The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do not preach the god of the gaps/

Then why are 99% of your posts geared towards trying (in vain) to poke holes into scientific theories you feel are incompatible with your YEC beliefs?
What's the point of doing that? Why not simply argue FOR your YEC beliefs instead of spending your time trying to argue AGAINST ideas you feel are incompatible with your beliefs?

I have proven God Almighty the Creator of all things.

Off course, you have done no such thing.

The evolutionists and billions of years people hide the problems with their theories in the gaps.

Well, even if that were true, you're not going to succeed in exposing these supposed gaps by doubling down on your many strawmen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Afraid of what?

How did the first living creature produce an offsring?

See.... again.

Someone asks you about your beliefs and your response consists of once again trying to argue against something else.
What is the point?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Robert Gentry showed that parentless polonium 210, 214, and 218 radio haloes must be primordial based on the decay rates of the isotopes in the decay chain.
And he gave a simple falsification test that has yet been met. This test should be child’s play today. Not only can they not produce the granite with even one polonium 218 halo, they can’t even make that type of granite with the coarse grain.
How do you explain that?
Also he showed, using some polonium halos which are not primordial, that the rock layers are from the flood and laid down within a period of about 1 year.

CF201: Polonium Haloes

www.talkorigins.org

If Gentry’s reasoning is correct

it's not.

, he has found direct evidence for the instantaneous creation of the Earth and of the worldwide flood.

Nope

I guess you have not read his book?

CF201: Polonium Haloes

www.talkorigins.org

If you do you would know that Gentry faced a lot of censorship in many forms.

CF201: Polonium Haloes

www.talkorigins.org

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So again you just parrot the misinformation of the deceived and do not look at all the information.
You seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Has Gentry’s challenge been met? No. So how do you say that granite forms that slowly as if that were they only way it ever happened? Gentry’s challenge shows that granite was created instantaneously at creation.
And the 2 types of polonium halos prove both 6 day recent creation and the flood.
And of course he suffered censorship because those deceived by evolution and billions of years cannot conceive how wrong they are.
The no God assumption leads to the no Satan assumption which allows Satan to deceive.

CF201: Polonium Haloes

www.talkorigins.org

yawn

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

This is it in a nutshell.

We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).

Strawman

Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

***STAFF EDIT***

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Strawman


***STAFF EDIT***

Actually the truth and you just fulfilled prophecy and also used circular reasoning.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

This is it in a nutshell.

We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved through billions of years because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).

Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually the truth and you just fulfilled prophecy and also used circular reasoning.

All reasoning for a proven Bible is circular reasoning and not fact.

This is it in a nutshell.

We know the Bible is true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know the Bible is true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, and was dictated by God because we know the Bible is true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).

Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts the Bible (even internally) must be false because we know the Bible is true.

 

[ratiocinator]

This is it in a nutshell.

We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved through billions of years because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).

Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

No matter how many times you repeat this it will remain false. You are bearing false witness.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No matter how many times you repeat this it will remain false. You are bearing false witness.

False accusations by you prove that your pet theories are false.

That is all evolutionists have is circular .
That is why they have no real rational answer to the origin of anything.

Where did the universe come from?
If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?
If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then that breaks cause and effect. It also violates every law of conservation too.
If there was something before that, what caused the thing that was before the Big Bang to come into being?

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?
What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?
How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?

 

[ratiocinator]

False accusations by you prove that your pet theories are false.

Even if the accusation was true, this would be a non sequitur. Yet more evidence that you and logic are strangers.

That is all evolutionists have is circular .

Where is the evidence for this absurd claim?

Where did the universe come from?
If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?
If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then that breaks cause and effect. It also violates every law of conservation too.
If there was something before that, what caused the thing that was before the Big Bang to come into being?

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?
What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?
How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?

Repeating questions that have been answered, without actually addressing the answers, is running away.

What are you afraid of? The truth?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Even if the accusation was true, this would be a non sequitur. Yet more evidence that you and logic are strangers.


Where is the evidence for this absurd claim?


Repeating questions that have been answered, without actually addressing the answers, is running away.

What are you afraid of? The truth?

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

This is it in a nutshell.

We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).

Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

And the evidence is that have no real answer to the origin of anything.

 

[ratiocinator]

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

Where is the evidence? Show me even one single reputable source that reasons in the way you assert. Just one. Take your time...

And the evidence is that have no real answer to the origin of anything.

That wouldn't be evidence of the circular reasoning you keep asserting, even if it wasn't a lie.

I have given you an answer. You have not said why you think it is not valid.

You have not answered any of the questions others keep putting to you.

Why should anybody take you seriously?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Where is the evidence? Show me even one single reputable source that reasons in the way you assert. Just one. Take your time...


That wouldn't be evidence of the circular reasoning you keep asserting, even if it wasn't a lie.

I have given you an answer. You have not said why you think it is not valid.

You have not answered any of the questions others keep putting to you.

Why should anybody take you seriously?

You just did the circular reasoning in your reply.
According to you there are no reputable sources if they do not agree with evolution and billions of years.
I am a reputable source and there are many real scientists who are reputable sources.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

This is it in a nutshell.

We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).

Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just did the circular reasoning in your reply.
According to you there are no reputable sources if they do not agree with evolution and billions of years.
I am a reputable source and there are many real scientists who are reputable sources.

I have no knowledge of your alleged repute regarding science. I venture to say that no one here knows of it. Considering the basis of your effort, you don't exude even a fictional knowledge of science.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

You keep claiming this, running off and ignoring everything everyone posts in response.

This is it in a nutshell.

We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).

Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

That is your straw man. It is not how it is.

If your point is to be more Christ-like, do you consider what you are doing here good witness?

Did Christ run away?

Did Christ refuse to answer questions.

Can you reconcile the behavior you have presented here with the values of a Christian?

I don't think you can.

I have good reason to doubt your credibility and you have provided all of them to me.

You have a wonderful day. And a good run.

 

[ratiocinator]

You just did the circular reasoning in your reply.

So, we can add 'circular reasoning' to the very long list of things you don't understand but pretend to.

According to you there are no reputable sources if they do not agree with evolution and billions of years.

I didn't say that, I said show me a reputable source that argues in the circular way you described. Your failure to even try suggests that you know you can't.

I am a reputable source...

...and there are many real scientists who are reputable sources.

Indeed there are.

The task you are running away from is finding a single one that agrees for evolution and billions of years that argues in the circular way you keep asserting.

Just one will do for starters before we get to the absurdity of them all.

This is it in a nutshell.

We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).

Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

Show me even one single solitary example of anybody who is quantified and is proposing this conclusion who uses this kind of 'reasoning'. If you can't I can only conclude that you are just making it up; bearing false witness.

Go on. Since you claim everybody is doing this, one example should be trivially easy for you to find...

 

[F1fan]

Actually the truth and you just fulfilled prophecy and also used circular reasoning.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

This is it in a nutshell.

Satan's nutshell. Wouldn't you agree that Satan would tell others that the truth is contrary to fact, like what you claim?

We know evolution and billions of years are true

Correct.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Dude. I just wanna say this is CLASSIC 2012, fundamentalist vs. atheist discourse. It's really taking me back to my "bro atheist" roots.

Have we figured out if this individual is a POE or not? Someone asked that at some point. I'll tell you this: he ignores serious questions and concentrates on the more "lively" responses that he provokes. I say, 60% chance of POE.

 

[John53]

Dude. I just wanna say this is CLASSIC 2012, fundamentalist vs. atheist discourse. It's really taking me back to my "bro atheist" roots.

Have we figured out if this individual is a POE or not? Someone asked that at some point. I'll tell you this: he ignores serious questions and concentrates on the more "lively" responses that he provokes. I say, 60% chance of POE.

Hard to tell as there seems to have been a plague of them recently but they usually only last a week before they get bored and disappear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bingo more Biblical prophecies fulfilled by you.

Look at any graph of any physical quantity versus time. Let t=0 be now. The right side goes all the way out to infinity. It is infinitely far. We will never get there. The left side goes out an infinite distance. We never were there.



negative infinity <---------------------------------------------t=0(now) --------------------------------------------------> positive infinity

I may start reporting this because this appear to be a personal attack and you have not been able to support it no matter how many times that I have requested that you do so. When I point out that you do not understand the concept of evidence that is not a personal attack because I am always willing to explain how we can see that and I also offer you a solution. You always run away.

So for the last time, quote the prophecies. What verses of what book? You also have to show that it meets the qualifications that I gave earlier. And most important you need to show that your date claims are correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But how big is the infinity?

This big: