The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.

[SavedByTheLord]

No. Your inability to understand basic science does not make those dead. Your fear of learning even the bare bone basics tells everyone that even you do not believe the nonsense that you post.

And as a result, even if the myths of Genesis are true, you are calling God a liar. How do you justify doing that. You never answer that very serious question. You have to go to lying source after lying source, but none of them can change the fact that all of the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. That is why you have to keep yourself willfully ignorant. You might learn too muc.

Do you really want to convince others? Then put your money where your mouth is and learn what is and what is not evidence and why And learn the scientific method.

But I predict that your fear and weak faith will win out. The strong in faith are not afraid to learn.

Wow that is some deep indoctrination into circular reasoning that you were forced into.

Here are Dino fossils that are not C-14 dead proving evolution and billions of years are a lie. Also, showing that uniformitarianism is a false science, the circular reasoning used to date the fossils and rock layers is false, and evolution and billions of years are a lie.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

newgeology.us

 

[McBell]

All proved that evolution and billions of years are delusional

Nope, not even close.

the Big Bang is dead.

Nope, not even close.

The red shift theory is dead.

Nope, not even close.

Evolution and billions have year is dead.

Nope, not even close.

Abiogenesis is dead.

Nope, not even close.

Atheism is dead.

Nope, not even close.

The dating of fossils and rock layers is false.

Nope, not even close.

Uniformatraianism is dead.

Nope, not even close.

Christ has no rivals, being God Almighty.

Nope, not even close.

The redshift theory has been disproved, even your guys know it,

Nope, not even close.

So there is no expansion of the universe.

Nope, not even close.

So no Big Bang,

Nope, not even close.

Do you get some sort of credit from Satan for overtime?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope, not even close.

Nope, not even close.

Nope, not even close.

Nope, not even close.

Nope, not even close.

Nope, not even close.

Nope, not even close.

Nope, not even close.

Nope, not even close.

Nope, not even close.

Nope, not even close.

Nope, not even close.

Do you get some sort of credit from Satan for overtime?

Very useful info. Maybe you should teach or write a book.

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

 

[McBell]

Very useful info. Maybe you should teach or write a book.

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

Again, merely repeating the same nonsense over and over does not make it any truer.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Again, merely repeating the same nonsense over and over does not make it any truer.

Why do you do it?

The Big Bang, that Big Hoax, turned out to be a Big Flop.

The Big Bang didn't happen | Eric Lerner

The Big Bang Hypothesis - which states the universe has been expanding since it began 14 billion years ago in a hot and dense state - is contradicted by the new James Webb Space Telescope images, writes Eric Lerner.

iai.tv

 

[McBell]

Why do you do it?

The Big Bang, that Big Hoax, turned out to be a Big Flop.

The Big Bang didn't happen | Eric Lerner

The Big Bang Hypothesis - which states the universe has been expanding since it began 14 billion years ago in a hot and dense state - is contradicted by the new James Webb Space Telescope images, writes Eric Lerner.

iai.tv

Merely repeating the same nonsense does not make any more true.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Merely repeating the same nonsense does not make any more true.

Different articles which all show the Big Bang did not happen.
Don’t worry in about 1000 years Christ will dissolve this one and create a new heaven and a new Earth where dwelleth righteousness.

 

[McBell]

Different articles which all show the Big Bang did not happen.
Don’t worry in about 1000 years Christ will dissolve this one and create a new heaven and a new Earth where dwelleth righteousness.

You really should have actually read the articles you linked.
If you had, you might not look as bad as you do now...

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You really should have actually read the articles you linked.
If you had, you might not look as bad as you do now...

BB died .
Long live God forever.

The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show? | Hacker News

news.ycombinator.com

 

[John53]

Don’t worry in about 1000 years Christ will dissolve this one and create a new heaven and a new Earth where dwelleth righteousness.

Why are you the only one that has to resort to threats? Is your position really that weak? Or does it make you feel macho?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Why are you the only one that has to resort to threats? Is your position really that weak? Or does it make you feel macho?

What threats?

Very many have now come to realize that the BB was bonkers.

Big Bang Failures Reach the Breaking Point – CEH

crev.info

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow that is some deep indoctrination into circular reasoning that you were forced into.

Here are Dino fossils that are not C-14 dead proving evolution and billions of years are a lie. Also, showing that uniformitarianism is a false science, the circular reasoning used to date the fossils and rock layers is false, and evolution and billions of years are a lie.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

newgeology.us

No, I am familiar with those people. They actually lied to make a presentation at a conference and then got angry when they were kicked out.

Now as to their dates, one has to realize that errors can be made in radiometric dating. You go on about it all of the time yourself. It is also a exponential relationship, not a linear one. So when one is getting near the limits of a technology even a small bit of contamination can cause a huge error.

The largest problem with their work is that they did not properly record how they recovered or prepared their fossils for shipment. They may have even repeated a bozo error of other creationists when they tried to date a fossil that had been painted with shellac. Shellac is a resin that is made from the shells of lac bugs. It would be a source of new carbon. So of course they got a crazy date. Did they make that mistake? It is hard to say.

But even with their apparently bad data it is possible to check their work. If they are from the Flood killing everything then they should all be dated about 5,000 years ago. If the dates are due to sloppy work and contamination, and it takes very little contamination to get those dates, then one would expect to see scattered dates that are not recent. The more recent the date the more contamination it would take. If you need some numbers I could give them to you. As I was saying. If it was from contamination then we should see all sorts of dates that make no rhyme nor reason. They should not be too young since that would take a lot of contamination.

And what do we see from their ages? Are they all at 4,972 years ago (just a wild guess when the flood occurred) or are they at older ages and have all sorts of variation. Well it turns out we see the latter. We see dates fom 22,000 years to about 38,000 years. That is what we would expect to see from contamination since that is added accidentally. Consistent dates would be good for you. Dates all over the place is very very bad for you:

The Data: Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones

Dinosaur (a)​	Lab/Method/Fraction (b,c,d)​	C-14 Years BP (Before Present)​	Date​	USA State​
Acro Acro Acro Acro Acro Allosaurus Hadrosaur #1 Hadrosaur #1 Triceratops #1 Triceratops #1 Triceratops #1 Triceratops #2 Triceratops #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #3 Apatosaur​	GX-15155-A/Beta/bio GX-15155-A/AMS/bio AA-5786/AMS/bio-scrapings UGAMS-7509a/AMS/bio UGAMS-7509b/AMS/bow UGAMS-02947/AMS/bio KIA-5523/AMS/bow KIA-5523/AMS/hum GX-32372/AMS/col GX-32647/Beta/bow UGAMS-04973a/AMS/bio UGAMS-03228a/AMS/bio UGAMS-03228b/AMS/col GX-32739/Beta/ext GX-32678/AMS/w UGAMS-01935/AMS/bio UGAMS-01936/AMS/w UGAMS-01937/AMS/col UGAMS-9893/AMS/bio UGAMS-9891/AMS/bio​	>32,400 25,750 + 280 23,760 + 270 29,690 + 90 30,640 + 90 31,360 + 100 31,050 + 230/-220 36,480 + 560/-530 30,890 + 200 33,830 + 2910/-1960 24,340 + 70 39,230 + 140 30,110 + 80 22,380 + 800 22,990 +130 25,670 + 220 25,170 + 230 23,170 + 170 37,660 + 160 38,250 + 160​	11/10/1989 06/14/1990 10/23/1990 10/27/2010 10/27/2010 05/01/2008 10/01/1998 10/01/1998 08/25/2006 09/12/2006 10/29/2009 08/27/2008 08/27/2008 01/06/2007 04/04/2007 04/10/2007 04/10/2007 04/10/2007 11/29/2011 11/29/2011​	TX TX TX TX TX CO AK AK MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT CO CO​

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, I am familiar with those people. They actually lied to make a presentation at a conference and then got angry when they were kicked out.

Now as to their dates, one has to realize that errors can be made in radiometric dating. You go on about it all of the time yourself. It is also a exponential relationship, not a linear one. So when one is getting near the limits of a technology even a small bit of contamination can cause a huge error.

The largest problem with their work is that they did not properly record how they recovered or prepared their fossils for shipment. They may have even repeated a bozo error of other creationists when they tried to date a fossil that had been painted with shellac. Shellac is a resin that is made from the shells of lac bugs. It would be a source of new carbon. So of course they got a crazy date. Did they make that mistake? It is hard to say.

But even with their apparently bad data it is possible to check their work. If they are from the Flood killing everything then they should all be dated about 5,000 years ago. If the dates are due to sloppy work and contamination, and it takes very little contamination to get those dates, then one would expect to see scattered dates that are not recent. The more recent the date the more contamination it would take. If you need some numbers I could give them to you. As I was saying. If it was from contamination then we should see all sorts of dates that make no rhyme nor reason. They should not be too young since that would take a lot of contamination.

And what do we see from their ages? Are they all at 4,972 years ago (just a wild guess when the flood occurred) or are they at older ages and have all sorts of variation. Well it turns out we see the latter. We see dates fom 22,000 years to about 38,000 years. That is what we would expect to see from contamination since that is added accidentally. Consistent dates would be good for you. Dates all over the place is very very bad for you:

The Data: Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones

​

Dinosaur (a)​	Lab/Method/Fraction (b,c,d)​	C-14 Years BP (Before Present)​	Date​	USA State​
Acro Acro Acro Acro Acro Allosaurus Hadrosaur #1 Hadrosaur #1 Triceratops #1 Triceratops #1 Triceratops #1 Triceratops #2 Triceratops #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #3 Apatosaur​	GX-15155-A/Beta/bio GX-15155-A/AMS/bio AA-5786/AMS/bio-scrapings UGAMS-7509a/AMS/bio UGAMS-7509b/AMS/bow UGAMS-02947/AMS/bio KIA-5523/AMS/bow KIA-5523/AMS/hum GX-32372/AMS/col GX-32647/Beta/bow UGAMS-04973a/AMS/bio UGAMS-03228a/AMS/bio UGAMS-03228b/AMS/col GX-32739/Beta/ext GX-32678/AMS/w UGAMS-01935/AMS/bio UGAMS-01936/AMS/w UGAMS-01937/AMS/col UGAMS-9893/AMS/bio UGAMS-9891/AMS/bio​	>32,400 25,750 + 280 23,760 + 270 29,690 + 90 30,640 + 90 31,360 + 100 31,050 + 230/-220 36,480 + 560/-530 30,890 + 200 33,830 + 2910/-1960 24,340 + 70 39,230 + 140 30,110 + 80 22,380 + 800 22,990 +130 25,670 + 220 25,170 + 230 23,170 + 170 37,660 + 160 38,250 + 160​	11/10/1989 06/14/1990 10/23/1990 10/27/2010 10/27/2010 05/01/2008 10/01/1998 10/01/1998 08/25/2006 09/12/2006 10/29/2009 08/27/2008 08/27/2008 01/06/2007 04/04/2007 04/10/2007 04/10/2007 04/10/2007 11/29/2011 11/29/2011​	TX TX TX TX TX CO AK AK MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT CO CO​

Why the censorship?
The data proves that evolution and billions of years are false.
Test all things supposedly older than 5000 years.
Would not be hard.

here is James Webb’s photo

James E. Webb - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why the censorship?
The data proves that evolution and billions of years are false.
Test all things supposedly older than 5000 years.
Would not be hard.

here is James Webb’s photo

James E. Webb - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What censorship?

When you use a garbage site to support your beliefs you are only telling everyone that your own beliefs are garbage.

For example it is very easy to show that most creationist sources are worthless when it comes to a scientific discussion. They admit that themselves when they make their writers swear that they will not follow the scientific method.

And the data and the evidence proves the opposite. I need to remind you that you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What censorship?

When you use a garbage site to support your beliefs you are only telling everyone that your own beliefs are garbage.

For example it is very easy to show that most creationist sources are worthless when it comes to a scientific discussion. They admit that themselves when they make their writers swear that they will not follow the scientific method.

This is truly devastating for the Big Bang Theory. They overestimated the ages but they were so sure, so can they be trusted to measure any age at all?

Galaxies in JWST’s mirror are closer than they appear | Astronomy.com

New research shows we might be overestimating the distance to faraway galaxies in the early universe.

www.astronomy.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is truly devastating for the Big Bang Theory. They overestimated the ages but they were so sure, so can they be trusted to measure any age at all?

Galaxies in JWST’s mirror are closer than they appear | Astronomy.com

New research shows we might be overestimating the distance to faraway galaxies in the early universe.

www.astronomy.com

How is it "devastating" Even if they are right it might mean that the universe is ten billion years old instead of thirteen billon years. Nothing in that article implies that the Big Bang is wrong.

 

[McBell]

How is it "devastating" Even if they are right it might mean that the universe is ten billion years old instead of thirteen billon years. Nothing in that article implies that the Big Bang is wrong.

I predict a fingers in ears, jumping up and down, screaming "la la la' moment in 3, 2, 1....

 

[John53]

What threats?

I quoted it for you. Do you not know how forums work?

Why are you the only one that has to resort to threats? Is your position really that weak? Or does it make you feel macho?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I quoted it for you. Do you not know how forums work?

Why are you the only one that has to resort to threats? Is your position really that weak? Or does it make you feel macho?

That is how so many get trapped in these beliefs. They were threatened from youth by stories of eternal damnation. It worked on them, they often think that it will work with others.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I predict a fingers in ears, jumping up and down, screaming "la la la' moment in 3, 2, 1....

The findings from the James Webb Telescope show that the redshift theory is false, which shows the expansion is false and the Big Bang is also false.
Many Corollaries then are false and others are shown to be true. Evolution, billions of years, abiogenesis, rock layer and fossil dating, and Uniformitarianism are all false. That God created all things in 6 days about 6000 years ago, and the worldwide flood about 4500 years ago are all proven to be true. So here is a recap.

I already have provided several infallible proofs that evolution and billions of years are false, and that God created all things in 6 days about 6000 years ago. One of them used MI, another one used the law of non contradiction.
I also gave a challenge that no one has yet met.
I have gave many questions which show that evolution and billions of years are false.
I showed the circular reasoning which has misled the believers in evolution and billions of years.
I proved that the Bible is the true word of God, and it’s corollary that God created all things is 6 days about 6000 years ago.
This was done by all the predictions of the Bible coming true with exact detail and exact timing, predictEd about 2000 to 3500 years ago, with you keep fulfilling. I also showed that the Bible has advanced scientific knowledge in it that has only been discovered in modern times.

Here are even more evidence against the Big Bang and evolution. The Bible had it right all along. In the beginnin, God created the heavens and the Earth. - Genesis 1:1

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

Plate Tectonics: too weak to build mountains

Big Bang Failures Reach the Breaking Point – CEH

crev.info

Webb telescope solidly refutes Big Bang theory « XJMR

www.econjobrumors.com