I Need Strong Evidence That The Theories Of Evolution And The Big Bang Are Wrong.

Discussion in 'New Members Welcome' started by alwayswondering, Jan 8, 2014.

  1. My roommate in college had a lot of experience with investigating exactly what you are saying about the scientists dishonestly promoting the theory of evolution; he had a lot of proofs about how most "skeletons" discovered of "various animals" are actually nothing more than a bone fragment or a single bone at best, and then they just make up the rest of the skeleton, just guessing at what they want it to be. It's pathetic really.
  2. Oooo, when and how will it be broadcast shall this Ken Hamm debate be? Sounds great - really enjoy Ken Hamm, learned a lot through him.
    I love the "little" things, such as how can God have created man after creating everything else and then say, with MAN on the Earth already, it was all GOOD, and us, we were VERY GOOD... This alone invalidates any notion of millions of years of death and suffering and sickness and disease, because none of those things are good, they're all bad. They also all end up in the Lake of Fire with the Devil forever, so again, obviously not good. Not to mention the fact that God said He took just 6 days to create everything, using the Hebrew "yom", meaning a literal "day", a 24-hour solar period...

    Whenever people like to try to exalt themselves above being questioned for their faith in the lie of evolution I like to come at them with pure logic, like, how exactly did everything come out of NOTHING? There is no answer for that in a Godless universe. Not to mention why "evolution", though never witnessed to any degree, let alone evidenced anywhere beyond a man's opinion, is only going in 1 direction, up; why isn't it going backwards? Why isn't there de-evolution if it's random, as they like to purport?
    Once you logically disprove survival of the strongest (Darwin) by simple statements like, if the evolution was NECESSARY for survival, then they would have had to evolve INSTANTLY or else die out instantly. Couldn't have happened over any time period, let alone millions of years. Plus, how do you get an eye when there is no need or knowledge of it or light? Etc.
    So then they try to say well, it's just random, but if it's random, then you should see de-evolution as well, and random, useless evolution, like a cat with 90 tails and a tree growing out of its back, or a wolf that has a rock for one eye and a leg that 4 heads on it and a tail that grows cancer, or a mouse that has whiskers the size of Texas on one side and a tail made out of fish fins...I mean, it just doesn't add up at all, no matter what they say. Because lies never pan out.
  3. And you can even add to it what happens when 2 animals closely related are bred together: sterility. Plus the fact that everything reproduces after its own kind, everytime, no matter what.
  4. I am a new addition to the site. I haven't posted an introduction yet, I haven't yet worked up to that. But I would like to comment on here because I want to add to this discussion.

    I was very much like the OP of this thread, requiring evidence to prove that the theories taught in school were wrong. Through prayer and personal seeking (you have to look for what you pray for, he won't just hand it to you. Ask / Seek / Knock - A.S.K.)

    The creator of the theory of the big bang was a colleague of Albert Einstein - a Catholic Priest from Belgium named George Lemaitre - https://www.google.com/search?q=george+lemaitre - a man who was mocked and laughed at for coming up with such an 'absurd theory' - people who considered him a 'religious nutjob' due to being an ordained priest gave his theory the nickname "The Big Bang" and it stuck. His name has been widely buried and the discovery of the theory has been widely accepted and attributed to Edwin Hubble. This is a lie.

    The next thing that gives evidence to god creating the universe - and is in line with modern physics today - needs a bit of explaining prior.

    Using the Hubble telescope (ugh this guy again), we can view distant galaxies and other planets. However due to the way radiation works, the farther the planets are the farther down the red-side of the wavelength spectrum. This is called a 'redshift'

    noun: red shift; plural noun: red shifts; noun: redshift; plural noun: redshifts; noun: red-shift; plural noun: red-shift

    .the displacement of spectral lines toward longer wavelengths (the red end of the spectrum) in radiation from distant galaxies and celestial objects. This is interpreted as a Doppler shift that is proportional to the velocity of recession and thus to distance."

    This is the method we have used to track the speed of the expansion of the universe, as well as determine how old the universe technically is.

    In Stephen Hawking's book The Theory of Everything, he mentions that all observable planets are redshifting at equal speeds.

    Now, consider this before I come to a conclusion with the theory I have personally come up (I'm probably crazy, but that's how great ideas sound at first I suppose) with to tie in the big bang with the explanation for how the earth has carbon dating going back so many years, from a creationist point of view.

    We know from the study of black holes and the gravity of our own solar system that gravity does two things - while most of the rest of how gravity actually works is still widely a mystery to us. Based on the distance of two masses, the gravitational force will either be stronger - if they are closer - or weaker - if they are farther apart. (https://www.google.com/search?q=how+does+distance+affect+gravity) The second is that the stronger the gravity, the slower time moves in that gravitational field (https://www.google.com/search?q=how+does+gravity+affect+time). While time itself is not proven - Time is a theory, it is completely man-made and there are even certain people who will perceive time differently (often attributed to mental illness, but there are exceptions). "Time is relative" - Einstein. This basically means that time relates differently to each observer.

    So now for my hair-brained theory after discovering all of this, and yes, I'm completely aware of how absurd and crazy this sounds:

    If you take the big bang to be true, that would mean that all of the whole of creation was all in one place. Even if planets had not already formed, the gravitational force would be very high. This would force a slower perception of time - even that of man and beast. It is quite possible using this theory that the earth could have formed in 7 days - according to the perception of time during that time, while allowing carbon dating to go back many more years (since carbon dating is using our measurement of time and not the measurement that was from when the earth was formed -- we also know that radiation can alter the reading of carbon dating to be inaccurate). As the universe expanded from the heavens in those original 5 days before man and beast were created, the gravitational force would decrease, and thus have an exponential inverted relationship on the perception of time. The farther the universe expanded, the slower we viewed time, but we would not be able to see it any differently because we are in the middle of it. The earth would still rotate at the same speed, and would take the same amount of time to circle the sun, but in order for this to make sense, you have to consider the factor of the redshifting.
    If all observable planets - from every direction of earth - is moving at equal speeds away from us... that would place earth in the center of the known universe. Crazy, yes, but there is evidence lending to this theory - it was even theorized centuries ago by Aristotle (https://www.google.com/search?q=earth+is+the+center+of+the+universe+aristotle). That would lend theory to the big bang, and if you use what we have observed from black holes and the perception of time, it could quite possibly bring together all of this as a point that God created the universe in 6 days, but is perceived as millions of years due to gravitational force diminishing and radiation (because high density masses tend to have that) with today's method of carbon dating.

    I got a bit carried away with this post, I apologize if I've confused anyone. I also hope not to be considered the crazy one of the site with my first post. God bless, I have to leave for work :)
  5. I've heard some theories about gravitational effects during the 'big bang' which would have distorted time.

    I like apparent age. The universe was created with the appearance of being old. A favorite question of mine is - How old was Adam when he was created?
    TheCurseOfTheRodain likes this.
  6. How old was Adam - what a great example. For Adam was old enough when created to understand God, and not just that - how old was Eve? When Adam looked at whom God had just made he called her bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. She was already a woman, not a tiny baby.
    For that matter - God didn't say he made some things do other things and then the Sun was made, He just made the Sun. Done. 1 DAY is all God says it took. He did the whole thing in 6 days.

Share This Page