Russ Miller evolution big bang debunked final

[rossini55]

The Creation Ministries goal is to increase everyones 'faith' in god's word'. That's it! NOT to find more about the universe or life. Just to get people to believe, usually by ignorance, lies and deceipt. So to say they are interested in scientific investigation is bollocks

[Seamn31]

Moron read a paper on the.new string theory model the.math and the way matter is observed shows its reacting to those things. I push someone but you dont see it and they fall does that mean the fall never happened?

[arieldanielle23]

MOST scientists got their ideas of the big bang theory from the fact that the universe is constantly expanding. The galaxies are, as we speak, moving rapidly away from each other. The theory, like others, offers an explanation for that expansion. A few of them, who are probably trying to reconcile their stringent religious upbringings with the demands of their chosen profession in the field of science and cosmology, are likely the ones who grasp for reasons to debunk it. & you just eat it up.

[arieldanielle23]

The ONLY viable option for our existence is the biblical creator? A big invisible man in the sky playing with dust like dough and BAM, 7 days later there's our universe, our galaxy, our solar system complete with fully-formed, non-evolving life. Yes, that is a scientifically sound theory for sure.

If you look into it, there are examples in our own time of evolution occurring. Our earth is much older than 6000 years. Jesus didn't ride a dinosaur.

[Rockster969]

 Hubble provided all the evidence needed to understand and accept the bang bang

[CreationMinistries]

@Rockster969 Hubble found that all galaxies are mature, without any proof of light from the Big Dud. Sorry, real science is NOT your ally

[sweatytoothmadman]

Now that's not true russ we've actually detected the heat signature from the rapid expansion of space time as predicted by the cosmologists.

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

Ah, if only life were that perfect, and justice that swift! That is how it SHOULD work. Yes, indeed.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@taratorah It is and has been, that's why creationism isn't part of science.

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

I don't know...did you? I don't put words in other people's mouths. You are assuming here (please see ALL of my comments above, so that you can prove for yourself that I never says that YOU said anything!) .

As you know, the VAST majority of evolutionists do their best to tweak the data to prove their position. A genuine scientist is willing to accept any results, and many scientists have come to understand the impossibility of evolution by way of critical thinking.

[thybigballs]

@taratorah Could you please name some of the "many scientists who have come to understand the impossibility of evolution by way of critical reasoning"? How about just one peer reviewed paper from anyone that casts doubt on the theory of evolution? This should be relatively easy for someone who makes claims you have. I look forward to your reply. Happy New Year.

[taratorah]

@thybigballs

I do MY homework, and I am satisfied with the results that I have found. Based on my interactions with other anti-theists, I'm fairly confident that you don't plan to take anything I send you seriously. Of course, you will now claim that I "don't have any proof of my claims" (because you might be psychic!), or something like that.

People who really want the facts will pursue them -- NOT demand other people who HAVE already done their homework just hand it over.

[thybigballs]

@taratorah All I heard was that you don't have anything to support your assertion. I have indeed tried to find peer reviewed papers from such scientists, including those that are theists. I found zero papers. If you can do this, please present the info. I am totally interested in how the theory of evolution is incorrect or isn't the best explanation

[taratorah]

@thybigballs

Didn't think you could! You sound exactly like the PseudoScienceFoundation! XD

Well, I hope you decide to educate yourself. You KNOW I don't believe for one second that you're incapable of fact-finding -- just *unwilling* to learn. It's okay -- you don't need to waste any more of my time. Off you go!

[thybigballs]

@taratorah My prior post had included additional discussion but I decided to play nice. However, my gut feelings have come about. What I was going to say was that one of three things would occur; 1) you would disappear 2) you would refuse to back up your assertions and/or attempt to change to change the subject 3) Give false evidence. Why do creationists have a bad rep of being less than honest? Truth requires no lies or deceit. It's sad that they are self proclaimed as godly people!

[taratorah]

@thybigballs

Why do you care about "truth", if everything "evolved"? You are making things up about me -- in effect, *slandering*. You don't know me -- you just don't like the fact that I won't do your homework. So you make things up, and publicly post them as truth.

Is this honest? Of course not! But you obviously don't care about truth, or facts, or honesty. And why should you? Without God, there are no moral imperatives. Do as thou wilt! My conscience is clear.

[thybigballs]

@taratorah Here's the facts: You made an assertion. I am asking you to show the evidence. You are refusing to show the evidence, for whatever reason. This indicates that you are most likely lying. Remember this, you lying sack of crap: Asserrtions without evidence requires no futter rebuttal. I'm calling you out as a typical lying creationist. Put up or shut up. You have NOTHING and we BOTH KNOW IT. Also, god is not required for morals.. yet another christian fallacy you lying sack

[taratorah]

@thybigballs

You love slander, but it won't get you anywhere where you find people who are interested in the facts.

Calling people names just shows everyone that you can't hold your own in a civilized, rational discussion, and that you have decided what you WANT to believe is true, so you have to publicly insult people who don't blindly fall for your provably false assertions. I won't play your little games, so you call me names! Powerful. Classy. Talk about having nothing! XD

[thybigballs]

@taratorah The truth is there are NO peer reviewed papers where scientists have shown evolution to be false. NOT ONE!!!!!!! And this includes christian scientists! That's right, not one christian scientist has even attempted to do this. 

[taratorah]

@thybigballs

Nice try, Skippy! XD

[thybigballs]

@taratorah An example of creation lying: The father of intelligent design Phillip Johnson, founder of the Discovery Institute, admits he lies for his god in 'Reclaiming America For Christ' and says "The objective is to convince people that darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate...to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God." So, the Discovery Institute has no bones about lying for the sake of promoting the Christian god. Does the universal creator need lies?

[taratorah]

@thybigballs

You are trying so, so desperately! But it makes you feel good, so what the heck! Keep on insulting, slandering, lying, and chain-yanking. It hurts you more than it hurts honest folks.

[thybigballs]

@taratorah I think you need to reread our conversation and see who started with the slander. I tried being nice but that quickly ended due to your "slandering". Reverse psychology doesn't work on me easily. You have satisfied one of my predictions: changing the subject. The accusation of your lies concerning "many scientists" and evolution still stands. Put up or shut up. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will continue on with the theory of evolution being the ultimate explanation.

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

98 percent?! And you have personally verified this? I'm not talking about the rank and file here. If you have the stats and the paperwork to prove the integrity of the so-called scientists (academics) who review papers for publication, please share. And your wild assertion that creationist attempts to disprove evolution have somehow FAILED (?!) only provides further evidence that the evolutionary propagandists know their targets better than they know themselves. It's truly tragic.

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

*ahem*....

I have done *quite* a bit of reading -- enough to know, for instance, that "alot" is not a word.

You are quite naive if you believe that all scientists are honest, sincere and fair, and that they have no agenda other than to see the truth held up in its shining glory. If evolution were to be revealed as an appalling fraud that sways the gullible, those "scientists" would lose face - AND their power, influence, money and position. These are more important than FACT to them.

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

You have a lot of living and learning ahead if you think that the "peers" who do the reviewing are unbiased and fair. Technically, they are not even PEERS. Their interest is to further the belief among the unthinking masses in the evolution fairytale. They reject ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING that shows their belief system for the corruption of science that it is. BTW, you CAN find those papers if you look for them. They actually involve scientific inquiry, and THAT is the problem.

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

You won't get an argument from me on THAT one! Except the part about people losing credibility. Right now, there are people doing solid research and having their papers rejected due to the findings not fitting the assumptions of the "scientists" who control the industry (and it IS just that!). There is an ENORMOUS pile of information that soundly refutes Darwin's imaginative assumptions, but it has to be sought out, as every attempt is made to stifle it.

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

Now you're getting it! Science is a process of applying critical thinking to real world situations. You start with a question - you want to know about something, so you design a process by which you can verify or falsify your idea. The problem with what we call "science" today, is that often, this process is not followed. Someone starts with an ASSUMPTION, ignores EVIDENCE, and manipulates data and outcomes to reflect personal presuppositions. Obviously, this is not science.

[pontecanis]

Having placed your fish in a 2000 yr old barrel, as your idol that barrel, the bible, must be perfect. As an idolator, you cannot accept any idea that offers a challenge to your idol, which must be perfect--so you attack science, which is populated by people wise enough to understand that better information requires the modification of ideas rather than having all of their ideas and principles frozen in an authoritarian 2000 yr old time-frame. Your idolatry voids your anti-science arguments.

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

I was kind of wondering that about that church school guy, Charlie Darwin! How'd he get to be such an authority on "science"?

Science simply means knowledge. There is no room for assumption in either of those words. When a researcher gets an idea, he TESTS the idea. Knowledge in the strict sense comes from structured, well-thought-out testing. A small child can understand this concept, at least if he hasn't been brainwashed to believe that "science" is this week's popular idea.

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

That's nice.

[CreationMinistries]

Name calling and worthless insults...the Darwinian faithful truly are without evidence to present. What a shame these types of misled individuals own the schools, textbooks and media...which misled them to begin with

[HowToBeAGentleman]

@CreationMinistries 'without evidence to present.'

You mean evidences like these

talkorigins(.)org/faqs/comdesc­/ ?

[QuantumGh0st]

Completely brainwashed. Creationists will go extinct just like the flat earthers & the geocentrists, and will be remembered as the poor ignorant nitwits that they are.

[happyjesus123]

It is great that you are able to make a buck off stupid people while undermining Christian beliefs at the same time. If you are not working for the Atheists you should be. Thanks for making these videos.

[CreationMinistries]

Those who hold to the RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY of Secular Humanism don't seem to realize they hold to a RELIGIOUS belief. This is the result of Secularists teaching their BELIEFS as if they were science. Very sad They do realize that if they lose "millions of years" they lose it all - which is a good starting point to get them to start thinking for themselves

[HowToBeAGentleman]

@CreationMinistries 'They do realize that if they lose "millions of years" they lose it all

The point you seem to be unable to grasp is that we haven't lost old earth/universe

You seem to keep confusing your inability to comprehend basic science as a refutation of it

'which is a good starting point to get them to start thinking for themselves'

Coming from someone who has dedicated his life to assuming the bible is true no matter what.

[CreationMinistries]

Those who hold to the RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY of Secular Humanism don't seem to realize they hold to a RELIGIOUS belief. This is the result of Secularists teaching their BELIEFS as if they were science. Very sad

[HowToBeAGentleman]

@CreationMinistries Those who remain ignorant of the fact that methodological naturalism is the only way to do science don't seem to realize that the projection of the inherent ignorance and weakness involved in a position such as creationism has absolutely no affect on actual science.

[bigboy45454545]

Bible fairytales are funner and easier then reality. They don't require thinking or evidence, just assumptions to match a presupposed tale in a book of fairytales. A book with talking snakes living whales cosmic Jewish Zombies and so much more. Harry Potter has nothing on this book.

[Nielow100]

Dark matter may not have been observed. However, as far as I know it's gravity has been measured. When very far objects in space are behind nearer objects, their images can be skewed and doubled by the gravity of the nearer objects. By measuring this 'lens'-effect cosmologists can calculate the distibution of gravity in the nearer region. As it turns out a lot of gravity comes from the space between objects that can be seen. The source of this gravity is called dark matter.

[pilgrimpater]

Furthermore you laughingly imply that we can never work out what has happened retrospectively.

Oh well, goodbye to Archaeology, Palaeontology, Geology, Forensic Science, etc.

Hello Fairytales..

[pilgrimpater]

Is the Universe expanding or is it not? If you think it is not, fair enough, then you support the Steady State Theory (which could never be proof of a 6K year old universe anyway) which conflicts with Genesis by the way.

If you think it is (by accepting observations) then you need to propose why it is expanding and from which state and stage it started expanding.

Starting from a singularity is the most logical and mathematically proven.

I am afraid mere rhetoric can never out trump science.

[lautz73]

@Cacterpus Last I knew they had problems getting the two to fit together without making some huge leaps that science couldn't justify.

[lautz73]

@Cacterpus I'm really not sure. All I know is that there a few of them out there that try to explain it but none of them quite fit just yet.

[lautz73]

@Cacterpus There's also string theory but that requires 11 dimensions and they aren't even ready to start thinking about all of that.

[jlabrecque1]

Supernatural explanations to explain the natural world is not science. It is religion and religion has no place in science classrooms. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand...

[lautz73]

@Cacterpus Actually they are within micro-seconds of the big bang. The only thing lacking is the "theory of everything".

[ronnystoehr]

Ok, let's assume the Big Bang expansion NEVER happened. You think that proves that your invisible sky daddy did it? Why not Zeus? Or the FSM? Or the invisible pink unicorn? How the (non-existent) hell do you simply reduce it to two options?

[Saukko31]

Dark matter and dark energy? Both observed. What you just read is from 2004 and already out of date.

Yes, there are many other cosmological theories than Big Bang, none involve God, but the point is that none of the other theories are not supported by evidence, not the way big bang is.

And it is really simple too, universe is expanding (I hope you don't deny this), so this means that in the past it was smaller, and when you do the math, beginning of the expansion was 13,7 billion years ago.

[LithodidMan]

Russ, Russ, Russ. Why quotemine a textbook on archaeology for information on cosmology? Especially one where the author himself told me you changed words and left out parts as to completely lose any of his initial meaning. Is that honest?

Also, do you think that the authors of the BB letter support your 6000 year old universe? Read the whole letter, read the research of the authors - they support steady state, an eternal universe with no creation. The BB is more in line with your mythology.

[CreationMinistries]

@LithodidMan I guess you have a point though I don't know what it is. If I were the author of the book you refer to I suppose I would also deny what it says. Also, why not just admit the Big Bang is a Big Dud and move on. More and more researchers are admitting so.

[LithodidMan]

@CreationMinistries "I guess you have a point though I don't know what it is" That you don't understand this doesn't surprise me at all Russ.

The author of the book didn't deny what it said, he sent me scanned copied of the pages you quote from so I could see the missing and changed words that change the meaning of what he wrote.

"why not just admit the Big Bang is a Big Dud and move on" Why would I do that? Because ~30 cosmologists claim that the Universe is eternal?

[CamW30]

@LithodidMan - "Because ~30 cosmologists claim that the Universe is eternal?"

Good point Lith! I love it when creationists use evidence that they don't believe or support to try to invalidate science. To say that this method is dishonest is an understatement.

To use unscrupulous ploys like this is "the last bastion for those with no evidence to support their failed religious teachings", more so than belittling those who use such ploys.

[CreationMinistries]

Name calling and cheap insults: Is this really the best secularists have to offer? They own the school & scientific establishments, the media, museums and national parks yet all they have left is name calling - the last bastion for those with no evidence to support their failed religious teachings

[sfg911]

@CreationMinistries Name calling and insults??? It's not the best by any means... it's just the only thing you understand.

Way to go quote mining and lying...... is that the best you can do? Don't you have a direct line to the wisdom of the universe? Strange how it's never any better than what you could make up in your own head while watching sitcoms on TV

[falchion49]

@CreationMinistries Nope, it's working with what we observe.

[HowToBeAGentleman]

@CreationMinistries Actually question dodging, quote mining and other outright fallacy is the last bastion of those without evidence.

Speaking of which, have you got a source yet for your claim that C-14 is found evenly in all layers?

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

Unless you were kidding about your age, I'm guessing that your assumption about my experience is just *slightly* off. ;)

And yes, having quite a few years of education under my belt, I am aware that - while it is not necessary to understand *why* something is a fact, it IS necessary to actually identify what a fact *is*, as opposed to engaging in creative speculation. Assumptions can lead to lethal errors - you will learn this if you choose to study critical thinking.

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

The "guidelines for a fact"? That would be something testable, reapeatable, provable. No matter HOW compelling, or scientific-ish something seems, or how brilliantly creative a hypothesis is, if it can't be tested and falisified, we simply cannot (scientifically speaking) announce it as "fact". However, our anti-critical-thinking culture has convinced us (especially the young) otherwise. It was only when I DID open my eyes that I realized this. It is going right past you -- THINK!

[Niall646]

Your delivery is appalling. So funny, just look at yourself LOL.

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

I suddenly realized (read) your age. You actually have a larger vocabulary than most kids, so you knocked me sideways there!

Can you show me where I indicated we should give up?

No, because all I am saying is that BEFORE we call something - *anything* - a FACT, we need to have that empirical evidence at our fingertips. Get our hands on it. Show HOW it's possible, based on, established scientific principles (a testable model). Ideas, no matter how compelling, are only ideas

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

"Actually, most of the time" is not useful.

If, as you claim, the pharmacists (researchers) KNOW something will be safe and effective, and they only need to tweak it a bit in order to ascertain the specifics, then there would NEVER be a drug recall, because the illnesses and deaths of people who are unexpectedly sensitive to a compound simply wouldn't show up in the stats.

As for your bizarre atomic theory comment - there are a LOT of things that exist that we do not UNDERSTAND. So?

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

Science, which means "knowledge" requires evidence which can be TESTED. If we cannot use the scientific method to TEST, then our assumptions and imaginings must remain in the realm of hypothesis until we CAN test them. If a hunch proves to be accurate (provable ONLY by testing), it is reasonable to call that hunch a fact. But just drawing conclusions? Why do you think prescription medications have to be so extensively TESTED? If our assumptions were as good as fact, they wouldn't.

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

"Getting closer and closer" sounds very much like the Jehovah's Witness claim that "The light is getting brighter and brighter", meaning "We made mistakes in the past with our reasoning, but now we're understanding more and more, so you can trust us -- really."

Your commenting about testing for atoms 6000 years ago is so insane, there's no way to even address it! And who says that inferences are always right? The earth used to be flat, based on inference.

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

"does that mean Democritus was wrong when he proposed the atom?"

Cheap shot, buddy!

We cannot go back and test for the exact conditions at the beginning of time. Does this mean creationists are wrong?

We don't know yet. Atheists in particular don't have the evidence they need to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, one way or the other. So, either we'll just die and turn into compost, or we WILL find out, just as we did with the atom.

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

How is demanding proof unscientific? We have PROOF of gravity. Drop an egg. We have PROOF of microbes. Grab a microscope and hang onto your hat. A teenager or a terrorist with a computer can gain the knowledge gained via scientific inquiry to make use of atomic theory. We can see --IN REAL TIME-- what we get when we apply genuine scientific principles to our hypotheses. To state that we do NOT need to do that is to say that a mere hypothesis is equal to a FACT, which is not so.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@taratorah No, you have an inference of gravity based on indirect affects of mass on mass. Evolution is actually more evidenced than gravity.

[taratorah]

@TheScienceFoundation

Ooooo-kaaayyyyyy, that's a new one! I'll just back away slowly....allow me to take my hat......and..... (fwooosh!)

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

That doesn't work for anyone who relies on *actual* evidence AND NOTHING ELSE to draw conclusions. To merely imagine that something MUST be so because one has made some complex calculations and come up with a hypothesis that sounds "likely" is the epitome of scientific fraud. If the event in question is not observable or testable (the definition of SCIENTIFIC), it MUST remain in the realm of hypothesis. Anything else is utterly and completely dishonest.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@taratorah 'If the event in question is not observable or testable (the definition of SCIENTIFIC), it MUST remain in the realm of hypothesis

Apparently you've chosen to learn nothing of historical science.

[taratorah]

@TheScienceFoundation

If you're going to start referring to history (and using it as "proof"), did you know that the miracles of Jesus were known to be factual in His time and afterward? That He fulfilled many centuries of prophecy to the tiniest detail, and yet THIS history is mocked as fantasy! Apparently, you have a double standard!

It is important to know the difference between "historical science, which is ultimately the record of what's been investigated, and the FACTS learned from it.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@taratorah The difference there being that these miracles left absolutely nothing that can be used to form useful falsifiable predictions, so that's a horrible analogy.

[taratorah]

@TheScienceFoundation

I do believe that anything YOU don't like is a "horrible analogy"! You can't have it both ways. Either one avenue of inquiry is valid in ALL cases, or it is valid in NO case. Anything that doesn't fit your predetermined worldview -- the things that are REQUIRED by you to be true, and the things that you will not PERMIT to be true, simply doesn't count. Not terribly useful if your focus is to get to the facts.

[ronnystoehr]

@taratorah Amazing, isn't it, those bronze age hippies believed that diseases are caused by demons and lightning is caused by a pissed off supreme being. And prophecies? To the tiniest detail? By Zeus, you really have low, ehm, no standards for good prophecies.

[taratorah]

@Cacterpus

Well.....for me (and this may just be *me*), I wouldn't dare assume that I, as a finite creature have the capability to define and describe something I'm *not* (infinite), because I do not have the *experience* of infinity. I might have a vague concept of it (true), but the idea that even the most brilliant person on the planet would announce AS FACT that that the universe started as an "inconceivably tiny speck" just strikes me as ridiculous and arrogant!

[taratorah]

Wait....an INCONCEIVABLY TINY SPECK? If it's inconceivable, then what are they even talking about??! We can't imagine it, but we're imagining it. Got it. Love those evolutionists! So logical and ....scientific! XD

[don142128]

I threw some wires, glass, plastic, metal shavings, screws, nuts and bolts out of my window the other day. When I went downstairs to check it out, I discovered a brand new television, stereo, DVD player and an entertainment center to put it all in, had magically formed and were just sitting there on the sidewalk! "Order out of chaos" nothing but backwards Satanic garbage. That pretty much describes the big bang.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@don142128 'I threw some wires, glass, plastic, metal shavings, screws, nuts and bolts out of my window the other day.'

And you got a giant strawman? 

[TheScienceFoundation]

"Can *A* educated person really put their trust in the bible"

That really says it all doesn't it?

[CreationMinistries]

@TheScienceFoundation absolutely!

[TheScienceFoundation]

The big bang relies on minor assumptions, creation relies solely on dishonesty and/or a complete ignorance of reality. The fallacy you're using here is known as a false dichotomy, you're trying to say "Well since I don't want to accept or understand the big bang, the only option we have is bronze age space magic"

[bambuskaktusa]

@TheScienceFoundation Or what about: We dont like the idea of a God, because then we have to obey our conscience, so lets believe that a big explosion created everything. And dont say Big bang is a fact, then you are lying. It is a theory with no proof.

[BlowDevilUp]

@bambuskaktusa The very fact that you obey god removes your conscience entirely. Following god and not your conscience is what you dogmatic fundamental religious folk are doing. Your conscience comes from your genetic heritage, it is because you are a social animal that lives in groups and tribes that you even have a conscience. Ignoring your conscience like the fundamentalists, do makes you into an anti-social sociopath.

[bambuskaktusa]

@BlowDevilUp whatever...

[CreationMinistries]

@TheScienceFoundation Gee, I guess Scientific America and the multitude of scientists who are admitting the Big Bang is a Big Dud got it wrong....LOL

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CreationMinistries Scientific American has also had an article on the dissent from Darwin, pointing out how wrong/fallacious it was. It's a combination appeal to authority/popularity fallacy.

[taratorah]

@CreationMinistries

I would be totally happy to buy into this "big bang" routine if the proponents could provide empirical evidence that it is a scientific reality. They would need to at LEAST show me something that would indicate that available evidence POINTS to it, and/or they'd need to design a study that would allow for empirical observation -- meaning we'd need to begin with billllllions and billlllions of years for our experiment. And we'd need to see exactly *what* went BANG! XD

[TheScienceFoundation]

@taratorah 'if the proponents could provide empirical evidence that it is a scientific reality'

map.gsfc.nasa(.)gov/universe/b­b_tests_cmb.html

[CreationMinistries]

@TheScienceFoundation TSF continues to confuse secular interpretations of the universe as if their interpretations are "proof" for their religious belief. 

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CreationMinistries CreationMinistries continues to confuse the fact that the only empirical evidence supports a big bang and that simply invoking intangible bronze age desert dwelling magic to 'explain' the data is not an argument.

[taratorah]

@TheScienceFoundation

YOU MAKE MY POINT! XD An article is going to "prove" the big bang. Lovely!

[TheScienceFoundation]

@taratorah You had a point? What were you expecting when you asked for data that supported the big bang?

[taratorah]

@TheScienceFoundation

That referred to my previous comment on how, rather than providing empirical proof for things such as "the big bang" or "evolution" (neither of which can be subjected to investigation), evolutionists ALWAYS send me a link to something (Wikipedia is a popular choice) that has zip to do with the issue, but is clearly intended to "prove" the point. But how can we prove the unprovable? We can only make "educated assumptions" which is NOT the same as objective proof.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@taratorah You seem to be confusing your lack of understanding of historical science as meaning the predictions made from the original model of the big bang are irrelevant. You also seem to have a complete lack of understanding of what science is meant to do in general, it is not intended to offer proof for anything, proof is in the realm of mathematics. Science is a methodology of following data to a logical conclusion.

[taratorah]

@TheScienceFoundation

You seem to be confusing scientific inquiry with extreme, bizarre mental contortions that cause the thinker to make wild assumptions based on "scientific" laws that have simply NOT been seen to exist, much less cause the effects claimed for them. Anyone who thinks that evolution is "more evidenced" than gravity (your words -- not mine!)has got some gargantuan issues with critical thinking......

[TheScienceFoundation]

@taratorah No, anyone who realizes that evolution is more evidenced than gravity has a reasonable grasp on reality and an adequate understanding of biology.

[taratorah]

@TheScienceFoundation

That's just so bizarre, there's no way to respond! You would have to have said something sane for there to be an answer to that! Sorry, I just can't shut my eyes and blindly believe in a "scientific" system that demands the suspension of known natural and scientific laws. Gravity, on the other hand, can be (and is) demonstrated by toddlers, and understood by them to exist. But demented hypotheses take a whole load o' brainwashing to accept as reality!

[TheScienceFoundation]

@taratorah You keep confusing your ignorance of biology for meaning that somehow evolution is a theory supported by some sort of conspiracy.

'the suspension of known natural and scientific laws. '

Such as?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@taratorah Hey you made a claim, now you need to back it up or admit you were wrong.

[taratorah]

@TheScienceFoundation

Data that supports the big bang, based on what we know to be absolute, proven fact regarding the known universe. Not inference or educated guesses. When we do *that*, facts tend to "change" over time. Kind of like the "facts" concerning "evolution"! ;)

[lautz73]

@taratorah How about cosmic background radiation? It points to a rapid expansion. Stellar red shift? It shows stars and galaxies moving away at a set speed, the Hubble constant. Neither of which would be present in the steady state hypothesis propsed by the bible, everything created as it exists today which would remove both things from existance. I'm just a high school graduate and I understand those things. What's your excuse for not understanding them?

[lautz73]

@CreationMinistries ~30 scientists that believe in the "steady state" universe (and they all believe that the universe is infinatly old) goes against what the bible and some creationists believe, that the universe is only 6000-10000 years old (depending on which section that you are asking).

[TheScienceFoundation]

"No predictions that can be validated by observation"

Gee let's see except for the fact that the universe is expanding right now, CMB, primordial elements, galactic distribution.

"Why do they accept this non-scientific approach"

Ahahaha, that's the hilarity I'm talking about, you implying that you understand in the least what constitutes scientific.

"Only viable option... biblical creator"

That's not a viable option as it has not been evidenced in the slightest

[TheScienceFoundation]

Final? Aww you mean you're not going to post any garbage after this? That'd be a shame because it's hilarious to watch you stumble and stutter on camera as you very apparently know what you're saying is completely wrong.

The laws of physics are DEscriptive not PREscriptive, they're observational models of what occurs, not what must happen.

"A letter signed by dozens of scientists" If you consider that as 'evidence' you should look up project Steve

[CreationMinistries]

@TheScienceFoundation About as innaccurate as most of your statements

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CreationMinistries Which is to say not at all.

[BlowDevilUp]

Your ministry is about profiting from the indoctrination of defenceless and gullible children and managing the subsequent widespread self-delusion. Your ministry is more appropriately called an immoral crime.

[BlowDevilUp]

@9pt9 'Getting real' is exactly what I am saying we should do instead of duping our children with tricks and lies.

[9pt9]

@BlowDevilUp Exactly. Let's stop telling kids mutations evolved brains from nothing without proof.

[BlowDevilUp]

@9pt9 There is abundant 'proof' which you refuse to acknowledge, because it conflicts with your superstitions. Reality and 'getting real' is simply something you reject.

[9pt9]

@BlowDevilUp There's abundant proof? Where did the universe come from then? How did life start?

[bambuskaktusa]

@BlowDevilUp So it is better to teach children that there is no hope, and we are just a coinsidence, an accident? And people are not even sure if God does exist or not.

[BlowDevilUp]

@bambuskaktusa It's not like you say it is. I don't see it like you do at all. We should teach our children ethics, values and morality.

[CreationMinistries]

@BlowDevilUp Really? How much do I make? EIther you know the honest answer or your are, at best, a liar...

I think we all know which it is