause and effect.

So cause and effect is wrong? Evidence cannot prove anything in courtrooms, or experiments in those fields of science you agree with (like electricity and electric engineering and physics that make your computer run)

5)It is a hypothesis that, despite scrutiny, assembles evidence and solves a problem.

6) No, it isn&#8217;t. A scientific theory is an explanation that is the best explanation tying together all the facts, that is capable of making predictions, and is falsifiable... for a start.

With ToE, it solved the problem of life having no origin. But did it?

7) Wrong. It did not solve the problem of life having no origin, and it was not meant to, and it was never claimed to except by those trying to bring it down.

Many organisms do not even fit into the ToE canon.

Such as? Specific examples are necessary.

How about the truth that all it takes is one simple anomaly and ToE goes down?

And? The same is true for all scientific theories. All it took was one error to bring down phlogiston. Such is the nature of science in general.

Nobody wants to face that, and so every unfounded idea keeps the theory floating. Even if one an idea is not established, scientists just push into the shadows and say there must be a cause because evolution must be true.

8) That knowledge is a fact of science. Furthermore, this is an unevidenced conspiracy accusation.

Anyone who is educated on a real science, like physics, knows that without symmetry, theory is nothing to get bent out of shape about. Look at Einstein's Relativity- it is the only explanation of gravity this far, providing a mathematical constant for gravity at a grand scale.
However, time and space may after all be anything but a fabric of reality.

9) So biology isn&#8217;t real science? Talk about poisoning the well, and getting the terms wrong..
10) and you are doing a bait and switch as well. In physics calculations, the reality doesn&#8217;t matter if the constants are correct...
11) AND part of physics is dedicated to researching if time and fabric are anything but the fabric of reality. So the theory IS important.

The same can definitely apply to ToE. It may be an explanation for evolution, but it may also be completely wrong in it's contexts.

12) The theory may be wrong, but the theory explains the facts, and the facts are right. They are observable and demonstrable. Furthermore, if you are going to claim that everything could be wrong, why do everything? Its actually interesting that you brought up gravity, because we know how strong gravity is, how it acts, what triggers it, but we don&#8217;t even know the cause of it. Yet we know that and more for evolution.

That is, the idea that we started out as an RNA sequence is just subjective and anti-Genesis, holding no weight for Christians to heed.

13) That is not what evolution says nor what it claims.
14) Currently it is under research. After that, it will either be false or objective. Technically, right now, it is either false or objective and we just don&#8217;t know yet. That does not make it subjective.
15) It is not anti-Genesis or anti-Bible or anti-religion. It may be anti-ONE SPECIFIC INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS HELD BY A MINORITY OF CHRISTIANS but that does not make it anti-Genesis. Take a look at the quote is Lucaspa&#8217;s sig... published long before Origin of Species.

So far, you can clearly see that is not a notion supporting Solipsism.

How is that relevant? Solipsism being that idea that only ones mind exists... I really don&#8217;t get the connection. Also, what idea does the bolded &#8216;that&#8217; refer to?

This is rather a direct criticism to OEC having dismissal for YEC.

What is the rather direct criticism?

Can you prove that the DNA 'hierarchy' that ToE shows to be evidence of evolution is not just similar coding for similar organisms and nothing more?

I assume you are referring to the twin nested hierarchy? The hierarchy exists. If you have the time, inclination, capability of understanding the biochemistry/biology involved, and access to journals, then you can and should look it up for yourself.

GIVEN that it exists, there are two possibilities: either it was created as to appear to have a hierarchy, or there is one. And creating it to appear to have one is omphalos, or outright deceit.

Can you prove or provide a rationale that God would or wouldn't initially make something 'old' form the start, as in He wouldn't create an ore of uranium already turning into lead?

I thought God was not the author of confusion, and since that would serve NO OTHER PURPOSE except to make everything look old, that would be deceit.

Yes, one might argue about having formed Adam as a full grown adult, but one of the other forums members ( I cannot remember who, tho I am tempted to say Lucaspa) put it roughly thus (and that there is my attempt to give credit where credit is due):

Creating the Earth fully formed is certainly within God&#8217;s power. Creating Adam as an adult is as well, and would not be deceit. However, creating Adam instantly from nothing with a scar on his chest, a chip on his tooth, and the memory of yesterday&#8217;s knife fight and drinking session that never happened WOULD be deceit. And that is akin to what would be happening for the age of the earth. Earthquakes that never happened, impact craters from meteors that never actually hit (with accompanying dust layers), layers of Antarctic ice with trapped air from an atmosphere that never surrounded the earth, etc etc etc.

Also, if God DID just make things to look old and related when they are not... what is your rationale that God did not just poof the universe into existence last Thursday with your memories fully formed and the world functioning according to them?

Can you prove that fossils being aged are more then base assumption on their desired location in the fossil record and the rock they are found in?

Radiometric dating of the fossils and the rock they are found it.

So, with at least 15 errors/logical fallacies/not understanding the fundamentals AND a claim that will render our court system nonfunctional, there is a dissection of the OP.

Ever seen a 'G' in mathematics? That is the formula of gravity, friend.
E=mc2 is a formula allowing Relativity. Relativity still holds today. These were used to land us competently on the moon without feeling like we were being slingshot into an abyss.

That's number one.

How does that relate to:

Science simply cannot account for how this could possibly have happened, as the odds are so extremely astronomical that it being labeled impossible is in all practicality a truth.

It is a total non sequitor. Talking about odds of spontaneous formation of RNA does not relate nor is shown right or wrong in any way, shape, or form by the gravitational constant.

With the second one, that is just the usual straw man that evolutionists hypocritically put in the face of creationists. I never said ToE solved anything, only that it masquerades as having found a rationale behind the origin of species as they are now. That is, from microscopic jelly to human being.

That's number two.

That was a response to

With ToE, it solved the problem of life having no origin.

This response has several errors. You directly USED THE WORD SOLVED talking about the ToE solving life&#8217;s origin, then did a bait and switch to species when called on it. ToE does not explain the origin of life, but of species.

Saying that material shifted around in an enclosed vent at the bottom of an ocean for a billion years and forming life is not an explanation.

That's number three.

How on earth does that relate to the gravitational constant a la

providing a mathematical constant for gravity at a grand scale.

One last thing from one of your response posts to Mallon:

Science misleads people from God's Word.

No. It doesn&#8217;t. What tends to drive people off id the dogmatic insistence that science must be REJECTED for God to be true that is indoctrinated into people so hard that their faith is shattered when they come across the actual evidence.

And another question of my own at the end:
Why do you assume evolution is not a real science? Do you know what uses it has? Can you name 3 or 5 or even 10, and how it would affect you if those uses had not been developed?

Metherion

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Alright, since none of my questions seem to be registering the way they should from my OP, let's review:

ToE predicted that organisms have a 'hierarchy' at it's beginning. Just because they look at DNA and find it really makes no difference.
So the prediction is kind of stupid, in other words. It's like me saying, 'that parrot is more advanced then that crow, lets look at their DNA to confirm it.' See the 'double play' there?
Make a testable hypothesis that shows that there is no way possible that this 'hierarchy' is simply just that of like organisms and is rather common descent.

Kerrmetric. < staff edit > < staff edit > < staff edit >
Anyways, I have stated on this site a few times on a few threads about how evolutionists will shrug off anything that hurts ToE. Let shrugging how life even began, the entire basis for evolutionary construction, as being another field of science. Indeed, if you are a Christian Deist, you must fit that, to, into your theology. Because if God had evolution happen then every other Deist idea happened as well, including microscopic 'jelly' springing into life. Surely if science can indicate the authenticity of how God created everything, then it should be able to come up with something remotely plausible.
It does not.

Organisms that do not fit into ToE: Parrots, bats, ants, beans.
Concepts that contradict ToE: Dependant symbiosis, spontaneous beneficial mutation, mathematics.

God is not the author of confusion.. so what is it you are arguing again?

Scientific theory- it doesn't matter how you sugarcoat it, there is a simple reason why it is called theory and not fact. Science reveals the truth that we as humans are limited in 'facts'. That is one thing that scientists and Darwinists cannot seem to find common ground on. It's probably because scientists are just enjoying the throne Darwinists have put them on.

I'm just pointing out things that are worth pointing out. I see no reversal of my questions. As well there shouldn't be, I admit,, they are there to make a point on OEC. They practically answer themselves.

 

[Papias]

sum wrote:

So, here's the key element of going about ToE. Think about these few things before addressing it, as this is the paradox of observation:

I'll provide information on each of these. These are each big topics which deserve a thread of their own. Well, more appropriately, they each require decades of study to learn even 10% of the evidence supporting them. It is sheer hubris that ignorant people can say they know better than those who dedicate their lives to these subjects. It's like the person faced with a cancer diagnosis replying to the oncologist that they know they can't have cancer because pedro in russia proved that toasters are really adiabatic.

-Can you prove that the DNA 'hierarchy' that ToE shows to be evidence of evolution is not just similar coding for similar organisms and nothing more?

Please learn about genetics. A good start would be to learn about ERVs, SNPs, and pseudogenes, including GULOP. It is your responsibility to do the googling (or better yet, the college courses), not mine. You'll find that the hierarchy is confirmed by many sequences unrelated to design, so they prove descent as good as a DNA paternity test. You trust those, right? Or is OJ innocent?

-Can you prove or provide a rationale that God would or wouldn't initially make something 'old' form the start, as in He wouldn't create an ore of uranium already turning into lead?

Do you agree that God could have made the entire universe, including yourself, two seconds ago, including your memory of your childhood? That's what you are arguing - that all evidence is irrelevant because of "Last Thursdayism". If you are taking that approach, then all discussion is pointless, as is all evidence.

If you think evidence does matter, then you'll have drop your "Last Thursdayism" argument.

-Can you prove that fossils being aged are more then base assumption on their desired location in the fossil record and the rock they are found in?

It sounds like you are completely clueless about dating methods. A few decades of university classes may help. In the meantime, Please read this thread, starting with this post, which has this:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7426528/#post53775303 Post #4

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"[/FONT]

*******************************************


Sum1sGruj, I know there are a lot of creationists out there, with websites and preachers decrying evolution as the spawn of the pit of hell.

However, there are also millions of Christians who see evolution as perfectly compatible with Christianity. Indeed, the majority of Evolution supporters in the united states are Christians. Similarly, the work of discovering evolution has mostly been done by scientists (of many fields) who are Christian.

I know what it is like to be convinced of something, and I'm sure you've heard many other Christians say that evolution is evil for a long time. However, please take the time to look into both sides with an open mind.

One place to start with examining the evidence for evolution is at www.talkorigins.org. There are plenty of others - including any high-school or college level biology class.

Important things to realize (and check these out, don't just take my word for it) are:

• The evidence for evolution includes all kinds of stuff, not just fossils. DNA tests alone would be enough to prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, even if there were no fossils. Others are phylogeny, biogeography, ontogeny, pathology, agriculture, and many others.
• There are tons of excellent series of clearly transitional fossils. The horse, whale, mammal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile and many others series are so clear that creationists generally just avoid them, and don't deny that they are clear.
• Nearly all scientists support evolution, and have for decades. It's simply not a controversy. While there is disagreement about minor points (such as whether ambulocetus was 70% vs. 80% aquatic), the basics are agreed upon. Compare any creationist "list" with Project Steve, times 100.
• Creationists don't agree on their basics. You can see this from OEC websites. Those creationists say the earth is billions (>2,000,000,000) of years old, while most creationists say it is about 6,000 years old.
• Geologists worldwide overwhelmingly reject the idea of a young earth and a global flood, based on evidence. They have agreed on this for over 150 years.
• Creationists rely almost solely on a handful of deceptive tactics. These include moving the goalposts, being evasive/misleading (AiG does that alot), quote mining (which you’ve no doubt seen – google it), ignoring/hiding evidence (very common), and less often, outright fraud.
• The majority of Christians worldwide are in churchs that accept evolution. Evolution is a firmly proven as the existence of the civil war, and the harder fundamentalists fight against it, the more damage they will do to Christianity, by making people think the Christianity is deception.

Take your time. There is no time limit to decide on evolution, and it will take time to test all of the statements above.

Papias

 

[Mallon]

You have no idea where I stand in science, my theology, or anything for that matter.

Out of curiosity, what formal training do you have in science?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

So... no formal training in science whatsoever, then? Particularly not in evolutionary biology?

None of that matters. The fact that you think it does just shows why OEC has been taken up by the masses. That is a naive way of thinking.

My three points in the OP cannot be answered competently by even the most militant of Darwinists.
And so you are attempting to take down something that simply cannot be brought down.
But even that revealing statement will not keep you from masquerading it as having any competent bearing. That is the irony of it.
You would think, if anything, you would at least heed God, but I guess He just comes second to stubborn ideology

 

[Mallon]

My three points in the OP cannot be answered competently by even the most militant of Darwinists.

But how would you know if you heard a competent reply from someone in the know if you yourself are not competently trained in the science of evolution?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

But how would you know if you heard a competent reply from someone in the know if you yourself are not competently trained in the science of evolution?

Because, what you are not grasping, is that is impossible to competently answer all of those questions. If you think about them for a hot second, you will see how they cannot be answered no matter how Darwinists argue them, even after decades of further discovery.
It is a stale mate. Including God into Deism does not put you above YEC. In fact, you are really just in the same boat with a theology that has gone awol.
That was my entire point. YEC's do not deserve to be getting the shaft when they have just as much bearing as any other theology.
You simply cannot resort to Deism and ridicule others. It's backwards.

 

[Mallon]

Because, what you are not grasping, is that is impossible to competently answer all of those questions. If you think about them for a hot second, you will see how they cannot be answered no matter how Darwinists argue them, even after decades of further discovery.
It is a stale mate. Including God into Deism does not put you above YEC. In fact, you are really just in the same boat with a theology that has gone awol.
That was my entire point. YEC's do not deserve to be getting the shaft when they have just as much bearing as any other theology.
You simply cannot resort to Deism and ridicule others. It's backwards.

Except your questions have been competently answered, but you apparently don't have the knowledge or experience to recognize it. Papias competently answered Question 1 by pointing out that non-coding ERVs and the like also retain the same hierarchical structure across species. Question 2 has been exposed as little more than Last Thursday-ism, which is a silly position for any Christian to hold. And Question 3 was answered by pointing out the fact that evolutionists and YECs alike -- many of whom are better trained in geology than you -- agree that there is a distinct order to the fossil record that does not simply reflect "evolutionist bias". This is why we get YECs trying to explain that order by citing things like flood sorting mechanisms, etc.

You can keep pretending like no one has answered your questions, but it's pretty obvious that you're just ignoring the answers.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Except your questions have been competently answered, but you apparently don't have the knowledge or experience to recognize it. Papias competently answered Question 1 by pointing out that non-coding ERVs and the like also retain the same hierarchical structure across species. Question 2 has been exposed as little more than Last Thursday-ism, which is a silly position for any Christian to hold. And Question 3 was answered by pointing out the fact that evolutionists and YECs alike -- many of whom are better trained in geology than you -- agree that there is a distinct order to the fossil record that does not simply reflect "evolutionist bias". This is why we get YECs trying to explain that order by citing things like flood sorting mechanisms, etc.

You can keep pretending like no one has answered your questions, but it's pretty obvious that you're just ignoring the answers.

Yeah, but you see, that's the thing- they haven't been answered. What is it about the human mind that can just make itself believe something that is obviously not true?
You be the one to tell, because science has simply just perverted your belief to a point where intuitive, rational logic will not bring you down from it, as well the Pentateuch itself.

No one has answered anything. It seems the only thing that has been done is you and others trying to convince yourselves otherwise. Must I re-post the OP's questions? Do I really need to go that route? Please do not insult my intelligence.

 

[Mallon]

Yeah, but you see, that's the thing- they haven't been answered.

Of course they have. You just chose to ignore them.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Of course they have. You just chose to ignore them.

No, you are just choosing to throw up that little illusion that OEC's/atheists masquerade as truth when they cannot admit that someone made valid points.

-Can you prove that the DNA 'hierarchy' that ToE shows to be evidence of evolution is not just similar coding for similar organisms and nothing more?

-Can you prove or provide a rationale that God would or wouldn't initially make something 'old' form the start, as in He wouldn't create an ore of uranium already turning into lead?

-Can you prove that fossils being aged are more then base assumption on their desired location in the fossil record and the rock they are found in?