Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Science shows that each person has 2 parents and is always true. Observed.

So … uh, Mary …?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles and preached Christ crucified.

Was he there?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The book of books is still a book.
The most sold book of all time.
The most read book of all time.
The most quotes book of all time.

I doubt that last one. Y’all only have like a dozen quotes and never read the entire thing.

 

[ratiocinator]

This man is not a 6 day recent creationist. While I do not agree with is no time theory, the first 14:34 of the video uses the JWST discoveries to refute the Big Bang.

You have no idea who controls the unsaved world.

There has been abundant evidence that have refuted the Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution and billions of years for many decades now.
You are in a religious cult.
Your own guys are abandoning it in droves, but they do not yet have a new theory to replace it.
The Big Bang and the redshift theory came in part from a RCC priest.
He is called the Father of the Big Bang. RCC priests are called father.

The RCC started backing evolution in the 1950s.
The RCC pushed the Big Bang Theory and billions of years.
Just like the RCC at the time of Galileo, the RCC refused to believe the truth that Galileo discovered.
And today it is the very same things.
Oh the great irony.
Galileo used an improved telescope to prove the establishment religious dogma back then false.
And the JWST is an improved telescope that is doing the very same today.

The James Webb Space Telescope has now produced enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.
The JWST killed all the of the following.
RIP BB
RIP red shift theory
RIP expansion.
RIP billions of years.
RIP circular reasoning of the rocks dating the fossils and the fossils dating the rocks.
RIP evolution.
RIP uniformitarianism.
RIP abiogenesis.
RIP supposed old age radioactive decay dating.

Looking back to supposedly about 300 million years after the Big Bang, not only are there no pop 3 stars (refutes the Big Bang) but the stars show a chemical signature of being billions of years old (also refutes the Big Bang).
There are also no galaxy collisions nor evidence of damage from galaxy collisions (also refutes the Big Bang).
Not only that, but the galaxies should look enlarged due to an illusion caused by the expansion. They do not. (also refutes the Big Bang)
Not only that, but the early universe has an abundance of heavy elements, especially nickel (also refutes the Big Bang).
And there is more yet.

Apparently, there are all these anomalies that are being discovered.

An anomaly is just evidence which refutes all the false theories of evolution and billions of years.

Why are you spamming every thread with this utter nonsense?

JWST Fails to Disprove the Big Bang

The James Webb Space Telescope has allowed astronomers to see deeper into cosmic history than ever before, but it doesn't disprove the big bang.

www.universetoday.com

No, James Webb Space Telescope Images Do Not Debunk the Big Bang

The JWST provides an intriguing look at the early universe, but it's not yet rewriting fundamental theories of the cosmos.

www.cnet.com

The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.

The Big Bang theory is still on solid ground, despite pseudoscientific attempts to twist JWST's findings

www.space.com

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Why are you spamming every thread with this utter nonsense?

JWST Fails to Disprove the Big Bang

The James Webb Space Telescope has allowed astronomers to see deeper into cosmic history than ever before, but it doesn't disprove the big bang.

www.universetoday.com

No, James Webb Space Telescope Images Do Not Debunk the Big Bang

The JWST provides an intriguing look at the early universe, but it's not yet rewriting fundamental theories of the cosmos.

www.cnet.com

The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.

The Big Bang theory is still on solid ground, despite pseudoscientific attempts to twist JWST's findings

www.space.com

Not me, not true.

Here is more that refutes the Big Bang.

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory by Tom Van Flandern

www.spaceandmotion.com

 

[ratiocinator]

Not me, not true.

You quite clearly have spammed this across many threads.

Here is more that refutes the Big Bang.

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory by Tom Van Flandern

www.spaceandmotion.com

Are you going to spam this one too? You can always find some people who don't accept science and put out their own pet ideas. This guy has a whole load of 'non-mainstream' views.

Tom Van Flandern - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The existence of a few cranks doesn't refute the solid science.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You quite clearly have spammed this across many threads.


Are you going to spam this one too? You can always find some people who don't accept science and put out their own pet ideas. This guy has a whole load of 'non-mainstream' views.

Tom Van Flandern - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The existence of a few cranks doesn't refute the solid science.

So, just that small sample has defeated your theory and you have no defense.
So yes seems like you have rejected real science in the area of originas.

Here is more problems with the Big Bang.

Did the big bang really happen?

Is it time to admit that the idea of a big bang just does not stack up? Marcus Chown meets the doubters thinking the unthinkable

www.newscientist.com

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The most read book of all time.

I'd say that it is the least read book of all time in the sense of copies printed versus copies read. People buy other books to read them. You go into a home with three hundred books in the bookshelf and learn that only one of them has never been read. Guess which one it is?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I'd say that it is the least read book of all time in the sense of copies printed versus copies read. People buy other books to read them. You go into a home with three hundred books in the bookshelf and learn that only one of them has never been read. Guess which one it is?

I know very many that read it all the time.
BTW, I spend about 2 hrs per day reading the Bible.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I know very many that read it all the time.
BTW, I spend about 2 hrs per day reading the Bible.

Perhaps this explains why you are so tunnel visioned.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Perhaps this explains why you are so tunnel visioned.

Thanks.

Why can’t scientists just mix up some primordial soup and setup the other early earth conditions and note all the amino acids just coming out of nowhere and forming long protein chains ?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I know very many that read it all the time.

Why did you want to tell me that? Did you think it refuted my contention that most Bibles are never read?

I spend about 2 hrs per day reading the Bible.

And I'm sure that you consider that profitable and a virtue. That's about how long a live Grateful Dead show was, and there are dozens available on YouTube. You could be spending your time listening to good, uplifting music with a spiritual message instead. From the book of Morning Dew 10:1:88 :

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Why did you want to tell me that? Did you think it refuted my contention that most Bibles are never read?

And I'm sure that you consider that profitable and a virtue. That's about how long a live Grateful Dead show was, and there are dozens available on YouTube. You could be spending your time listening to good, uplifting music with a spiritual message instead. From the book of Morning Dew 10:1:88 :

I do listen to uplifting music that worships and glorifies Christ.

 

[McBell]

Perhaps this explains why you are so tunnel visioned.

Doesn't explain the misrepresenting the Bible though.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Doesn't explain the misrepresenting the Bible though.

Perhaps literacy means literal to some.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Thanks.

Why can’t scientists just mix up some primordial soup and setup the other early earth conditions and note all the amino acids just coming out of nowhere and forming long protein chains ?

In the future it is quite possible that scientists might actually be able to create life from the basic building blocks. I was born before DNA was unraveled, and before cloning was able to be done, so it is hardly beyond reason to suppose that our descendants will know more than we do now. A few centuries back this would have been as unlikely as what might come in the future, especially since we will likely have much more advanced AI to aid us in many ways.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

In the future it is quite possible that scientists might actually be able to create life from the basic building blocks. I was born before DNA was unraveled, and before cloning was able to be done, so it is hardly beyond reason to suppose that our descendants will know more than we do now. A few centuries back this would have been as unlikely as what might come in the future, especially since we will likely have much more advanced AI to aid us in many ways.

Maybe they could get a very large sequence of left handed amino acids in a chain first.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Maybe they could get a very large sequence of left handed amino acids in a chain first.

So, are you constantly dreading new findings from science so as to disprove your YEC beliefs? Given that this is what science does - new data.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

So, are you constantly dreading new findings from science so as to disprove your YEC beliefs? Given that this is what science does - new data.

Not at all.
All so far prove 6 day recent creation and refute your theories.
I love new findings as that will continue.

 

[joelr]

are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Rom 1:19-20

Since this wisdom, written about 2000 years ago, comes from the word of God, it proves the Bible is the true word of God. There are many things which prove the Bible is the true word of God. Now the Bible predicted that knowledge shall be increased in the last days. But with all the great advances in biology, the passage in Romans 19-20 has not only withstood the scrutiny of science but has been immensely verified by it.

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. – Daniel 12:4

Genesis was written as a re-write of older creation myths. All made up by people, no gods.

Clay tablets containing inscriptions relating to analogues of biblical stories were discovered by A.H. Layard, Hormuzd Rassam, and George Smith in the ruins of the Palace and Library of Ashurbanipal (668–626 BCE) during excavations at the mound of Kuyunjik, Nineveh (near Mosul) between 1848 and 1876. Smith worked through Rassam's find of ~20,000 fragments from 1852, and identified references to the kings Shalmaneser II, Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and other rulers mentioned in the Bible – furthermore he discovered versions of a Babylonian deluge myth (see Gilgamesh flood myth), as well as creation myths.[8][9]

On examination it became clear that the Assyrian myths were drawn from or similar to the Babylonian ones. Additionally Sir Henry Rawlinson had noted similarities between Biblical accounts of creation and the geography of Babylonia; he suggested that biblical creation stories might have their origin in that area. A link was found on a tablet labelled K 63 at the British Museum's collection by Smith, as well as similar text on other tablets. Smith then began searching the collection for textual similarities between the two myths, and found several references to a deluge myth with an 'Izdubar' (literal translation of cuneiform for Gilgamesh). Smith's publication of his work led to an expedition to Assyria funded by The Daily Telegraph – there he found further tablets describing the deluge as well as fragmentary accounts of creation, a text on a war between good and evil 'gods', and a Fall of man myth. A second expedition by Smith brought back further creation legend fragments. By 1875 he had returned and began publishing accounts of these discoveries in the Daily Telegraph from 4 March 1875.[10][11]


The connection with the Bible stories brought a great deal of additional attention to the tablets – in addition to Smith's early scholarship on the tablets, early translation work included that done by E. Schrader, A.H. Sayce, and Jules Oppert. In 1890 P. Jensen published a translation and commentary Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (Jensen 1890), followed by an updated translation in his 1900 "Mythen und Epen" (Jensen 1900); in 1895 Prof. Zimmern of Leipzig gave a translation of all known fragments, (Gunkel & Zimmern 1895), shortly followed by a translation by Friedrich Delitzsch, as well as contributions by several other authors.[16][17]