Science Disproves Evolution

Ergo you don't want to do the work to answer his question?

Just becuase you don't like the answer doesn't mean I didn't answer it.

Well if you don't mind lazy arguments, if someone claims Christianity is true

Step 1: Ask logical and reasonable questions that would naturally pop up to someone who's just been told that an invisible omnipotent big brother exists
Step 2: Notice the hypocrisy of its followers
Step 3: Compare to validity of other religions that claimed virgin birth, resurrection, and men hearing voices before the bible was written.




A lazy comparison for a lazy argument.

Atheism is silly as it thinks DNA can simply form in the ocean and then start growing an organism to support it. Atheism needs more than than a Christianity.

Let me retort, Christianity needs more than than a Atheism!

Big Bang?​

The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,[SUP]a[/SUP] was based on three observations: the redshift of light from distant stars, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the universe. All three have been poorly understood.

Redshift. The redshift of starlight is usually interpreted as a Doppler effect;[SUP]b[/SUP] that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself supposedly expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere.[SUP]c[/SUP] Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all physical laws. Furthermore, these galaxies, in their recession from us, should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating. [See “Dark Thoughts” on page 33.]

Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with objects having low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and stay connected for long. [See "Connected Galaxies" and "Galaxy Clusters" on page 41.] For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts.[SUP]d[/SUP] Some quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas.[SUP]e[/SUP] Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory.[SUP]f[/SUP]

Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values.[SUP]g[/SUP] Much remains to be learned about redshifts.

CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.[SUP]h[/SUP]

Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see.[SUP]i[/SUP]Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not produce the CMB.[SUP]j[/SUP] [See pages 414–416.]

Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium.[SUP]k[/SUP] Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars)[SUP]l[/SUP] and the presence of beryllium and boron in “older” stars[SUP]m[/SUP] contradict the big bang theory.

A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and a trace of lithium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist only of those elements. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none have been found.[SUP]n[/SUP]

Dark Thoughts

For decades, big bang theorists said that the amount of mass in a rapidly expanding universe must be enough to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter could not come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass always fell far short of the needed amount. This “missing mass” is often called dark matter, because no one could see it or even detect it. Actually, “missing mass” had to be “created” to preserve the big bang theory. [See "Missing Mass" on page 34.] The media’s frequent reference to “dark matter” enshrined it in the public’s consciousness, much like the supposed “missing link” between apes and man.

The big bang has struck again by devising something new and imaginary to support the theory. Here’s why. The big bang theory predicts that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown upward must slow as it moves away from the Earth.

For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. The shocking result is now in—and the answer has been rechecked in many ways. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating![SUP]v[/SUP] Therefore, to protect the theory, something must again be invented. Some energy source that counteracts gravity must continually accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. This energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy.

Neither “dark matter” (created to hold the universe together) nor “dark energy” (created to push the universe apart) has been seen or measured.[SUP]w[/SUP] We are told that “most of the universe is composed of invisible dark matter and dark energy.”[SUP]x[/SUP] Few realize that both mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory.

Instead of cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with statements about things for which no objective evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang is faulty? Yes, but big bang theorists want to maintain their reputations, careers, and worldview. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists. (Pages 407–413 give an explanation for the expansion, or “stretching out,” of the universe.)

Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. [See “Distant Galaxies” on page 410.] A big bang should not produce highly concentrated[SUP]o[/SUP] or rotating bodies.[SUP]p[/SUP] Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce tightly clustered galaxies.[SUP]q[/SUP] Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.[SUP]r[/SUP]

If a big bang happened, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been made. For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge.[SUP]s[/SUP] (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.[SUP]t[/SUP]

Also, if a big bang occurred, what caused the bang? Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could anything escape the trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe’s mass in a “cosmic egg” that existed before a big bang?[SUP]u[/SUP]

If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect.[SUP]y[/SUP] All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred.[SUP]z[/SUP]

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 56.�� Big Bang?

So you complain my argument is lazy, while not even raising the slightest valid arguement against anything Pahu presented. And you want to talk about Christians being hypocrites. Must be that open-mindedness of yours showing.

Well, I'm glad I didn't waste my time typing more for someone who is only going to plug his ears. Once again, this brings me back to my post on the other page. I'll be glad when they take this big bang and evolution garbage out of schools.

Atheism is actually just a lack of belief in gods. You could be an atheist and think that aliens
brought life to Earth. Your statement is false.

Oh look!
Why Life On Earth May Have 'Started On Mars'

Yes my several other posts noting that Pahu does nothing other than copy paste old arguments, without any original thoughts never existed.

You can keep pretending that your not-so-whitty one liners actually disprove or even address what Pahu says, but we all know they don't. You just like to pretend because that's what's easier for you.

If I recall I have responded to some of Pahu's copy and paste posts in the past. I will just say that the author is often mistaken about some simple facts about the universe and often tries to misrepresent things to prove his point.

So this time I'll just respond to it with a not-so-whitty one liner; It is easier to make a mess then to clean it up, and I am not going to clean up Walt Brown's mess.

Remember my near essay on Mimicry in animals............... pointing out that his source misconstrues what a mimicry is, in that the animal somehow willfully manipulates its genes. Said source was than used again and again in later copy pastes he made.

you do know why panspermia has become such a popular notion in the scientific community, right?

because the more we learn about molecular biology, the more life arising ex-nihlio on earth seems ridiculously impossible. the solution many favor over a creator god is that magical conditions necessary for life and/or its basic building blocks to begin out of dust existed on some other imaginary planet.

the argument goes like this:
"in order for X to happen there must be a purple cow"

"there is no purple cow"

"well the universe is pretty big. let's just say there was a planet somewhere in it full of purple cows, that blew up, and a purple cow on a bit of debris survived for millions of years in the cold, dead, irradiated vastness of space, crash landed on earth and started a race of purple cows here."

this is what's known as a "dull, rusty razor" belonging to a certain occam.



one might as well assume a hyper-intelligent species of white mice created the earth and all her life forms as an enormous supercomputer in order to calculate the meaning of life, the universe and everything. because the universe is so big.

The top ten latest breakthroughs in Creation Science!

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

oh i guess that means you "win" ?

the only difference in "Creation Science" and "Science" is causality. Creationists believe in a creator, non-creationists believe in a universe ex-nihlio or irrationalis.

funny how the latin for "causeless" sounds so much like "irrational," isn't it?

I would say more-so creationists believe definitively in a creator. Though there's plenty of Christians who aren't creationists themselves.

I appreciate the mods doing their job. Thanks!

John 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (ESV)

sounds like good news i likes