Science Proves the Bible Again

[james bond]

The consensus of what the evidence shows is zero evidence for a creator.

Wrong. You got it ass-backwards. The evidence shows zero evidence for big bang and abiogenesis. There is even more mountains of evidence against macroevolution, evolutionary thinking and history. More people believe in a creator than multiverses or aliens. Besides, how can some natural or physical event start the beginning of space and time?

Wrong. There is no evidence for a creator, period. Who cares what people believe? We're talking about facts. What people believe is often false.

You don't know what you are talking about as big bang isn't facts. You can't even explain quantum fluctuations, conservation of energy, quantum physics, entropy and don't know the difference between ice and water and more haha. All of which is above you brain level. All your brain is good for is believing in the "lie-potheses" of evolution. What atheist scientists believe is often false. What creation scientists believe is often true. It goes to show Satan exists and have corrupted your brain so up is down and lies are truth.

 

[james bond]

At least I understand why atheists and their scientists believe in lies. They start with a no God universe. That is impossible because we have gravity and it is never off and one cannot escape gravity. Gravity is Jesus and stands before everyone. There are no quantum particles associated for its force to work. What is required is ether and mass and neither require quantum particles for it to exert gravity's force. Yet, ether is massless. Light is massless. They are invisible, but we know gravity also massless to exert a great force. The greatest force in the universe.

 

[cnm]

Besides, how can some natural or physical event start the beginning of space and time?

I don't know. Neither do you. As I understand it, the BBT describes the evolution of the universe, its expansion and cooling, nothing else.

 

[DOTR]

the bible was created and written by humans to coerce slaves to not rebel

Ancient slaves were literate?

And apparently religious.

 

[Hollie]

At least I understand why atheists and their scientists believe in lies. They start with a no God universe. That is impossible because we have gravity and it is never off and one cannot escape gravity. Gravity is Jesus and stands before everyone. There are no quantum particles associated for its force to work. What is required is ether and mass and neither require quantum particles for it to exert gravity's force. Yet, ether is massless. Light is massless. They are invisible, but we know gravity also massless to exert a great force. The greatest force in the universe.

Gravity is Jesus?

I see. Is this some new-fangled religious cult you're a part of?

 

[bripat9643]

There are two moons in our solar system that are covered with water.

What you said isn't true. Moreover, can you tell the difference between a planet and a moon?

I don't expect an answer because you're a .

It is true. Europa and Enceladus are both completely covered by a layer of water than then a layer of ice. Check it out on Wiki before you make a fool of yourself.

Enceladus - Wikipedia

Europa (moon) - Wikipedia

Ice is a state of water. We want the liquid state. Single cells do not grow in ice when it is too cold as found by testing in Antarctica. Try again haha.

There's liquid water under the ice, moron. That means there is a source of heat within the moon, and that means there are probably something like the thermal vents we have here on Earth.

 

[bripat9643]

The consensus of what the evidence shows is zero evidence for a creator.

Wrong. You got it ass-backwards. The evidence shows zero evidence for big bang and abiogenesis. There is even more mountains of evidence against macroevolution, evolutionary thinking and history. More people believe in a creator than multiverses or aliens. Besides, how can some natural or physical event start the beginning of space and time?

Wrong. There is no evidence for a creator, period. Who cares what people believe? We're talking about facts. What people believe is often false.

You don't know what you are talking about as big bang isn't facts. You can't even explain quantum fluctuations, conservation of energy, quantum physics, entropy and don't know the difference between ice and water and more haha. All of which is above you brain level. All your brain is good for is believing in the "lie-potheses" of evolution. What atheist scientists believe is often false. What creation scientists believe is often true. It goes to show Satan exists and have corrupted your brain so up is down and lies are truth.

I haven't even mentioned the big bang. I don't need explain quantum fluctuations, conservation of energy, quantum physics or entropy. Your theory that life can't exist on an ice moon is obvious horseshit, as I explained elsewhere. Your belief that you understand science better than I do doesn't pass the laugh test. Every time you post you demonstrate that you don't know what science is. You think the Old Testament is science.

Shouldn't what "creation scientists" (an oxymoron) believe always be true?

 

[james bond]

Besides, how can some natural or physical event start the beginning of space and time?

I don't know. Neither do you. As I understand it, the BBT describes the evolution of the universe, its expansion and cooling, nothing else.

Of course, I know and the creation science believers know. Everything was created by God in six days. Only a timeless, spaceless, all-powerful being living in another dimension can create all this. However, it was tainted by the sin of disobedience which brought forth death in this physical life. Today, we still have this disobedience in the religious form of atheism, agnosticism and secular science. Today's secular or atheist science does not believe in God, so it created the religion of evolution and evolutionary and historical lies to make the general populace disobey God. It's no secret why believers and non-believers disagree on everything and non-believers have been tricked and lied to by Satan himself. Otherwise, science would show it to be true and we could observe, test and falsify it. However, none of it can and yet the general populace believes. That's the biggest lie in the world and the immoral and weak-brained believe it and will go to their graves with it.

 

[james bond]

There are two moons in our solar system that are covered with water.

What you said isn't true. Moreover, can you tell the difference between a planet and a moon?

I don't expect an answer because you're a .

It is true. Europa and Enceladus are both completely covered by a layer of water than then a layer of ice. Check it out on Wiki before you make a fool of yourself.

Enceladus - Wikipedia

Europa (moon) - Wikipedia

Ice is a state of water. We want the liquid state. Single cells do not grow in ice when it is too cold as found by testing in Antarctica. Try again haha.

There's liquid water under the ice, moron. That means there is a source of heat within the moon, and that means there are probably something like the thermal vents we have here on Earth.

bripat9643, it didn't take long to get to ad hominem attacks. It shows how weak-brained you are. The believers have exposed you for what you are. A moron and a debate loser. That means we are the winners because you have no evidence of your claims about ice while I presented the findings that single-cells cannot live in Antarctica. It's observable, testable, falsifiable and repeatable. You can go to the corner and bawl your stupid eyes out.

I haven't even mentioned the big bang. I don't need explain quantum fluctuations, conservation of energy, quantum physics or entropy. Your theory that life can't exist on an ice moon is obvious horseshit, as I explained elsewhere. Your belief that you understand science better than I do doesn't pass the laugh test. Every time you post you demonstrate that you don't know what science is. You think the Old Testament is science.

Shouldn't what "creation scientists" (an oxymoron) believe always be true?

You can't mention what you do not know nor can explain what I asked for. It was I who said "atheist scientists" is an oxymoron first .

 

[bripat9643]

Besides, how can some natural or physical event start the beginning of space and time?

I don't know. Neither do you. As I understand it, the BBT describes the evolution of the universe, its expansion and cooling, nothing else.

Of course, I know and the creation science believers know. Everything was created by God in six days. Only a timeless, spaceless, all-powerful being living in another dimension can create all this. However, it was tainted by the sin of disobedience which brought forth death in this physical life. Today, we still have this disobedience in the religious form of atheism, agnosticism and secular science. Today's secular or atheist science does not believe in God, so it created the religion of evolution and evolutionary and historical lies to make the general populace disobey God. It's no secret why believers and non-believers disagree on everything and non-believers have been tricked and lied to by Satan himself. Otherwise, science would show it to be true and we could observe, test and falsify it. However, none of it can and yet the general populace believes. That's the biggest lie in the world and the immoral and weak-brained believe it and will go to their graves with it.

The term "creation science believer" is an oxymoron. Your belief is based on faith, which even you admit. It's not based on evidence. Science is the opposite of faith. The outlook of the scientist is skepticism about virtually every proposition about the physical world that has been put forth. Scientist don't refer to a 2500 year old book of fairy-tales to determine which theories are credible and which aren't.

One thing you can't seem to get through your head is that the failure of science to explain something doesn't mean you get to assume God did it. You have to show credible evidence that this mythical being did it, and no believer has ever done that.

 

[bripat9643]

There are two moons in our solar system that are covered with water.

What you said isn't true. Moreover, can you tell the difference between a planet and a moon?

I don't expect an answer because you're a .

It is true. Europa and Enceladus are both completely covered by a layer of water than then a layer of ice. Check it out on Wiki before you make a fool of yourself.

Enceladus - Wikipedia

Europa (moon) - Wikipedia

Ice is a state of water. We want the liquid state. Single cells do not grow in ice when it is too cold as found by testing in Antarctica. Try again haha.

There's liquid water under the ice, moron. That means there is a source of heat within the moon, and that means there are probably something like the thermal vents we have here on Earth.

bripat9643, it didn't take long to get to ad hominem attacks. It shows how weak-brained you are. The believers have exposed you for what you are. A moron and a debate loser. That means we are the winners because you have no evidence of your claims about ice while I presented the findings that single-cells cannot live in Antarctica. It's observable, testable, falsifiable and repeatable. You can go to the corner and bawl your stupid eyes out.

That's all hogwash. My ad hominem is an indication of nothing more than that I have little tolerance for addressing stupidities that I have already addressed 100 times. However, I will strive to avoid doing so in the future.

There is plenty of evidence for what I claimed. For instance, consider this photo of Enceladus spewing water into space:

That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.

I haven't even mentioned the big bang. I don't need explain quantum fluctuations, conservation of energy, quantum physics or entropy. Your theory that life can't exist on an ice moon is obvious horseshit, as I explained elsewhere. Your belief that you understand science better than I do doesn't pass the laugh test. Every time you post you demonstrate that you don't know what science is. You think the Old Testament is science.

Shouldn't what "creation scientists" (an oxymoron) believe always be true?

You can't mention what you do not know nor can explain what I asked for. It was I who said "atheist scientists" is an oxymoron first .

That's beside the point. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?

 

[james bond]

That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.

Except the surface is ice and not water. It doesn't match what the Earth has. Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.

That's beside the point. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?

Now, you're getting it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.

Dang that's stupid. For one, we actually find life in the ice in Antarctica. Second, there is not an ocean under Antarctic ice. There is land. And...oops!...we find life there, too.

You just really are not capable of having an honest conversation about these topics.

 

[bripat9643]

That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.

Except the surface is ice and not water. It doesn't match what the Earth has. Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.

That's beside the point. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?

Now, you're getting it.

Now you're moving the goal posts. You said liquid water didn't exist anywhere else in the universe, let alone our solar system. That claim was clearly wrong. No one claimed these moons were identical to Earth. However, there existence indicates that there is a high probability that some planets circling other starts will have water.

 

[Hollie]

That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.

Except the surface is ice and not water. It doesn't match what the Earth has. Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.

That's beside the point. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?

Now, you're getting it.

No one is getting it. So-called creation science, ID’iot creationism, whatever the current label, is a laughable joke.


Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum

 

[james bond]

Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.

Dang that's stupid. For one, we actually find life in the ice in Antarctica. Second, there is not an ocean under Antarctic ice. There is land. And...oops!...we find life there, too.

You just really are not capable of having an honest conversation about these topics.

All I said is there are parts of ice in Antarctica where there is no life. Never mentioned any water underneath it. It's bripat9643 who thinks there is water under the ice on some moon and thinks the ice above it is an ocean. What an idiot.

 

[james bond]

That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.

Except the surface is ice and not water. It doesn't match what the Earth has. Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.

That's beside the point. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?

Now, you're getting it.

Now you're moving the goal posts. You said liquid water didn't exist anywhere else in the universe, let alone our solar system. That claim was clearly wrong. No one claimed these moons were identical to Earth. However, there existence indicates that there is a high probability that some planets circling other starts will have water.

I was right and you still haven't found a planet like Earth. Just admit there's no place like Earth or be considered a fool.

 

[james bond]

What you said isn't true. Moreover, can you tell the difference between a planet and a moon?

I don't expect an answer because you're a .

It is true. Europa and Enceladus are both completely covered by a layer of water than then a layer of ice. Check it out on Wiki before you make a fool of yourself.

Enceladus - Wikipedia

Europa (moon) - Wikipedia

Ice is a state of water. We want the liquid state. Single cells do not grow in ice when it is too cold as found by testing in Antarctica. Try again haha.

There's liquid water under the ice, moron. That means there is a source of heat within the moon, and that means there are probably something like the thermal vents we have here on Earth.

bripat9643, it didn't take long to get to ad hominem attacks. It shows how weak-brained you are. The believers have exposed you for what you are. A moron and a debate loser. That means we are the winners because you have no evidence of your claims about ice while I presented the findings that single-cells cannot live in Antarctica. It's observable, testable, falsifiable and repeatable. You can go to the corner and bawl your stupid eyes out.

That's all hogwash. My ad hominem is an indication of nothing more than that I have little tolerance for addressing stupidities that I have already addressed 100 times. However, I will strive to avoid doing so in the future.

There is plenty of evidence for what I claimed. For instance, consider this photo of Enceladus spewing water into space:

That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.

I haven't even mentioned the big bang. I don't need explain quantum fluctuations, conservation of energy, quantum physics or entropy. Your theory that life can't exist on an ice moon is obvious horseshit, as I explained elsewhere. Your belief that you understand science better than I do doesn't pass the laugh test. Every time you post you demonstrate that you don't know what science is. You think the Old Testament is science.

Shouldn't what "creation scientists" (an oxymoron) believe always be true?

You can't mention what you do not know nor can explain what I asked for. It was I who said "atheist scientists" is an oxymoron first .

That's beside the point. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?

Well, you can go live in Enceladus and take some cameras with you. I'll stay right here on Earth with other believers and we'll watch you freeze to death.

 

[buttercup]

More of Einstein's own words:

“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”

“The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”

“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”

As far as science and religion going hand in hand Einstein said this:

“A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

And this is what he says about people like you:

"There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views."

People like you pissed Einstein off...

I like his quote on Jesus.

"I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene." Einstein was then asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, to which he replied, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

 

[LittleNipper]

Scientific fact is observable and repeatable. Theory is not fact and that is your weakest link.

See, this is what I am talking about. You don't even realize how dumb and wrong this is.

Scientific theories yield repeatable results. And yes, theories can become accepted as "fact".

Your comment regarding observations is ridiculous as well. Go ahead, measure the time for a rock to fall to earth. You will get 10 different answers. Every time. Which is "the fact"? The thing tying these measurements together is the scientific theory; therein lies your "fact". it is the theory that tells you rocks fall down every time, and why. It explains the range of measurements you will get, and why you get them. It explains why the rock always falls down and always does so at about the same speed.

Here is something "repeatable" for you:

The fossil record shows the same animals in the same layers. They generally do not appear before or after their own layer. And this is so everywhere we look. And everywhere we look, the layers are in the same order. Everywhere we look, we see the families of animals in the same chronological order, and can trace the changes in their physiology. We see the simpler, generalized vertebrates first, then the different families of vertebrates after. We see gills, then lungs. We see the dentition of two, distinct modern species or genera traced right back to their common origin (e.g., cats and dogs).

So, riddle me this, shaman...what is the "fact" in all of that repeatable, reliable observation?

(Hint: it has been a well known scientific theory for 150 years)

Because of the FLOOD, animals with gills would be affected in mass first, and then those with lungs would be next. And then there is hydrological sorting: Hydrological sorting - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science