The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[ratiocinator]

Biology proves God.

Baseless unargued assertion. Show your working. Except, of course, you can't because you've already shown that you don't understand biology, especially genetics, well enough to even try. That's why you keep running away from any specifics.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Baseless unargued assertion. Show your working. Except, of course, you can't because you've already shown that you don't understand biology, especially genetics, well enough to even try. That's why you keep running away from any specifics.

When do you think they will find the population 3 stars?

The sober truth about finding the Universe's first stars

The Universe certainly formed stars, at one point, for the very first time. But we haven't found them yet. Here's what everyone should know.

bigthink.com

 

[ratiocinator]

When do you think they will find the population 3 stars?

The sober truth about finding the Universe's first stars

The Universe certainly formed stars, at one point, for the very first time. But we haven't found them yet. Here's what everyone should know.

bigthink.com

Hilarious.

Not only is this irrelevant to the claim I was asking you to support (that "Biology proves God"), it directly contradicts your claim that there is no evidence for anything older than 6000 years and is about a rather small detail and a problem that is, by its nature, difficult to find direct evidence for.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Hilarious.

Not only is this irrelevant to the claim I was asking you to support (that "Biology proves God"), it directly contradicts your claim that there is no evidence for anything older than 6000 years and is about a rather small detail and a problem that is, by its nature, difficult to find direct evidence for.

Of course it does not contradict my claim.
It just shows that the Big Bang theory must be false.
Therfeore God must have created all things.

Here is another problem. Now the scientists are speculating that there may have been a second Big Bang.
Why? Because the Big Bang is failing miserably with all the evidence that refutes it and all it’s predictions which are not coming true,

Scientists Say There May Have Been a Second Big Bang

Instead of a single Big Bang bringing the universe into existence billions of years ago, cosmologists are starting to suspect there may have been a second, transformative event that could explain the vast abundance of suspected dark matter. As New Scientist reports, our recent glimpses into the...

www.yahoo.com

Think of all the fudge factors they could get with this.
What was the time difference between the 2?
What was the spacial difference between the 2?
What were the sizes of each?
That would give 4 new fudge factors to go along with the 3 from the Inflation theory.

This is the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. - 2 Tim 3:7

 

[ratiocinator]

Of course it does not contradict my claim.
It just shows that the Big Bang theory must be false.

The entire article referred to standard BB cosmology, the whole 'problem' (which is only about the innate difficulty of directly observing the first stars) wouldn't exist without all the other evidence for an old universe.

And you're still ignoring the fact that the question I ask and that you are currently running away from is to justify your absurd claim that "Biology proves God".

Therfeore God must have created all things

Even if your preceding claims were true, this would still be an argument from ignorance fallacy. Disproving evolution and falsifying an old earth and universe would go no way at all towards showing the existence of your favourite species of god.

Here is another problem. Now the scientists are speculating that there may have been a second Big Bang.
Why? Because the Big Bang is failing miserably with all the evidence that refutes it and all it’s predictions which are not coming true,

You really should try to comment on things you clearly know nothing about. This is a very tentative idea to explain dark matter. Even if it's true, it would still need an old universe and goes no way at all towards overturning all the solid evidence for the 13.8 billion year old universe.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The entire article referred to standard BB cosmology, the whole 'problem' (which is only about the innate difficulty of directly observing the first stars) wouldn't exist without all the other evidence for an old universe.

And you're still ignoring the fact that the question I ask and that you are currently running away from is to justify your absurd claim that "Biology proves God".


Even if your preceding claims were true, this would still be an argument from ignorance fallacy. Disproving evolution and falsifying an old earth and universe would go no way at all towards showing the existence of your favourite species of god.


You really should try to comment on things you clearly know nothing about. This is a very tentative idea to explain dark matter. Even if it's true, it would still need an old universe and goes no way at all towards overturning all the solid evidence for the 13.8 billion year old universe.

Of course biology proves God.
It is impossible for the first living to have come into being by natural processes. And without a fist living creature there are no living things.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First without a first living creature atheism is refuted

Atheism has nothing to do with first life (or any other generation), so that doesn't even make sense.
Secondly, atheism is a single position on a single issue. A respons to a claim. Not a claim by itself. So there's nothing in atheism to refute to begin with.

So you managed to be wrong twice in a single sentence.

, and thus God Almighty exists and Created all things.

False dichotomy; and also doesn't follow.

You managed 2 logical fallacies in a single statement.

Evolutionists run and hide from the impossibility of abiogenesis.

Origins of life is out of scope of evolution theory
Abiogenesis has not been shown impossible

Again managed to be wrong twice in a single sentece.

Thus atheism and evolution and billions of years are all falsified forever.

There's nothing atheism to falsify
Evolution hasn't been falsified
Old earth / universe hasn't been falsified.

Well, if making the most amount of errors in a single statement is what you are trying to do, then you just went up a level: 3 errors in 1 statement.
Gratz. I guess.

As to the recurrent laryngeal nerve, how does that make God an incompetent designer?

The same way this would make me an incompetent IT designer:
I'm send by your ISP to hook you up with a modem and wired connection.
The cable enters your house in the basement. The modem is put in the basement, in the proximity of where the cable enters.
I then proceed to take said cable, run it all the way through your basement into your garden, circle your house 3 times, then go up to the roof, enter the house again through the attic and then have it go all the way down to the basement againt to then plug it into the modem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just part of the fall from Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden.

Cancer existed before humans, btw.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In all honesty I am most curious as to which "God of The Bible" will show up...
Yours
Kent Hovinds
Peter Ruckmans
Mother Teresas

Maybe it's Odin... Then only those who died bravely fighting on the battlefield get to enjoy whalhalla

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Cancer existed before humans, btw.

According to your assumption that God Almighty did not create all things in 6 days about 6000 years ago as per the Bible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

According to your assumption

No, according to the objective independently verifiable evidence.

that God Almighty did not create all things in 6 days about 6000 years ago as per the Bible.

When the objective independently verifiable evidence of reality contradicts your faith based beliefs, it's not reality that is incorrect.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, according to the objective independently verifiable evidence.


When the objective independently verifiable evidence of reality contradicts your faith based beliefs, it's not reality that is incorrect.

What objective independently verifiable evidence are you taking about.
The objective independently verifiable evidence Proves evolution and billions of years false.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What objective independently verifiable evidence are you taking about.

The independently verifiable, scientific kind.

It might be hard for you to understand / accept though, because that type of evidence actually requires one to be intellectually honest and be able of rational thinking.
2 skills you seem to be lacking.

The objective independently verifiable evidence Proves evolution and billions of years false.

Only according to your lying fundamentalist sources

 

[ratiocinator]

What objective independently verifiable evidence are you taking about.

All the science people keep giving you and that you run away from.

The objective independently verifiable evidence Proves evolution and billions of years false.

Blatantly untrue.

All your 'arguments' and absurd claims of 'proofs' have been laughable for reasons that have been pointed out to you and that you also run away from.

All you seem to have is blind faith and reality-phobia.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The independently verifiable, scientific kind.

It might be hard for you to understand / accept though, because that type of evidence actually requires one to be intellectually honest and be able of rational thinking.
2 skills you seem to be lacking.


Only according to your lying fundamentalist sources

Can you name any at all?

How many Big Bangs were there? 0, 1, 2, more than 2, 1 1/2, -1?

Scientists Say There May Have Been a Second Big Bang

Instead of a single Big Bang bringing the universe into existence billions of years ago, cosmologists are starting to suspect there may have been a second, transformative event that could explain the vast abundance of suspected dark matter. As New Scientist reports, our recent glimpses into the...

www.yahoo.com

Where are the Pop 3 stars at?

The sober truth about finding the Universe's first stars

The Universe certainly formed stars, at one point, for the very first time. But we haven't found them yet. Here's what everyone should know.

bigthink.com

Is the universe expanding faster? All those years the scientists said it was slowing down.

The universe is expanding faster than theory predicts – physicists are searching for new ideas that might explain the mismatch

The universe is expanding faster than physicists would expect. To figure out what processes underlie this fast expansion rate, some researchers are first trying to rule out what processes can’t.

www.yahoo.com

 

[ratiocinator]

Can you name any at all?

How many Big Bangs were there? 0, 1, 2, more than 2, 1 1/2, -1?

Scientists Say There May Have Been a Second Big Bang

Instead of a single Big Bang bringing the universe into existence billions of years ago, cosmologists are starting to suspect there may have been a second, transformative event that could explain the vast abundance of suspected dark matter. As New Scientist reports, our recent glimpses into the...

www.yahoo.com

Where are the Pop 3 stars at?

The sober truth about finding the Universe's first stars

The Universe certainly formed stars, at one point, for the very first time. But we haven't found them yet. Here's what everyone should know.

bigthink.com

Is the universe expanding faster? All those years the scientists said it was slowing down.

The universe is expanding faster than theory predicts – physicists are searching for new ideas that might explain the mismatch

The universe is expanding faster than physicists would expect. To figure out what processes underlie this fast expansion rate, some researchers are first trying to rule out what processes can’t.

www.yahoo.com

You've already been given multiple links to evidence. It's become pointless to go on doing so because you either ignore them, change the subject, or post utter nonsense and/or baseless assertions.

As for the links.

1. The second BB is a very tentative conjecture about dark matter. See: A second big bang? The radical idea rewriting dark matter’s origins. No threat to basic BB theory at all.
2. An article about the obvious difficulty in directly observing the very earliest stars. No threat to BB theory at all.
3. This is basically about the known unknown of the exact rate of acceleration and what 'dark energy' really is. No threat to basic BB theory at all.

In short, this is all just science doing science and working on refining its models.

It really pays not to be scientifically illiterate before trying to attack science or pretending that it supports you baseless blind faith.

 

[blü 2]

Big Bang is dead.

Even though you haven't read them, some of those links you've copied and pasted deal with the discoveries of science.

And you already know that Creationism doesn't hold with science, since science is concerned with finding, describing and seeking to explain what's real, while Creationism is concerned with asserting folktale as fact.

So a friendly tip ─ be careful you're not clutching the tarbaby,

Oh, and have you found that genetic bottleneck in all species of land animal, and do the bottlenecks date to the same date, and is that date the same date as for the universal flood layer all over all islands and continents and the ocean floor that you've discovered, and where's that extra billion cubic miles of water you need? Gosh, I thought you'd have got all that sorted out by now!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you name any at all?

How many Big Bangs were there? 0, 1, 2, more than 2, 1 1/2, -1?

Scientists Say There May Have Been a Second Big Bang

Instead of a single Big Bang bringing the universe into existence billions of years ago, cosmologists are starting to suspect there may have been a second, transformative event that could explain the vast abundance of suspected dark matter. As New Scientist reports, our recent glimpses into the...

www.yahoo.com

Where are the Pop 3 stars at?

The sober truth about finding the Universe's first stars

The Universe certainly formed stars, at one point, for the very first time. But we haven't found them yet. Here's what everyone should know.

bigthink.com

Is the universe expanding faster? All those years the scientists said it was slowing down.

The universe is expanding faster than theory predicts – physicists are searching for new ideas that might explain the mismatch

The universe is expanding faster than physicists would expect. To figure out what processes underlie this fast expansion rate, some researchers are first trying to rule out what processes can’t.

www.yahoo.com

You have been given ample examples, your strawmen have been exposed, your lying websources have been exposed and the few times you linked an actual proper article, it has been pointed out to you that they didn't say what you claimed they said.

Why would I continue playing a game of futility?

Einstein once defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results".

This is a case of leading a horse to water.
You don't want to drink, we get it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And how is there any living things without a first living thing?
And how could the first living thing have come into being?

The most probable answer by far is abiogenesis. But unfortunately an understanding of the sciences far above the elementary school level is required to discuss that concept.

 

[wellwisher]

Of course biology proves God.
It is impossible for the first living to have come into being by natural processes. And without a fist living creature there are no living things.

Evolution avoids this by starting the theory at the first replicators, rather then nothing. Evolution needs its own semi-divine beginning as though replicators "poofed" into existence, allowing the theory to begin. After that it is fine, but their t=0 does not sit quite right since we all know other things needed to happen first, based on the BB theory, starting with simple things like hydrogen and helium and even before that, quantum things. Biology skips too many physical evolution steps, which is an artifact of specialization; one hand does know what the other hand is doing. This explains why evolution still need dice and cards math, and can not just reason it through; uncertainty created by skipping early steps.

The BB theory does a similar thing starting with the primordial atom or the singularity for the BB; poof. Both theories have their own unspoken creator to get each theory jump started. I suppose that sort of suggests some unknown god affect. God was needed to set the ducks in a row with the initial "poofs". Those poofs took a lot of planning to create two good starting points that then allows science and logic to follow, even if it ignores how the before t=0, "poofs" happened. Other things also needed to happen first to reach each starting point for each theory, but are ignored or are unknown.

As an analogy, say you meet a new person, who is friendly, but they do not like to talk about themself. You try to figure them out through your daily contact, but you have no data of them before you first met. In a sense that first day of meeting will become a t=0 "poof." Obviously, what came before that arbitrary t=0, should have an impact of what you see today. However, since you are in the dark, your best theory can only start at their middle age, since this is where your hard data begins. You plot your curve and call the first day of meeting t=0, even though you know the real curve is actually starting much earlier at t=-X. Your theory cannot be exactly right, other than supporting the data connected to your own starting point bias.

A better theory will need to try to coax extra data from that private person, so you can start earlier. But this will shift the entire curve left, starting closer to t=-x on your original curve. The new shifted curve may not overlap the curve of biased expectations, in the same way, since it is now out of phase. This is what is happening. New data appears than does not allow the classic t=0 poof starting date, since other things need to happen first, but are not allowed, since that would shift the curve and make it less dogmatic.

It will throw a monkey wrench in the bureaucracy of science. Science is not just about finding truth in nature but is also about jobs, careers, management hierarchy, prestige, money, resources, etc, and large changes like changing the poof, are not easy to accommodate without secondary consequence to all those political things that are not science.