McBell
Unbound
You have done nothing more than make bold empty claims based on your assumptions and then linked an article that does not say what you claim it says.
-
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
Here is simple challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give real evidence of anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
Scientists have looked everywhere. They have used amazing telescopes, even from space, and have peered into the far recesses of the universe. They have probed into matter and living things at the smallest of scales. They have built large particle colliders to smash particles together with enormous energies and analyzed the results. Mankind has been to the moon, landed probes on Mars, sent probes past all the planets, had close ups of comets, asteroids, and meteors. They have searched the very depths of the oceans, been to the mountaintops, drilled into the earth, been to Antarctica, searched deserts, rain forests, and drilled into glaciers. They have studied the sun, moon, earth, the planets, asteroids, comets, stars, galaxies, pulsars, quasars, star clusters, nova, supernova, neutron stars, dwarf stars, and black holes. They have analyzed proteins, enzymes, organs, and DNA from countless creatures. They have dug up many millions of fossils. They have searched for signs of aliens. They have analyzed tree rings, varves, ice cores, sediments, studied all the radioactive isotopes. They have very many equations, even used computers, and now will try AI.
And for all that, the only thing they have proved is that there is nothing older than 6000 years old without an assumption. On the contrary, they have proved that God Almighty exists, that God created all things about 6000 years ago in 6 days, and that the Bible is true.
McBell
Unbound
Repeating the same thing over and over does not support your claim.
Give real evidence that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
Thus far you have failed.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I already did, and several times.
Check this one out.
Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Sci.News
According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all.
www.sci.news
McBell
Unbound
Again you make a bold empty claim and link an article that does not say what you claim it says.I already did, and several times.
Check this one out.
Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Sci.News
According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all.
Care to try again?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Well if it is not expanding what explains the redshift and if there is no expansion then that removes the Big Bang.
Assumptions
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I read the article you posted about on a different thread and explained that you drew a wrong conclusion from the article.
McBell
Unbound
If you had read past the headline you would know just how embarrassed you should be right now.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
No expansion, redshift not from expansion.
No expansion, no Big Bang.
The headline speaks fro itself.
Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Sci.News
According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all.
www.sci.news
No expansion, redshift not from expansion.
No expansion, no Big Bang.
The headline speaks fro itself.
Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Sci.News
According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all.
Your headline says "Study Suggests". So it's just another assumptions. How about posting some real facts that follow your own no assumptions rule.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Didn't you note the word "controversial"?No expansion, redshift not from expansion.
No expansion, no Big Bang.
The headline speaks fro itself.
Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Sci.News
According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all.
BTW, I wonder if they put their study up for peer review?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
There are more articles and the editor doe snot just comment fraud.
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Conclusive Argument
For over 100 years, the prevailing belief has been that the universe was created by a big bang singularity. This speculative event is an impossibility that..
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 unthinkablewww.newscientist.com
Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Sci.News
According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all.
Quasar with enormous redshift found embedded in nearby spiral galaxy with far lower redshift
Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.creation.com
The Big Bang Bust-Up
Earlier this summer, an article by Eric Lerner put the dominant theory about the origin of the universe into question. On October 1st, at the HowTheLightGetsIn festival in London, Lerner took part in a live debate on “Cosmology and the Big Bust”, alongside theoretical physicist Julian Barbour...
The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang - LPP Fusion
A Summary from LPPFusion, Inc.
McBell
Unbound
Please explain what it is you think each of these articles is saying.There are more articles and the editor doe snot just comment fraud.
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Conclusive Argument
For over 100 years, the prevailing belief has been that the universe was created by a big bang singularity. This speculative event is an impossibility that..
www.tsijournals.com
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
Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Sci.News
According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all.
www.sci.news
Quasar with enormous redshift found embedded in nearby spiral galaxy with far lower redshift
Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.
creation.com
The Big Bang Bust-Up
Earlier this summer, an article by Eric Lerner put the dominant theory about the origin of the universe into question. On October 1st, at the HowTheLightGetsIn festival in London, Lerner took part in a live debate on “Cosmology and the Big Bust”, alongside theoretical physicist Julian Barbour...
iai.tv
The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang - LPP Fusion
A Summary from LPPFusion, Inc.
www.lppfusion.com
We Never Know
No Slack
Most all of the links say maybe's, possibility, suggests, etc. But they seem entertained with them.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
That the Big Bang did not happen, that the redshift theory is also false and the universe is not expanding.
From the Bible it is easy to figure out that God cerated the light in transit right to the Earth. The redshift is just a measure of distance problem is solved because it was created that way. Read Genesis 1, it makes sense.
McBell
Unbound
So it is clear you did not read any of them past the headline.
So now we have shown that your ability to copy and paste far exceeds your ability to even read an article you copy paste.
Which means that we are as of yet to determine if you are able to understand what is written in the articles you copy paste.
The "no assumptions" rule is flexible.
Prove this claim is factual and remember no assumptions are allowed.