The big question about life on other planets: 1000000000000000000000 planets in the universe

[james bond]

No you didn't. If life was produced here, once, billions of years ago, why do we need to see new life being produced, today, under different conditions, to prove that it was produced billions of years ago?

Because that is what is claimed. We do not see abiogenesis happen today. Before that, the evolutionist claim was spontaneous combustion, but Pasteur showed that it does not happen. Thus, the predecessor to abiogenesis did not happen.

No, you can't just assert that what you know about evolution is right. Thus, you have to learn about creation. I googled days of creation and aig (answers in genesis) and got:
Life from Life...or Not?. Once we learn about the days of creation, then we ask when was it? If we google that, then we get...
The World: Born in 4004 BC?.

Next, would be to compare evolution on creation of Adam and Eve and also when the evolution story is correct.

I'll continue the next time I visit USMB.

We do not see abiogenesis happen today.

Maybe it doesn't happen very often?

No, you can't just assert that what you know about evolution is right.

What about planetary orbits?​

"Maybe" means you are making stuff up. Thus, you are wrong again. No science person in their right mind follows a "maybe."

You keep asking questions, but do not learn. This is why you must go out and learn for yourself. An evo scientist must make good coin for himself despite following fake science.

You keep asserting that evo is right. What does evo thinking say about planetary orbits? They don't say anything because creation scientist Johannes Kepler created the 3 laws of planetary motion. After that, Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and Einstein created his theories of relativity. What were the big discoveries of atheist scientists after that today? Edwin Hubble was raised a Christian, but went for astronomy instead. He did well. The company I worked for built the Hubble Telescope named after him. Thus, you can be an atheist scientist and make big coin.

Anyway, we are done. You won't answer my questions and I'm bored af with your internet atheism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No you didn't. If life was produced here, once, billions of years ago, why do we need to see new life being produced, today, under different conditions, to prove that it was produced billions of years ago?

Because that is what is claimed. We do not see abiogenesis happen today. Before that, the evolutionist claim was spontaneous combustion, but Pasteur showed that it does not happen. Thus, the predecessor to abiogenesis did not happen.

No, you can't just assert that what you know about evolution is right. Thus, you have to learn about creation. I googled days of creation and aig (answers in genesis) and got:
Life from Life...or Not?. Once we learn about the days of creation, then we ask when was it? If we google that, then we get...
The World: Born in 4004 BC?.

Next, would be to compare evolution on creation of Adam and Eve and also when the evolution story is correct.

I'll continue the next time I visit USMB.

We do not see abiogenesis happen today.

Maybe it doesn't happen very often?

No, you can't just assert that what you know about evolution is right.

What about planetary orbits?​

"Maybe" means you are making stuff up. Thus, you are wrong again. No science person in their right mind follows a "maybe."

You keep asking questions, but do not learn. This is why you must go out and learn for yourself. An evo scientist must make good coin for himself despite following fake science.

You keep asserting that evo is right. What does evo thinking say about planetary orbits? They don't say anything because creation scientist Johannes Kepler created the 3 laws of planetary motion. After that, Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and Einstein created his theories of relativity. What were the big discoveries of atheist scientists after that today? Edwin Hubble was raised a Christian, but went for astronomy instead. He did well. The company I worked for built the Hubble Telescope named after him. Thus, you can be an atheist scientist and make big coin.

Anyway, we are done. You won't answer my questions and I'm bored af with your internet atheism.

"Maybe" means you are making stuff up.

Like a 6000 year old Earth?

You keep asking questions, but do not learn.

I keep asking for proof of your claims. You keep failing to provide proof.

What does evo thinking say about planetary orbits?

"Evo thinking" has zero to do with planetary orbits.
But you said the Bible explained orbits and scientists couldn't.
You lied.

Anyway, we are done.

You've been done for a while. Run away.

 

[james bond]

"Maybe" means you are making stuff up.

Like a 6000 year old Earth?

You keep asking questions, but do not learn.

I keep asking for proof of your claims. You keep failing to provide proof.

What does evo thinking say about planetary orbits?

"Evo thinking" has zero to do with planetary orbits.
But you said the Bible explained orbits and scientists couldn't.
You lied.

Anyway, we are done.

You've been done for a while. Run away.

Haha. 6000 yr old Earth are human based estimates pulled using the Bible dates as well as C14 dating. What have I told you before? God said he will keep some things to himself like the age of the Earth and universe. We will not find the exact age using science. How old is your Earth and why? Answer carefully because your "faith-based" beliefs will affect what happens in your next life.

No, you keep asking dumb questions (which a school boy or girl could answer and never answer mine. It means you are of low IQ and lazy af. Otherwise, you'd know what my questions mean.

I didn't lie.

Yes, I'll run away from you because you are low IQ and boring af. Ta ta.

 

[james bond]

The fine tuning theory discovered by atheist scientists while investigating the big bang has been hidden by others of the same. It's checkmate, atheists.

 

[Wuwei]

"Evo thinking" has zero to do with planetary orbits.
But you said the Bible explained orbits and scientists couldn't.
You lied.

The Bible isn't the best source for that. If you want to know about orbits you will have to read a better source: the crystal spheres of Aristotle.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Maybe" means you are making stuff up.

Like a 6000 year old Earth?

You keep asking questions, but do not learn.

I keep asking for proof of your claims. You keep failing to provide proof.

What does evo thinking say about planetary orbits?

"Evo thinking" has zero to do with planetary orbits.
But you said the Bible explained orbits and scientists couldn't.
You lied.

Anyway, we are done.

You've been done for a while. Run away.

View attachment 297542

Haha. 6000 yr old Earth are human based estimates pulled using the Bible dates as well as C14 dating. What have I told you before? God said he will keep some things to himself like the age of the Earth and universe. We will not find the exact age using science. How old is your Earth and why? Answer carefully because your "faith-based" beliefs will affect what happens in your next life.

No, you keep asking dumb questions (which a school boy or girl could answer and never answer mine. It means you are of low IQ and lazy af. Otherwise, you'd know what my questions mean.

I didn't lie.

Yes, I'll run away from you because you are low IQ and boring af. Ta ta.

6000 yr old Earth are human based estimates pulled using the Bible dates as well as C14 dating.

Carbon dating shows the Earth is 6000 years old? LOL!

God said he will keep some things to himself like the age of the Earth and universe.

Where did he say that?

I didn't lie.

You said scientists couldn't explain planetary orbits.
That's a lie.

 

[james bond]

...

Go ask your questions to Wuwei now. He's probably more your speed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...

Go ask your questions to Wuwei now. He's probably more your speed.

Liar.

 

[james bond]

The Bible isn't the best source for that.

Wrong. Don't be a heretic. The Bible is always the best source, but it's not a science book.

"These laws describe the way God normally accomplishes His will in the universe.

God’s logic is built into the universe, and so the universe is not haphazard or arbitrary. It obeys laws of chemistry that are logically derived from the laws of physics, many of which can be logically derived from other laws of physics and laws of mathematics. The most fundamental laws of nature exist only because God wills them to; they are the logical, orderly way that the Lord upholds and sustains the universe He has created. The atheist is unable to account for the logical, orderly state of the universe. Why should the universe obey laws if there is no law-giver? But laws of nature are perfectly consistent with biblical creation. In fact, the Bible is the foundation for natural laws."

...

"The Laws of Planetary Motion
The creation scientist Johannes Kepler discovered that the planets in our solar system obey three laws of nature. He found that planets orbit in ellipses (not perfect circles as had been previously thought) with the sun at one focus of the ellipse; thus a given planet is sometimes closer to the sun than at other times. Kepler also found that planets sweep out equal areas in equal times—in other words, planets speed up as they get closer to the sun within their orbit. And third, Kepler found the exact mathematical relationship between a planet’s distance from the sun (a) and its orbital period (p); planets that are farther from the sun take much longer to orbit than planets that are closer (expressed as p2=a3). Kepler’s laws also apply to the orbits of moons around a given planet.1

As with the laws of chemistry, these laws of planetary motion are not fundamental. Rather, they are the logical derivation of other laws of nature. In fact, it was another creation scientist (Sir Isaac Newton) who discovered that Kepler’s laws could be derived mathematically from certain laws of physics—specifically, the laws of gravity and motion (which Newton himself formulated)."

God & Natural Law

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Bible isn't the best source for that.

Wrong. Don't be a heretic. The Bible is always the best source, but it's not a science book.

"These laws describe the way God normally accomplishes His will in the universe.

God’s logic is built into the universe, and so the universe is not haphazard or arbitrary. It obeys laws of chemistry that are logically derived from the laws of physics, many of which can be logically derived from other laws of physics and laws of mathematics. The most fundamental laws of nature exist only because God wills them to; they are the logical, orderly way that the Lord upholds and sustains the universe He has created. The atheist is unable to account for the logical, orderly state of the universe. Why should the universe obey laws if there is no law-giver? But laws of nature are perfectly consistent with biblical creation. In fact, the Bible is the foundation for natural laws."

...

"The Laws of Planetary Motion
The creation scientist Johannes Kepler discovered that the planets in our solar system obey three laws of nature. He found that planets orbit in ellipses (not perfect circles as had been previously thought) with the sun at one focus of the ellipse; thus a given planet is sometimes closer to the sun than at other times. Kepler also found that planets sweep out equal areas in equal times—in other words, planets speed up as they get closer to the sun within their orbit. And third, Kepler found the exact mathematical relationship between a planet’s distance from the sun (a) and its orbital period (p); planets that are farther from the sun take much longer to orbit than planets that are closer (expressed as p2=a3). Kepler’s laws also apply to the orbits of moons around a given planet.1

As with the laws of chemistry, these laws of planetary motion are not fundamental. Rather, they are the logical derivation of other laws of nature. In fact, it was another creation scientist (Sir Isaac Newton) who discovered that Kepler’s laws could be derived mathematically from certain laws of physics—specifically, the laws of gravity and motion (which Newton himself formulated)."

God & Natural Law

The creation scientist Johannes Kepler discovered that the planets in our solar system obey three laws of nature.

He didn't discover that in the Bible.

 

[Wuwei]

Wrong. Don't be a heretic. The Bible is always the best source, but it's not a science book.

The context was orbits of planets. You are saying the Bible is the best source for planetary orbits? At least Aristotle had epicycles. You left out Einstein in your history. He explained the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. Newton's law couldn't.
.

 

[james bond]

Wrong. Don't be a heretic. The Bible is always the best source, but it's not a science book.

The context was orbits of planets. You are saying the Bible is the best source for planetary orbits? At least Aristotle had epicycles. You left out Einstein in your history. He explained the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. Newton's law couldn't.
.

Yes, the Bible is always the greatest place to start. From there, we go on to other sources in order to discover more. I found AIG. OTOH, you suggested starting with Aristotle. Why not help brother Toddsterpatriot since he has questions? Maybe he can help you with evolution since you already discarded the Bible, creation science websites, whatever I say, and anything else as religion. I included Einstein in a post with @Toodsterpatriot.

 

[RWS]

Jesus supposedly healed the blind.

Here's what I'm gonna do...

I'm going to make you all see 2020 in a few hours! Depending on time zone...

 

[RWS]

 

[RWS]

Does it matter?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, the Bible is always the greatest place to start.

And there you have it, in an iron aged nutshell. A person like this cannot be reasoned with.

 

[james bond]

Yes, the Bible is always the greatest place to start.

And there you have it, in an iron aged nutshell. A person like this cannot be reasoned with.

That's your faith in false science speaking. The Bible is still the world's best selling non-fiction book every year and belongs in non-fiction and history at the library. It isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible. How many times have I said this and you still do not get it; you still believe in your "faith-based" false science? The only true part is natural selection which is in the Bible. It is the true survival of the fittest.

'And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.' Genesis 1:24

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, the Bible is always the greatest place to start.

And there you have it, in an iron aged nutshell. A person like this cannot be reasoned with.

That's your faith in false science speaking. The Bible is still the world's best selling non-fiction book every year and belongs in non-fiction and history at the library. It isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible. How many times have I said this and you still do not get it; you still believe in your "faith-based" false science? The only true part is natural selection which is in the Bible. It is the true survival of the fittest.

'And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.' Genesis 1:24

What passage has the inverse square law?

 

[Wuwei]

The Bible is still the world's best selling non-fiction book every year

Not any more. It doesn't make the top 150 list in USA Today.
USA TODAY Best-Selling Books List

 

[james bond]

The Bible is still the world's best selling non-fiction book every year

Not any more. It doesn't make the top 150 list in USA Today.
USA TODAY Best-Selling Books List

You are wrong just like atheists are usually wrong. I was trying to get atheist Toddsterpatriot to start asking you questions, but if you're this lame, then he'll just ignore you. He could've taught you some evolution.

"The Bible Sells Best Because
It Is Living, Powerful And
Universally Desired
The Bible is often said to be the world’s best sold book but search the best seller lists and you won’t find it anywhere, top to bottom.

It makes you wonder. If it’s a best seller why isn’t it on the list? Well, the answer is simple.

The annual sales figures for the Bible are so high, averaging between $425m and $650m, repeatedly – year after year – that it dwarfs the sales of all other books. The best any other book can hope for is second place and a very distant second place at that.

A list of “best sellers” is interesting only if the top spot is up for grabs so the real best seller had to give way to all the rest.

The Harry Potter series, which has enjoyed high volume sales in recent years, is a good example. According to The New Yorker even books with Harry Potter stature don’t compete well with the Bible. Not only is the Bible the best seller of all time it continues to be the best seller every year even when compared to the astounding sales figures of a series like Harry Potter."

Why The Bible Is The True Best Seller - NowTHINK!AboutIt

Guiness World Records
Best-selling book