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

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because of these types of responses, although having been a non-believer of God and the Bible for many years, yet now I believe and reject the theory of evolution as it stands because -- it no longer makes sense to me in the conjectural details and proposals, instead I have come to realize the standard responses and retorts and insults towards those who do not believe in evolution, I have come to realize after a time of posting and asking questions and reading responses that evolutionists really have no basis in truth, only conjecture. I am speaking now of biologic conjecture, not cultural or societal or archaeological claims. The questions asked by those who believe in creation rather than the theory of evolution are valid and evolutionists cannot refute the premise of producing life with certainty as if it happened by chance meeting. As Jesus said, if the foundation is weak, the building will not stand.

Again with the mistake of pretending that one must first solve the origins of life for evolution to be valid.

What's next? Another retarded comment a la "....but they are still lions!!!"?

 

[YoursTrue]

Your not understanding it does not detract from it.

As for the allegedly valid questions that have been asked in this and several other of the OPs threads, how exactly do you figure they are valid?
The one asking them has shown they have no idea what the question is actually asking about.
Then they post links to articles that thoroughly refute their claims because all they do (and they have flat out admitted to it) is read the title.

And the more they are shown to be flat out wrong, the more nonsense they post.
Now if it is your belief that these dishonest tactics are approved by god, then that is on you and them, not one any of the rest of us.

I understand it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm still waiting for my answers.

When you really figure out how evolution started and continued you'll know more about dentists and majority opinions. Have a good one while you chew on this, maybe not quite like a rabbit regurgitation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand it.

Your posts suggest otherwise

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When you really figure out how evolution started

We allready know that.
Evolution started once life existed and reproduced with variation while in competition with peers over limited resources.

It matters not to the process of evolution how life originated.

The sooner you understand this, the better.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

We allready know that.
Evolution started once life existed and reproduced with variation while in competition with peers over limited resources.

It matters not to the process of evolution how life originated.

The sooner you understand this, the better.

And what was the first living things and what features did it have?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And what was the first living things and what features did it have?

Do you have anything new to start the morning.

"Hello! How are you all this wonderful day?" That might be nice to go with.

Have you ever tried or is exploding with anger, frustration and venom the best you got?

 

[Mock Turtle]

As Jesus said, if the foundation is weak, the building will not stand.

Is this why there are so many contradictory religions - apart from your particular one of course?

 

[McBell]

I understand it.

Make up your mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And what was the first living things and what features did it have?

It reproduced with variation and was in competition with peers over limited resources.

 

[McBell]

And what was the first living things and what features did it have?

Stanley
It could spell its own name.
Unfortunately the Tower of Babel incident screwed it all up.

 

[wellwisher]

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?

The Big Bang Theory-A Scientific Critique [Part I] [Whole] - Apologetics Press

Galaxy Making Stars at the Edge of the Universe and Other “Surprises”

https://act.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf1171/files/a9r1o5g11h_6viqvc_3u4_0.pdf

The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang - LPP Fusion

Quasar with enormous redshift found embedded in nearby spiral galaxy with far lower redshift

The Big Bang Bust-Up

The Big Bang Never Happened: A Conclusive Argument

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

One of the main problem with the standard model is connected to the assumption that space-time is expanding and the expansion of space-time is leading the matter of the universe to expand. The analogy is like blowing up a balloon and watching the dots on the surface expand in all directions. The expansion of space-time is attributed to dark energy, which is like the air that fills the balloon.

The problem is they have not been able to make dark energy in the lab. We will need some dark energy to first prove that dark energy is real, and then we can use it to make space-time expand in the lab to prove the expansion theory. But since dark energy has not been actualized in the lab, the current theory of expansion has no lab proof. I could just as well say fairy dust is the air that blows up the universe balloon. I also cannot make fairy dust appear in the lab to demonstrate. Both theories are in the same science boat and none of them should be carved into stone.

What I can prove is, I can make space-time expand in the lab by moving mass apart. General Relativity makes change in space-time a function of mass and distance. This is actually a more solid theory, since this already has lab proof; saves money and time. Yet, the standard model prefers the one with no lab proof and a big budget. To me that means the problem is still open for change, in spite of company politics.

A better universe creation theory, that can let matter/mass lead a provable expansion of space-time, has the primordial atom or the singularity, first divide like a mother cell, into umpteen daughter cells, before the Big Bang. We start off with billions of cells; embryo universe superstructure, each destined to become a galaxy.

When the BB t=0 instant occurs, we get billions of smaller bangs, all at the same time; summation of the BB. The matter/energy expands, creating powerful lead energy waves, coming to each other, from all directions. This pressure puts limits of individual galaxy matter expansion, allowing blackholes and even stars to form quite early. The universe also expands relative to the galaxies.

The main difference between this theory and the standard model is the standard model, by atomizing everything all at once; BB, takes more startup energy and generates more early entropy, which cools the universe quickly. The cell model does not need as much start up energy, all at once, but rather each split can occur with a continuous trickle of zero point energy.

This split into cells is not based on matter, but more like black holes splitting, with space-time staying very tight. The extreme time dilation takes advantage of near infinite time to gather zero point energy. At the last cell division, there is a shift from a huge cluster of black holes into a huge cluster of white holes, causing space-time to appear and expand in all directions, The pressure of the energy waves, from all directions helps with galaxy matter containment and creates a universal expansion relative to the galaxies. Central galaxy black holes can also reform. The simultaneity should show up as a uniform cosmic background energy.

 

[F1fan]

I understand it.

Then you must understand that your religious indoctrination is something you prefer rather than knowledge, and have decided to believe a false dogma rather than accept science.

What's really happening is that you believe your religious dogma, which is false, and you also believe that you understand evolution, and that it is incorrect in some way that experts don't know about. Dunning-Kruger right there. The dilemma of being indoctrinated is not being aware that your mind isn't being rational. And that what the indoctrinated have adopted manupulates emotions, which make the believer feel euphoric. It is much like pavlov's dog, the thinking religious thoughts >>> the reward center of the brain fires up. It's like addicts. And of course the indoctrinated are in denial, they have to be to defend their habit of belief.

 

[F1fan]

And what was the first living things and what features did it have?

It's not in the Bible? That's what your tribe is trying to push on us, why don't you offer us your definitive answer? Don't have one? But you demand to get one from well educted people who have honest, objective knowledge? How does that make you appear to the forum members? Deceptive. Have you pondered that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Make up your mind.

The fact that I understand it does not mean I believe it as projected by evolutionists.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your not understanding it does not detract from it.

As for the allegedly valid questions that have been asked in this and several other of the OPs threads, how exactly do you figure they are valid?
The one asking them has shown they have no idea what the question is actually asking about.
Then they post links to articles that thoroughly refute their claims because all they do (and they have flat out admitted to it) is read the title.

And the more they are shown to be flat out wrong, the more nonsense they post.
Now if it is your belief that these dishonest tactics are approved by god, then that is on you and them, not one any of the rest of us.

I understand the theory, but thanks for offering your opinion..

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand it.

I see. So you are claiming to be a liar then.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The fact that I understand it does not mean I believe it as projected by evolutionists.

You do not understand evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand the theory, but thanks for offering your opinion..

You do not understand the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do not understand evolution.

Rats, so she is not lying, she is simply mistaken, Again.