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

[Subduction Zone]

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

Hey look, fingers in his ears hopping up and down claiming that the universe is older than 13.7 billion years.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Hey look, fingers in his ears hopping up and down claiming that the universe is older than 13.7 billion years.

Well some are trying to double that and others shorten that.

Why are there all those fossils not C-14 dead. That destroys evolution and billions of years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well some are trying to double that and others shorten that.

Not if you read the whole articles. And the ones that you like the best make the universe even older than 13.9 billion years.

Why are there all those fossils not C-14 dead. That destroys evolution and billions of years.

I explained that to you. Contamination. It does not take a lot of contamination to give an artificially young age using C14 to finds. Creationists were stupid enough to do it before. They did not learn their lessons. They are almost surely stupid enough to do it again.

Of course the whole think is thrown out because they did not follow the scientific method. It is too bad that creationists refuse to learn what the scientific method is.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Not if you read the whole articles. And the ones that you like the best make the universe even older than 13.9 billion years.

I explained that to you. Contamination. It does not take a lot of contamination to give an artificially young age using C14 to finds. Creationists were stupid enough to do it before. They did not learn their lessons. They are almost surely stupid enough to do it again.

Of course the whole think is thrown out because they did not follow the scientific method. It is too bad that creationists refuse to learn what the scientific method is.

Therefore C-14 dating is useless?

And more on the errors of the redshift theory, the expansion of the universe, and the Big Bang, plus all corollaries.

https://assa.saao.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2017/04/Ratcliffe-A-review-of-anomalous-redshift-data.pdf

 

[Subduction Zone]

Therefore C-14 dating is useless?

And more on the errors of the redshift theory, the expansion of the universe, and the Big Bang, plus all corollaries.

https://assa.saao.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2017/04/Ratcliffe-A-review-of-anomalous-redshift-data.pdf

C14 dating is useless when ignorant and lying fools try to use it. If a person that knows how to use it follows the scientific method it works very well.

I explained to you how their own data tells us that they screwed the pooch. If you look at where there samples supposedly came from you will see that at least some of them were probably painted with shellac. That is a fairly standard practice in paleontology since it helps to make the fossil more stable for when one transports it. It poses no problems as long as someone is not idiotic enough to try to use C14 dating on it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

C14 dating is useless when ignorant and lying fools try to use it. If a person that knows how to use it follows the scientific method it works very well.

I explained to you how their own data tells us that they screwed the pooch. If you look at where there samples supposedly came from you will see that at least some of them were probably painted with shellac. That is a fairly standard practice in paleontology since it helps to make the fossil more stable for when one transports it. It poses no problems as long as someone is not idiotic enough to try to use C14 dating on it.

Thanks for the info.

Why are there so much stuff that should be C-14 dead and is not?
How about all things supposedly over say 5000 years old be tested for C-14?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks for the info.

Why are there so much stuff that should be C-14 dead and is not?
How about all things supposedly over say 5000 years old be tested for C-14?

You say "thanks for the info" and then proceed to completely ignore it to double down on your mistake.

I don't think I've ever met someone as intellectually dishonest as you.... and that's really not a compliment.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You say "thanks for the info" and then proceed to completely ignore it to double down on your mistake.

I don't think I've ever met someone as intellectually dishonest as you.... and that's really not a compliment.

I'll take that to be a complement because the opposite of what you say about me is true. So thanks, and may God bless you.

Wow.

Figure 6-60, The recognition of a tRNA molecule by its aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'll take that to be a complement because the opposite of what you say about me is true.

Your posting history suggests the opposite

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Your posting history suggests the opposite

The more you look at the biology of living things at the molecular level, the more you understand how evolution could not have done this, only God Almighty the Creator of all things could. Just behold the power of God.

Figure 6-63, A comparison of the structures of procaryotic and eucaryotic ribosomes - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the info.

Why are there so much stuff that should be C-14 dead and is not?
How about all things supposedly over say 5000 years old be tested for C-14?

Because air is everywhere, and it has C14 in it. How do you think that it got into life in the first place. And also life is everywhere. Bacteria can come from all around, the air, the water, or just over soil etc.. Try going outside for a day. You will be dirty when you get home. Think of things always outside.

One has to be careful and know what one is doing when using C14 dating. Somethings are relatively easy. Wood for example. It is rich in its own carbon so it would take a fair amount of contamination to give a false date. Rocks are porous. They can have ground water in them. And then there can even be residual C14 from a previous object. It is very very hard to get all of the air out of anything. A "vacuum pump" only lowers air pressure until it is close to zero. They cannot get to zero.

So special steps have to be taken when one is dealing with what may be a very very low level amount of C14. Did you not notice that none of the dates were 5,000 years ago. That would take about 8 to 32 times as much C14 as they detected for that to be the case. You need a 5,000 year date for your flood myth to be true, and they would all have to have that date.

 

[John53]

Because air is everywhere, and it has C14 in it. How do you think that it got into life in the first place. And also life is everywhere. Bacteria can come from all around, the air, the water, or just over soil etc.. Try going outside for a day. You will be dirty when you get home. Think of things always outside.

One has to be careful and know what one is doing when using C14 dating. Somethings are relatively easy. Wood for example. It is rich in its own carbon so it would take a fair amount of contamination to give a false date. Rocks are porous. They can have ground water in them. And then there can even be residual C14 from a previous object. It is very very hard to get all of the air out of anything. A "vacuum pump" only lowers air pressure until it is close to zero. They cannot get to zero.

So special steps have to be taken when one is dealing with what may be a very very low level amount of C14. Did you not notice that none of the dates were 5,000 years ago. That would take about 8 to 32 times as much C14 as they detected for that to be the case. You need a 5,000 year date for your flood myth to be true, and they would all have to have that date.

I'm predicting he won't respond.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm predicting he won't respond.

Or he will with a subject change involving another logical fallacy. In fact I will go with mine. What do you want to bet? Loser does 50 push up? Winner does 50 push up? Everybody does 50 push ups.

 

[John53]

Or he will with a subject change involving another logical fallacy. In fact I will go with mine. What do you want to bet? Loser does 50 push up? Winner does 50 push up? Everybody does 50 push ups.

Everybody has to read any article they plan on posting?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The more you look at the biology of living things at the molecular level, the more you understand how evolution could not have done this, only God Almighty the Creator of all things could. Just behold the power of God.

Figure 6-63, A comparison of the structures of procaryotic and eucaryotic ribosomes - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Another argument from incredulity

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everybody has to read any article they plan on posting?

Well at least you didn't say "understand it". When I am tired and a person is known to post pure BS sometimes I get too lazy to check out their posts. I should have been reading @SavedByTheLord 's links since lately he has been posting links that refute his own beliefs.

 

[John53]

Well at least you didn't say "understand it". When I am tired and a person is known to post pure BS sometimes I get too lazy to check out their posts. I should have been reading @SavedByTheLord 's links since lately he has been posting links that refute his own beliefs.

They're on high rotation. Wait 2 minutes and they'll be posted again.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Another argument from incredulity

So according to you your ancestors included primates, scurrying mammals, amphibians, a variety of sea creatures, a variety of one celled creatures, chemicals and nothing.

But this proves evolution false.

Figure 6-67, Structure of the rRNAs in the large subunit of a bacterial ribosome, as determined by x-ray crystallography - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Subduction Zone]

So according to you your ancestors included primates, scurrying mammals, amphibians, a variety of sea creatures, a variety of one celled creatures, chemicals and nothing.

But this proves evolution false.

Figure 6-67, Structure of the rRNAs in the large subunit of a bacterial ribosome, as determined by x-ray crystallography - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

How does it prove evolution false? You don't understand it. That is obvious. How are you going to prove that others do not understand it?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

How does it prove evolution false? You don't understand it. That is obvious. How are you going to prove that others do not understand it?

Well please give all the details of how this came into being.

This is impossible with evolution.

Figure 6-68, Location of the protein components of the bacterial large ribosomal subunit - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf