Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You were just complaining about other not engaging you in conversation. If you want to discuss this we can try. But you have to be honest. You have to answer justifiable questions. You cannot name call. You have to support your claims with reliable sources. And no Gish Gallops. If you do so the Gish Gallop rule applies. Answer one of the many questions and they are all answered.

EDIT: And you need to respond to my post where I answered your claim about how the difference in the number of chromosomes "disproves evolution".

 

[McBell]

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.

Already answered

Perhaps you need a new song and dance?

 

[John53]

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?

You can get away with it because you're a cute bunny. Stupid evolution creating emotions

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Already answered

Perhaps you need a new song and dance?

There is no answer that helps the Big Bang. Only 13.7 billion years old and now 94 billion light years in size with an expansion rate always less than the speed and an average expansion rate of much less than that .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You were just complaining about other not engaging you in conversation. If you want to discuss this we can try. But you have to be honest. You have to answer justifiable questions. You cannot name call. You have to support your claims with reliable sources. And no Gish Gallops. If you do so the Gish Gallop rule applies. Answer one of the many questions and they are all answered.

EDIT: And you need to respond to my post where I answered your claim about how the difference in the number of chromosomes "disproves evolution".

I find it ironic and appalling that you would have to stipulate this to those claiming to be under the mantle of Christ.

 

[McBell]

There is no answer that helps the Big Bang. Only 13.7 billion years old and now 94 billion light years in size with an expansion rate always less than the speed and an average expansion rate of much less than that .

Since you have already demonstrated your math skills are seriously lacking...

 

[McBell]

I find it ironic and appalling that you would have to stipulate this to those claiming to be under the mantle of Christ.

It is sad that even being flat out stipulated, they will not adhere to it.
Won't even be close.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Already answered

Perhaps you need a new song and dance?

I was able to look this stuff up pretty quickly. Seems like there are answers if one is seriously interested, not blinded with rose-colored glasses and blinders and not closed to knowledge available to all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is sad that even being flat out stipulated, they will not adhere to it.
Won't even be close.

I agree, I haven't seen any interest in doing so. I don't understand that.

 

[McBell]

I agree, I haven't seen any interest in doing so. I don't understand that.

I have met people who honestly believe that the more other people disagree with them, the more correct they have to be.

In fact, I have had some of them even throw out a Bible verse to justify said belief.
I just can not remember the verse.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since you have already demonstrated your math skills are seriously lacking...

I'm not a physicist, but what I have read the difference between age of the universe and size in light years has to do with the expansion of the universe. I may not understand that, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.

Here is a FAQ that explains it well enough for a physics layman to understand and accept.
Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have met people who honestly believe that the more other people disagree with them, the more correct they have to be.

In fact, I have had some of them even throw out a Bible verse to justify said belief.
I just can not remember the verse.

I know that has been a consideration used when some scientists have declined to debate creationists. Basically, the creationists were gaining prestige among themselves by using irrational arguments and repeating them and then telling everyone to see how they had beaten the scientists. I can't imagine why creationists think God blesses that sort of behavior when it is denounced in the very book they keep referring to as His own words.

 

[McBell]

I know that has been a consideration used when some scientists have declined to debate creationists. Basically, the creationists were gaining prestige among themselves by using irrational arguments and repeating them and then telling everyone to see how they had beaten the scientists. I can't imagine why creationists think God blesses that sort of behavior when it is denounced in the very book they keep referring to as His own words.

I have seen some scientists flat out state that is the reason they will not debate creationists.
One even mentioned Pigeon Chess....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have seen some scientists flat out state that is the reason they will not debate creationists.
One even mentioned Pigeon Chess....

This thread and those like it as an example, I can well understand why. There doesn't appear to be any interest in debate or discussion. No recognition of what the other side has to say at all. Just declarations and claims of victory without doing much or anything at all.

I haven't seen any interest in what is actually claimed by scientists. There is no claim that the origin of life was an entirely random event. Not having answers to all the questions isn't a weakness, but the reason science was invented. There is no "No God" assumption in science. There is no evidence supporting claims one way or the other. All that can be said is that there is no evidence for a deity or the actions of one in what has been observed. That is an honest statement. Then we are left to wonder why all the things claimed as evidence by creationists are sketchy, debatable or established as fraudulent if the claims are beyond refutation. If the creationist/literalist/YEC position is so vastly the superior, where is all the evidence? Why the need for these games and tactics?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no answer that helps the Big Bang. Only 13.7 billion years old and now 94 billion light years in size with an expansion rate always less than the speed and an average expansion rate of much less than that .

Citation needed. You might be right, but I do not think that it is a problem. That would be something that scientists would have definitely noticed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread and those like it as an example, I can well understand why. There doesn't appear to be any interest in debate or discussion. No recognition of what the other side has to say at all. Just declarations and claims of victory without doing much or anything at all.

I haven't seen any interest in what is actually claimed by scientists. There is no claim that the origin of life was an entirely random event. Not having answers to all the questions isn't a weakness, but the reason science was invented. There is no "No God" assumption in science. There is no evidence supporting claims one way or the other. All that can be said is that there is no evidence for a deity or the actions of one in what has been observed. That is an honest statement. Then we are left to wonder why all the things claimed as evidence by creationists are sketchy, debatable or established as fraudulent if the claims are beyond refutation. If the creationist/literalist/YEC position is so vastly the superior, where is all the evidence? Why the need for these games and tactics?

Yep, professionals have better things to do. Meanwhile for me it is light entertainment.

I was watching a creationist vs. atheist debate about evolution last night. I had to quit. The endless facepalms from the creationist were threatening brain damage.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible tells us how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go. Galileo

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep, professionals have better things to do. Meanwhile for me it is light entertainment.

I was watching a creationist vs. atheist debate about evolution last night. I had to quit. The endless facepalms from the creationist were threatening brain damage.

You would think after 30 plus years of watching this, the creationists would have come up with something new and original instead of the same talking points, misinformation and pseudoscience. I suppose the ID movement was as good as it gets.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can get away with it because you're a cute bunny. Stupid evolution creating emotions

I claim irrefutable proof that my irrefutable is greater than all other irrefutables combined.

 

[John53]

I claim irrefutable proof that my irrefutable is greater than all other irrefutables combined.

We should write a movie. Irrefutable Me. It will have minions in it. I'm sure we can fool Hollywood into believing it's an original idea.