Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No. Not "smarter". Just more rational. Why do you dislike rational thought?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Actually, if you believe the redshift con job, the universe has been expanding a lot less than the speed of light for billions of years. And even the most distant galaxies are expanding less than the sped of light and they were the earliest.
It is a fail on the Big Bang model. The size of the universe is supposedly 94 billion light years and the universe is less than 14 billion years. The universe is expanding at a rate less the speed of light. The space itself is expanding lesse that the speed of light. How could the universe be 7x larger in light years than its age. In 13.7 billion years it should have expanded less than 13.7 billion light years Vs 94 billion light years.
In fact, many are now finding irrefutable proof that the redshift theory is false, that the universe is not expanding at all, and that there was no Big Bang.
Big Bang is dead.
Redshift anomalies and other things that invalidate the Big Bang expansion
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ft_Data_and_the_Myth_of_Cosmological_Distance
Click on see the full text.
Anomalies in the count of low red shift quasars.
Anomalies in the Counts of Low Redshift Quasars
https://assa.saao.ac.za/wp-content/...liffe-A-review-of-anomalous-redshift-data.pdf
Redshift Anomalies and the Big Bang – Anthony Beckett
Is a new anomaly affecting the entire Universe?
Galaxies and the Universe - Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy
These two shows that today’s age estimate is a farce. The very exact number may be off by 100%. Of course if 100% is the error, then -100% puts it at about 6000 years.
'Tired light' might make the universe twice as old as we thought
Scientists have revisited the disproven light ageing hypothesis, which suggests the universe has been around for almost 27 billion years
More problems with the Big Bang Theory and the redshift explanation.
Plasma Cosmology .net
Exploring Cosmic Voids and Anomalies: The Mystery of the Cold Spot
Large Scale Cosmological Anomalies and Inhomogeneous Dark Energy
What if the Universe Is NOT Expanding?
https://apologeticspress.org/the-big-bang-theory-a-scientific-critique-part-i-whole-1453/
https://www.i-sis.org.uk/Galaxy_making_stars_at_the_edge_of_the_universe.php
https://act.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf1171/files/a9r1o5g11h_6viqvc_3u4_0.pdf
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/c...mology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/
https://creation.com/quasar-with-en...-nearby-spiral-galaxy-with-far-lower-redshift
https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-bust-up-auid-2253
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/the-big-bang-never-happened-a-conclusive-argument-14111.html
https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10338699
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18625061-800-did-the-big-bang-really-happen/
https://darkmattercrisis.wordpress.com/category/cosmology/mond/
https://www.sci.news/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
https://www.quantamagazine.org/astronomers-get-their-wish-and-the-hubble-crisis-gets-worse-20201217/
https://physicsworld.com/a/are-giant-galaxy-clusters-defying-standard-cosmology/
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
Web telescope
Too many spiral galaxies in the early universe.
James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/james-webb-telescope-spots-thousands-173000173.html
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Please try to make a coherent argument. More is not necessarily better. Find sources that you can understand. Make sure that they are reliable. Then you might have a chance.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Please try to make a coherent argument. More is not necessarily better. Find sources that you can understand. Make sure that they are reliable. Then you might have a chance.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Very easily.
Living a life according to one's beliefs, teaches many of us what we did not know before.
Living to a belief, teaches?
McBell
Unbound
Sorry.
I got caught up in the moment....
McBell
Unbound
Not nearly as much as this bold empty claim.
Again you go off into left about requirements.
Required by who?
You?
You refuse to acknowledge any answer you do not like.
So your requirements do not mean diddly to anyone who has seen your questions answered.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No problem. It gave me the excuse that I needed to post the rest of my idea.
Since creationists re only looking for excuses to believe, they do not wish to know, they rarely answer posts that look as if they will refute what they just said.
I do not know if you noticed but earlier today @SavedByTheLord posted one of his long line of questions that he claims disprove evolution. I saw one that I felt like answering and I did. He must have thought that it was his best question because he asked that question again n his next post. And that was about when I finally finished answering it rather deeply.
I pointed that out to him. He just ignored it and ran away.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, it gives answers. Rather poor ones since different faiths have different answers. Usually there are so many different answers that one can only see that at best almost all of them will be wrong since they contradict each other and none of them are anywhere near a clear majority and even worse all of them may be wrong.
Faith is never a pathway for reliable answers is what should have been said.
McBell
Unbound
They disappear right in the middle of an exchange to reappear as though they did not get their arse handed to them so many times, it has become their Standard Operating Procedure.
I have lost count how many times they have done exactly that to me.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
..certainly does.
One can learn from experience as well as books.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Divide and rule is an old trick.
There is only ONE answer to the question of how the universe came to be..
..and that is that G-d created it.
I can make a walk.Exactly .. we can make computers.
..but we can't make a universe or even a fly.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What makes you think that? You need more than an argument from ignorance.Divide and rule is an old trick.
There is only ONE answer to the question of how the universe came to be..
..and that is that G-d created it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am American and due to the censorbot I have to say that they had their donkeys handed to them.
I suppose it if was a Latino creationist he would get his burro handed to him.
That is a fairly common response. If you disappear, when you reappear you can pretend things didn't get posted to you. Or so it seems.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Actually, if you believe the redshift con job, the universe has been expanding a lot less than the speed of light for billions of years. And even the most distant galaxies are expanding less than the speed of light and they were the earliest.
It is a fail on the Big Bang model. The size of the universe is supposedly 94 billion light years and the universe is less than 14 billion years old. The universe is expanding at a rate less the speed of light. The space itself is expanding less than the speed of light. How could the universe be 7x larger in light years than its age. In 13.7 billion years, it should have expanded less than 13.7 billion light years Vs 94 billion light years.
In fact, many are now finding irrefutable proof that the redshift theory is false, that the universe is not expanding at all, and that there was no Big Bang.
I think I can claim irrefutable proof about any claim without the need to understand or demonstrate anything. I think anyone can. But is that really a sound way to argue or good witness?