Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It is pretty common knowledge that the majority of scientists claim that they support the ridiculous Big Bang theory. A theory which states that a bunch of total nothingness somehow squeezed so tightly together into a tiny dot that eventually it (the nothingness, lol) exploded and created all of the matter (stars, planets, moons, etc..) in the universe. Here, I will list a multitude of reasons why what this "theory" claims is scientifically impossible.


1 - The Big Bang Theory is based on theoretical extremes.It might look good in math calculations but it can't actually happen A tiny or a lot of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It's easy to theorize on paper. Big Bang theory is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It's easy to theorize that something is true , when it has never been seen and there is no definite evidence that is exists or ever happened.


2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.


3 - A vacuum has no density. The theory states that the nothingness somehow got very dense, and that is the reason it exploded. However, a total vacuum is the complete opposite of total density.


4 - There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire or match. It couldn't be a chemical reaction because no chemicals existed at that point nor could it be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms then either. Remember, it was a bunch of "nothingness."


5 - There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn't there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity (which wasn't supposed to exist at that time, remember), what would then cause the pile of nothinghness to push outward? The "gravity" which supposedly brought it together would've kept it from expanding.


6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the "exploding nothingness" is said to have changed the nothinghness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source.


7 - There is not enough antimatter in the universe.This is yet another huge problem for the theorists. The original "Big Bang" would have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Only small amounts of antimatter exist in our universe though.If the Big Bang theory was actually true then there'd be equal amounts of both.


8 - The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the positive matter. This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced in the lab, they instantly come together and annihilate one another.


Source: Vance Ferell, B.A., M.A, B.D.


There is much more to add; just getting started here. That's enough for now though as this is very time-consuming.

Van Ferrell, Creation Science Hall of Fame recipient.

aka Nonsense /thread

big bang never happened, because the magic sky wizard said so

Why is this in the religion forum?

Originally posted by NemeBro
Why is this in the religion forum?


Because I believe the belief in the Big Bang is a faith-based religion despite what some so-called "scientists" think?

If the moderators wanna move it to general discussion then that's fine by me.

You believe some dumb ass shit.

Originally posted by riv6672
You believe some dumb ass shit.


Sure I do.


You believe in the Zoroastrian religion, riv. LOL. You have no room to be accusing others of believing in dumb ass shit.

Seriously though, those who believe that the big bang theory is science are naive as f***.

So the alternative is that the God of the Bible spoke (because coincidentally He has a holy mouth and lips and vocal cords) and this is more descriptive of reality than actual scientific theory?

There is something very wrong with your epistemology.

The real problem is that "God did it" says even less about reality than the supposedly questionable scientific theories, which by the way, you should leave to scientists and theoretical physicists to debate. The opinions of Bible (or Quran) thumpers in such matters are not worth considering.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
It is pretty common knowledge that the majority of scientists claim that they support the ridiculous Big Bang theory. A theory which states that a bunch of total nothingness somehow squeezed so tightly together into a tiny dot that eventually it (the nothingness, lol) exploded and created all of the matter (stars, planets, moons, etc..) in the universe. Here, I will list a multitude of reasons why what this "theory" claims is scientifically impossible.


1 - The Big Bang Theory is based on theoretical extremes.It might look good in math calculations but it can't actually happen A tiny or a lot of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It's easy to theorize on paper. Big Bang theory is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It's easy to theorize that something is true , when it has never been seen and there is no definite evidence that is exists or ever happened.


2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.


3 - A vacuum has no density. The theory states that the nothingness somehow got very dense, and that is the reason it exploded. However, a total vacuum is the complete opposite of total density.


4 - There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire or match. It couldn't be a chemical reaction because no chemicals existed at that point nor could it be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms then either. Remember, it was a bunch of "nothingness."


5 - There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn't there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity (which wasn't supposed to exist at that time, remember), what would then cause the pile of nothinghness to push outward? The "gravity" which supposedly brought it together would've kept it from expanding.


6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the "exploding nothingness" is said to have changed the nothinghness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source.


7 - There is not enough antimatter in the universe.This is yet another huge problem for the theorists. The original "Big Bang" would have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Only small amounts of antimatter exist in our universe though.If the Big Bang theory was actually true then there'd be equal amounts of both.


8 - The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the positive matter. This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced in the lab, they instantly come together and annihilate one another.


Source: Vance Ferell, B.A., M.A, B.D.


There is much more to add; just getting started here. That's enough for now though as this is very time-consuming. dur

Originally posted by Putinbot1
dur


Quite an argument you have there lol. Very convincing.

The OP makes some very interesting points that are worth taking all the seriouslys because what feels like the big true-true is always the actual true-true. Feelings > facts.


However, science doesn't dismiss established theories FullSTOP; you need to provide a feasible alternative that satisfies everything the previous theory satisfied while also resolving the problems in that previous theory--everything in that list, and probably more. On top of that, the alternative theory being proposed as a replacement has to be validated ad nauseum over many years by many different researchers and experiments, operating within the same framework to reach the same results--all of which needs to be scrutinized by the rest of the mathematical/experimental/theoretical/engineering/academic scientific community.

Which takes a lot of time and money, and may not bear fruit. Big Bang replaced Steady State this way, so if you want to get rid of Big Bang you need to replace it with something following the aforementioned criteria. If you have no such replacement, Big Bang will stay in place.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
So the alternative is that the God of the Bible spoke (because coincidentally He has a holy mouth and lips and vocal cords) and this is more descriptive of reality than actual scientific theory?

There is something very wrong with your epistemology.

The real problem is that "God did it" says even less about reality than the supposedly questionable scientific theories, which by the way, you should leave to scientists and theoretical physicists to debate. The opinions of Bible (or Quran) thumpers in such matters are not worth considering.

Plot twist, the Big Bang theory was originally made by a Catholic priest

Originally posted by Putinbot1
dur

Originally posted by Eon Blue

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Plot twist, the Big Bang theory was originally made by a Catholic priest


Catholics... lol.

I'm not surprised in the least.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Because I believe the belief in the Big Bang is a faith-based religion despite what some so-called "scientists" think?

If the moderators wanna move it to general discussion then that's fine by me. so called "scientists" Brilliant.

You resurrected a thread that's been dead for a month to say that?


Oh, pooty... smh.

When are you two just gonna get it over with and watch each other violently masturbate on webcam?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
When are you two just gonna get it over with and watch each other violently masturbate on webcam?





Funny guy.

No, WM, there was no actual Big Bang. It's sheer lunacy to think that a bunch of nothing somehow exploded into everything lol. It sure as Hell ain't science no matter how often morons keep repeating it is.

It's every bit as much of a religious belief as Biblical creation is though it is non-theistic in nature.

What a weird thing to say. I believe in biblical creation. God created the stars by simply speaking them into existence. Gid did not use any "Big Bang."

I believe in God.
And His Angels.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
What a weird thing to say. I believe in biblical creation. God created the stars by simply speaking them into existence. Gid did not use any "Big Bang." Why believe in god? Do you believe in fairies and leprachauns too?

So sorry I triggered you, Blake.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Why believe in god? Do you believe in fairies and leprachauns too?

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

Blakemore worships his god Neil DeGrasse Tyson and bozo Bill Nye.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Why believe in god?



Because it's much more logical to believe in an omnipotent Creator than it is to believe that the universe just created itself from nothing.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
Blakemore worships his god Neil DeGrasse Tyson and bozo Bill Nye.


LOL@Bill Nye the so-called "science guy" lol.

Kent Hovind utterly destroys Bill Nye's argument for the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2eqI9Aip38&t=18s

God speaks of patience and asks that we make things like the heavens He made.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Because it's much more logical to believe in an omnipotent Creator than it is to believe that the universe just created itself from nothing. But beliving god magicked the universe is believing something came from nothing. Btw the big bang theory was proven wrong by Hawking himself!

You know how an octagon forms. It takes 3 steps higher than carbon.
So not only the Big Bang but all the heiarcial with it.

Make your 8 fingers do something good

Originally posted by Wonder Man
You know how an octagon forms. It takes 3 steps higher than carbon.
So not only the Big Bang but all the heiarcial with it. An octagon is an 8 sided shape. What are you talking about?

Carbon chain is 5 sided. 8 fingers proves 3 higher.

what?

Big bang bad, invisible man in sky ,,,,,,uh

Go away, monkey wannabe troll. You believe that a friggin 'rock changed into all the life forms on the planet lmfao. Evolution and Big Bang are the two most stupid a** religions in the history of the world.


I believe in the eternal God and dumbasses like you believe in the eternal dirt lol.

"Dur hur, but it's not religion, it's science her derp."-- typical dumbass Darwinist's reply lol.


Science, my ass.

I seriously have to respond to reports and nonsense in the Religion Forum now?

Sorry, Bada. I'll keep it more civil. Shoulda just put the troll on ignore instead of taking his mocking "invisible man in the sky" bait.


Won't happen again, don't worry.

I wasn't singling out any one person.


I've never understood the issue with the big bang vs creation. I guess I've always been able to separate science from Faith. Imo, science is necessary to learn the mysteries of the universe. Faith is necessary for the same reason to me. srug

Anyway, the science of the big bang always leads to either a paradox or infinity. Science has taken us to these conclusions. Either the universe popped into existence from nothing or our universe is part of an infinite multiverse. Neither sits well with me. It's either a chicken and the egg paradox or an infinite singularity.

As for life. Darwinism work great, and is proven, for small changes. See domestication of animals. But on a grand scale it falls apart badly. To say a single celled microbe evolved into complex, self aware life is not realistic to me. Most life is more complex than any machine that's been built. Let's say we find a fully functioning watch on another planet. Would you think it just occurred naturally or was it built by something intelligent?

Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist or biologist. So my opinions are that of a laymen. But I think both science and faith have a place in discovering the deeper mysteries of the universe and life.

Many of the statements I'm seeing stem from a lack of understanding on the Big Bang model of the universe. Big Bang Theory doesn't state everything came from nothing. It states everything already existed, but was in a hyper dense and hot state before expanding outward over time.

Yes, there are unresolved problems. As science discovers more about things like dark matter/dark energy, anti-matter, and the horizon problem, the model of the universe may change. It's why science uses "theory" instead of "law" nowadays: it's arrogant to assume no new knowledge could ever be gained that alters our understanding of the observable world.

Regardless, the Big Bang Theory is not the only proposed model of the universe, but it's where the current evidence points to. Current evidence doesn't point to a god or gods. I have no problem if people believe in gods. If faith enriches your life in some way, then have at it. We can't pretend they are equally supported in objective data though.

Originally posted by Badabing

I've never understood the issue with the big bang vs creation. I guess I've always been able to separate science from Faith.

As for life. Darwinism work great, and is proven, for small changes. See domestication of animals. But on a grand scale it falls apart badly. To say a single celled microbe evolved into complex, self aware life is not realistic to me. Most life is more complex than any machine that's been built. Let's say we find a fully functioning watch on another planet. Would you think it just occurred naturally or was it built by something intelligent?

Science in the science classroom and theology in the theology classroom. Not too hard to separate for most folks.

On the watch thing, the problem there is we already know what a watch is. We know, with certainty, that humans make watches. Or make machines that make watches. We've got no evidence they occur naturally either.

Finding tons of watches on an uninhabited planet might lead to discovering some weird natural process I guess. Or a watch-fruit bearing tree if there is plant life. We'd really have to investigate before making conclusions either way though.

Originally posted by Badabing
I wasn't singling out any one person.


I've never understood the issue with the big bang vs creation. I guess I've always been able to separate science from Faith. Imo, science is necessary to learn the mysteries of the universe. Faith is necessary for the same reason to me. srug

Anyway, the science of the big bang always leads to either a paradox or infinity. Science has taken us to these conclusions. Either the universe popped into existence from nothing or our universe is part of an infinite multiverse. Neither sits well with me. It's either a chicken and the egg paradox or an infinite singularity.

As for life. Darwinism work great, and is proven, for small changes. See domestication of animals. But on a grand scale it falls apart badly. To say a single celled microbe evolved into complex, self aware life is not realistic to me. Most life is more complex than any machine that's been built. Let's say we find a fully functioning watch on another planet. Would you think it just occurred naturally or was it built by something intelligent?

Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist or biologist. So my opinions are that of a laymen. But I think both science and faith have a place in discovering the deeper mysteries of the universe and life.


I as well certainly believe in small changes which is mistakenly called "microevolution" by many people. When I refer to Darwinism though as being wrong I'm talking about the theory overall. Which says that those easily provable small changes eventually add up to big, crazy changes like a land creature turning into a whale lol or a monkey/ape turning into a human (yes, that's quite a big change despite what Darwinists may think).


As for the Big Bang, I certainly don't think of that as being actual science. Yes, I believe the universe was created from nothing but I don't believe God used a big bang like event. I believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis which says that God spoke everything into existence (except for man, which He actually took the time to mold with His hands; which is why we are special to Him) and He didn't do it all instantly, though He certainly could have.


He created the universe over the course of 6 days and then rested on the seventh for our (humans) benefit. It is where our 7 day week truly comes from.



I'm not against science at all. I actually love science because it proves the existence of an omnipotent intelligent designer or at least suggests that there is one. It's certainly much more logical to assume there is one than to think pure randomness created all the order and natural laws we have in the universe.


The Big Bang and Darwinian macroevolution and abiogenesis are NOT science though.

take light for instance. If early light was found not from stars you might believe in something totally new.

Originally posted by Badabing
I wasn't singling out any one person.


I've never understood the issue with the big bang vs creation. I guess I've always been able to separate science from Faith. Imo, science is necessary to learn the mysteries of the universe. Faith is necessary for the same reason to me. srug

Anyway, the science of the big bang always leads to either a paradox or infinity. Science has taken us to these conclusions. Either the universe popped into existence from nothing or our universe is part of an infinite multiverse. Neither sits well with me. It's either a chicken and the egg paradox or an infinite singularity.

As for life. Darwinism work great, and is proven, for small changes. See domestication of animals. But on a grand scale it falls apart badly. To say a single celled microbe evolved into complex, self aware life is not realistic to me. Most life is more complex than any machine that's been built. Let's say we find a fully functioning watch on another planet. Would you think it just occurred naturally or was it built by something intelligent?

Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist or biologist. So my opinions are that of a laymen. But I think both science and faith have a place in discovering the deeper mysteries of the universe and life. Science is applying mathematical truths to matter. Faith is trusting something which cannot be proven.

It's possible scientists are wrong about how the universe began, but that doesn't mean it was God. It could have been through some process we have yet to understand.

I'd want evidence before saying it was willed into existence.

And then what willed God into existence and also if you will say God has always existed why is that possible but it the big bang is not?

the big bnag theory was disproven by Hawking himself. It was bosons, positrons and electrons creating a lot of fire and rapidly expanding. The universe has been expanding and contracting for all eternity.

Originally posted by Blakemore
the big bnag theory was disproven by Hawking himself. It was bosons, positrons and electrons creating a lot of fire and rapidly expanding. The universe has been expanding and contracting for all eternity.

But then the question from someone of faith will be where did those things come from

Originally posted by Surtur
But then the question from someone of faith will be where did those things come from It's eternal.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's possible scientists are wrong about how the universe began, but that doesn't mean it was God. It could have been through some process we have yet to understand.

I'd want evidence before saying it was willed into existence.

And then what willed God into existence and also if you will say God has always existed why is that possible but it the big bang is not?


I've said many times, Surtur, that special Creation is a religious belief. I've never said it was scientifically provable. I just think it's far more logical than the Big Bang theory. I know you disagree and that's fine.


However, I think that the burden of proof is on the proponents of the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution because they want taxpayers to pay for it being taught in our schools, which we've all been doing for a while now. I think that's unfair and one reason I'm a strong advocate for home schooling.

Originally posted by Surtur
But then the question from someone of faith will be where did those things come from

Someone who believes in the Big Bang and/or Darwinian evolution is also a person of faith despite what some scientists may say. In fact, I'd say that everyone on the planet has faith in something. Leftists, for example, have faith in big government being able to fix everything, which is stupid but they are leftists, afterall. When people constantly use a certain news source they are putting faith in that source to tell them the truth. We all put faith in things that history books tell us are true. We weren't there to experience for ourselves what the books are claiming. Everyone to some degree or another is a person of faith.


We all have very strong faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. We have faith that if a person walks off a mountain that they will die a horrible death because we all have faith in gravity always working.

Neither the big bang theory or natural selection or even gravity are excepted in scientific communities.

Seasons. The beauty they form is witnessed to the eye if you choose to see it.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
Seasons. The beauty they form is witnessed to the eye if you choose to see it. they were disproven by more advanced theories...

Stop, nope, Stop. I get it, science "has unanswered questions", but to say that "science has unanswered questions, so it's just as unfalsifiable as thousand-year old geocentric myths" is a whole bunch of crap. The whole problem with "religious" people is that they claim to want to find God, but do not realize that logic and empiricism IS THE METHOD for finding God. While science may be used for profit and violence, it's PRIMARY purpose is to understand the universe for the moral and intellectual benefit of all AKA THE EXACT SAME thing as religion. It really is the parable of God sending a rescue team to a drowning man, and the drowning man shooing away the rescue team because he's waiting for God to save him. Ya'll need to get wit it.......

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I as well certainly believe in small changes which is mistakenly called "microevolution" by many people. When I refer to Darwinism though as being wrong I'm talking about the theory overall. Which says that those easily provable small changes eventually add up to big, crazy changes like a land creature turning into a whale lol or a monkey/ape turning into a human (yes, that's quite a big change despite what Darwinists may think).


As for the Big Bang, I certainly don't think of that as being actual science. Yes, I believe the universe was created from nothing but I don't believe God used a big bang like event. I believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis which says that God spoke everything into existence (except for man, which He actually took the time to mold with His hands; which is why we are special to Him) and He didn't do it all instantly, though He certainly could have.


He created the universe over the course of 6 days and then rested on the seventh for our (humans) benefit. It is where our 7 day week truly comes from.



I'm not against science at all. I actually love science because it proves the existence of an omnipotent intelligent designer or at least suggests that there is one. It's certainly much more logical to assume there is one than to think pure randomness created all the order and natural laws we have in the universe.


The Big Bang and Darwinian macroevolution and abiogenesis are NOT science though.

So you only agree with science if it strengthens a religious belief that you hold? Sounds fair.

When you consider how similar our DNA is with several of the other things found on this planet, I don't see how it would be hard to accept that the small changes lead to massive differences.

Alexander the 👍 great. He decided treating people rightly is how we will behave.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Stop, nope, Stop. I get it, science "has unanswered questions", but to say that "science has unanswered questions, so it's just as unfalsifiable as thousand-year old geocentric myths" is a whole bunch of crap. The whole problem with "religious" people is that they claim to want to find God, but do not realize that logic and empiricism IS THE METHOD for finding God. While science may be used for profit and violence, it's PRIMARY purpose is to understand the universe for the moral and intellectual benefit of all AKA THE EXACT SAME thing as religion. It really is the parable of God sending a rescue team to a drowning man, and the drowning man shooing away the rescue team because he's waiting for God to save him. Ya'll need to get wit it.......


If by "STOP" you mean quit believing in biblical creation and start believing in crazy ass nonsense like the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution, nope, not gonna happen bud. I don't need to find God, dude, I've already found Him. I even know His name: Jesus Christ. I'm sorry it upsets you so that I think the idea of God creating the universe is much more logical than the universe creating itself. You re the one who denies science, not me. There is evidence of intelligent design all around us. A human cell, for instance, is strong evidence for design.


If you think you are gonna get me to convert to believing in the Big Bang or Darwinism then you are living in fantasy land, kid. Maybe your sad tactics would work on other Christians who have weaker faith but I promise you will just end up wasting your time with me, bruh. I suggest you look for easier targets to deceive, Satan minion.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
If by "STOP" you mean quit believing in biblical creation and start believing in crazy ass nonsense like the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution, nope, not gonna happen bud.


Lol. Are you serious? I get how you don't believe in the science, but to have the gall to act like the creation story is so much more plausible is amusing to me.

Originally posted by socool8520
So you only agree with science if it strengthens a religious belief that you hold? Sounds fair.

When you consider how similar our DNA is with several of the other things found on this planet, I don't see how it would be hard to accept that the small changes lead to massive differences.


You're a little disingenuous piece of dog shit. I never said I only believe in science that only supports my beliefs so stop with your trolling BS. I believe in science, period, and real science points to the existence of an intelligent designer. I could just as easily say that you only believe in science that supports what you believe and that would be every bit as true.


Similarities in DNA are just as easily explained by the idea of a common designer (the same being creating them) as they are a common ancestor. The "similarities" that species may have with one another is an old argument I've heard probably 200 times already from evolutionists. It's weak evidence for a common ancestor. Trust me, I have seen all the so-called "evidence" for Darwinist crap and it is extremely lacking. Much more evidence for intelligent design.


There is no "new evidence" you are gonna show me for Darwinism that I haven't already heard before. I've watched several dozen debates between evolutionists and creationists and the creationist wins everytime unless the creationist is one of those crazy flat-earthers but they don't represent my beliefs.


Kent Hovind and Matt Powell wreck the so-called "evidence" for Darwinism on a daily basis. Hovind once shredded 3 evolutionists at once in a debate back when he was much younger and at the top of his game. Video is still up.on You Tube, and I believe I even posted a link to it in another thread here in religion forum.

Originally posted by socool8520
Lol. Are you serious? I get how you don't believe in the science, but to have the gall to act like the creation story is so much more plausible is amusing to me.


And it's amusing to me that you think that it's much more plausible to believe that all the order and natural laws of the universe came about thru pure randomness than it is to believe than an intelligent being designed it all.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

One is no less likely than the other. There is no more evidence for a deity than those other things.

^Disagree. The evidence points strongly to an intelligent designer.

Your feelings do. There is no scientific evidence of such and to suggest there is shows an impressive ignorance of the scientific method.

Originally posted by BackFire
Your feelings do. There is no scientific evidence of such and to suggest there is shows an impressive ignorance of the scientific method.


Nah, I'm not the one who is ignorant, of the scientific method, dude. You're the one who is letting his fee fees determine what he believes. But then, you are a looney leftist, after all, so I understand and won't judge you too harshly for it.

Show the scientific evidence supporting the existence of god then.

Originally posted by BackFire
Your feelings do. There is no scientific evidence of such and to suggest there is shows an impressive ignorance of the scientific method.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
And it's amusing to me that you think that it's much more plausible to believe that all the order and natural laws of the universe came about thru pure randomness than it is to believe than an intelligent being designed it all.

Nope. I don't think that either is any more likely than the other until it can be proven. I just find it funny that you do with such arrogance.

I've already talked about the cell which is infinitely more complex than the most cmplicated of human creations. That alone is steong evidence for design. And, I've also pointed to all of the natural laws of the universe that always work. It is much more logical to believe that those things are the result of an intelligent designer than pure randomness.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
You're a little disingenuous piece of dog shit. I never said I only believe in science that only supports my beliefs so stop with your trolling BS. I believe in science, period, and real science points to the existence of an intelligent designer. I could just as easily say that you only believe in science that supports what you believe and that would be every bit as true.


Similarities in DNA are just as easily explained by the idea of a common designer (the same being creating them) as they are a common ancestor. The "similarities" that species may have with one another is an old argument I've heard probably 200 times already from evolutionists. It's weak evidence for a common ancestor. Trust me, I have seen all the so-called "evidence" for Darwinist crap and it is extremely lacking. Much more evidence for intelligent design.


There is no "new evidence" you are gonna show me for Darwinism that I haven't already heard before. I've watched several dozen debates between evolutionists and creationists and the creationist wins everytime unless the creationist is one of those crazy flat-earthers but they don't represent my beliefs.


Kent Hovind and Matt Powell wreck the so-called "evidence" for Darwinism on a daily basis. Hovind once shredded 3 evolutionists at once in a debate back when he was much younger and at the top of his game. Video is still up.on You Tube, and I believe I even posted a link to it in another thread here in religion forum.

You're a testy one. You yourself have and are discounting anything that doesn't support your belief of how things were created, so yes, you are picking and choosing what backs your religious belief system. Not need to get all pissy pants about it. You believe what you believe.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I've already talked about the cell which is infinitely more complex than the most cmplicated of human creations. That alone is steong evidence for design. And, I've also pointed to all of the natural laws of the universe that always work. It is much more logical to believe that those things are the result of an intelligent designer than pure randomness.

Your first argument makes no sense unless you are arguing against someone claiming that a human being created all matter and the universe, which no one is.

What kind of natural laws are you referencing here?

Originally posted by socool8520
Nope. I don't think that either is any more likely than the other until it can be proven. I just find it funny that you do with such arrogance.


I know that biblical creation is s religious belief. I've admitted that on many occasions. I have a religion, yes . But, so do Darwinian evolutionists whether they admit it or not.

Originally posted by BackFire
Your first argument makes no sense unless you are arguing against someone claiming that a human being created all matter and the universe, which no one is.

What kind of natural laws are you referencing here?



I brought it up to point out how it is so complex that it couldn't possibly have come about thru pure chance. There had to be an intelligence to it.


All of them. All of the order and natural and scientific laws in the universe. There is much more logical that an intelligence created the laws and order than to believe they all came about by chance.

Originally posted by socool8520
You're a testy one. You yourself have and are discounting anything that doesn't support your belief of how things were created, so yes, you are picking and choosing what backs your religious belief system. Not need to get all pissy pants about it. You believe what you believe.


...and you believe what you believe no need to get all pissy pants about it. See, two can play that game.


You are guilty of doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, hypocrite. You must be a leftist, they love to project.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I know that biblical creation is s religious belief. I've admitted that on many occasions. I have a religion, yes . But, so do Darwinian evolutionists whether they admit it or not.

If they believe even though it hasn't been completely accepted then yes, I guess it is somewhat religious without any rituals or tenets.

That's great thing about science though, they aren't telling you it is irrefutable fact. It's a theory. One that does hold weight. Not counting it as science is biased especially when Biblical creation is no more fact based.

I personally do not believe in any God that has been introduced, but I can't diprove it either. I wouldn't say you are a moron because you believe it either.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
...and you believe what you believe no need to get all pissy pants about it. See, two can play that game.


You are guilty of doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, hypocrite. You must be a leftist, they love to project.

Not at all. I didn't call you an idiot for believing in god nor did I tout evolution/big bang as the clear and only explanation. All I did was call out your bias.

Also, I think I was centered more as a libertarian last time I took one of the quizzes.

God said memory. Maybe everyone needs to focus on that.

^ what?

Originally posted by socool8520
If they believe even though it hasn't been completely accepted then yes, I guess it is somewhat religious without any rituals or tenets.

That's great thing about science though, they aren't telling you it is irrefutable fact. It's a theory. One that does hold weight. Not counting it as science is biased especially when Biblical creation is no more fact based.

I personally do not believe in any God that has been introduced, but I can't diprove it either. I wouldn't say you are a moron because you believe it either.


Science is things that can be observed and tested. The only part of Darwinism that holds any weight whatsoever in actual science is microevolution thru natural selection which isn't really evolutionary at all, tbh, as no new information is gained. I merely call it microevolution because that is what evolutionists call those small changes. I don't actually agree with the term.


The Big Bang is also just as unprovable as Darwinian evolution is and every bit as stupid. Sorry, but I will never call those things science because there is no actual proof for them.

Originally posted by socool8520
Not at all. I didn't call you an idiot for believing in god nor did I tout evolution/big bang as the clear and only explanation. All I did was call out your bias.

Also, I think I was centered more as a libertarian last time I took one of the quizzes.


Nor did I call you an idiot for believing in Big Bang or Darwinian evolution.


Good for you. That's much better than being a leftist.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Science is things that can be observed and tested. The only part of Darwinism that holds any weight whatsoever in actual science is microevolution thru natural selection which isn't really evolutionary at all, tbh, as no new information is gained. I merely call it microevolution because that is what evolutionists call those small changes. I don't actually agree with the term.


The Big Bang is also just as unprovable as Darwinian evolution is and every bit as stupid. Sorry, but I will never call those things science because there is no actual proof for them.

Their scientific theories whether you lend them credence or not. Some amount of math, evidence from fossils, simulations, etc. went into the theories. They didn't just say, :we evolved from an amoeba, no explanation needed" or "There was and explosion, no explanation needed".

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Nor did I call you an idiot for believing in Big Bang or Darwinian evolution.


Good for you. That's much better than being a leftist.

But you did speak as if biblical creation is the only way things could have unfolded while attacking other's viewpoints. That was the bias/arrogance I was talking about. You were even warned about it.

Originally posted by socool8520
Their scientific theories whether you lend them credence or not. Some amount of math, evidence from fossils, simulations, etc. went into the theories. They didn't just say, :we evolved from an amoeba, no explanation needed" or "There was and explosion, no explanation needed".


They are called theories, yes. But I don't agree that they are theories because an actual theory has strong evidence to support it. At best. they are just hypothesis. I still think of them as more of a non-theistic religion though.

Well if memory makes love 💕 better it makes life longer.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
They are called theories, yes. But I don't agree that they are theories because an actual theory has strong evidence to support it. At best. they are just hypothesis. I still think of them as more of a non-theistic religion though.

Loosely I guess.

Originally posted by socool8520
But you did speak as if biblical creation is the only way things could have unfolded while attacking other's viewpoints. That was the bias/arrogance I was talking about. You were even warned about it.



Maybe I'm remembering it wrong but I'm pretty sure that all I said was that creation is more logical to me than the big bang and Darwinism.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Go away, monkey wannabe troll. You believe that a friggin 'rock changed into all the life forms on the planet lmfao. Evolution and Big Bang are the two most stupid a** religions in the history of the world.


I believe in the eternal God and dumbasses like you believe in the eternal dirt lol.

You did both of the things I called you out for. not to me directly, but it was the attitude you were throwing around

Originally posted by socool8520
You did both of the things I called you out for. not to me directly, but it was the attitude you were throwing around


Yes, but that was directed at someone who was mocking God with his "invisible man in the sky"" statement. It's not like he was genuinely interested in having reasonable conversation. He just came in the thread to troll.


Also, in regards to your other post about me "being warned" about something. Who warned me exactly? Bada specifically said his post wasn't directed solely at me. Did you report me? At first, I assumed it was the troll I originally responded to who did it.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Stop, nope, Stop. I get it, science "has unanswered questions", but to say that "science has unanswered questions, so it's just as unfalsifiable as thousand-year old geocentric myths" is a whole bunch of crap. The whole problem with "religious" people is that they claim to want to find God, but do not realize that logic and empiricism IS THE METHOD for finding God. While science may be used for profit and violence, it's PRIMARY purpose is to understand the universe for the moral and intellectual benefit of all AKA THE EXACT SAME thing as religion. It really is the parable of God sending a rescue team to a drowning man, and the drowning man shooing away the rescue team because he's waiting for God to save him. Ya'll need to get wit it.......
This probably wasn't aimed at me, but that is what I'm trying to say.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
There is evidence of intelligent design all around us. A human cell, for instance, is strong evidence for design.

If you think you are gonna get me to convert to believing in the Big Bang or Darwinism then you are living in fantasy land, kid. Maybe your sad tactics would work on other Christians who have weaker faith but I promise you will just end up wasting your time with me, bruh. I suggest you look for easier targets to deceive, Satan minion.
Why is the human cell evidence for intelligent design?

I'm not trying to convert you, personally. I'm just don't want people confusing empiricism and faith.

The cell makes the journey that the Jewish race made bringing the one God with them.