SSIPON:
Dtruthspeaker, how old do you think the earth is?

I actually don't care!

And I don't think it is important.

And I know that no reasonable person is counting.

All I care for is that this is a really really nice House.

Come to think of it, did you think to ask how old your village is or even the house you were raised in? I know you did not!

Why?

Because IT TRULY WAS NOT IMPORTANT!

ALL YOU WERE THANKFUL FOR IS THAT, YOU DID NOT SLEEP IN THE STREETS AND THAT YOU WERE HAPPY TO BE THE ONE LIVING IN IT.

THATS ALL.

I honestly think that there are so many stupid questions flying around which people have been deceived into thinking they were important.

Whereas, they are not!

Omo The Dunning-Kruger effect is really heavy on you Dtruthspeaker. The other guy is asking for your evidence against the Big Bang brother. Or you think you are smarter than the astrophysicists that spend their lives studying this? Or could it be that it just makes you uncomfortable? Pick one. Because this one that you are pandering from pillar to post, I don't understand o. Bring your evidence, get it peer reviewed, collect your Nobel prize. You don't understand English?, Which language you want make I use for you? By the way I'm agnostic and open to evidence, you cannot tell me to believe what you are saying when you have nothing to back it up except this thing you call "faith".

Dtruthspeaker:


I actually don't care!

And I don't think it is important.

And I know that no reasonable person is counting.

All I care for is that this is a really really nice House.

Come to think of it, did you think to ask how old your village is or even the house you were raised in? I know you did not!

Why?

Because IT TRULY WAS NOT IMPORTANT!

ALL YOU WERE THANKFUL FOR IS THAT, YOU DID NOT SLEEP IN THE STREETS AND THAT YOU WERE HAPPY TO BE THE ONE LIVING IN IT.

THATS ALL.

I honestly think that there are so many stupid questions flying around which people have been deceived into thinking they were important.

Whereas, they are not!

Every reasonable person knows that the Earth is around 4 billion years old. So when did the creation story happen? 4 billion years ago?

Dtruthspeaker:


I actually don't care!

And I don't think it is important.

And I know that no reasonable person is counting.

All I care for is that this is a really really nice House.

Come to think of it, did you think to ask how old your village is or even the house you were raised in? I know you did not!

Why?

Because IT TRULY WAS NOT IMPORTANT!

ALL YOU WERE THANKFUL FOR IS THAT, YOU DID NOT SLEEP IN THE STREETS AND THAT YOU WERE HAPPY TO BE THE ONE LIVING IN IT.

THATS ALL.

I honestly think that there are so many stupid questions flying around which people have been deceived into thinking they were important.

Whereas, they are not!

Please I am still waiting for the lies in Big Bang theory that you discovered.

I have asked about 10times. No one will take you seriously unless you discuss it.

Workch:
Please I am still waiting for the lies in Big Bang theory that you discovered.

I have asked about 10times. No one will take you seriously unless you discuss it.

Give him sometime to think of something useless, then post it here.

SSIPON:

Student that wants to be schooled, is calling what He wants to learn, unsubstantiated. I am only calling out your hypocrisy. You calling the big bang unsubstantiated...

I told you that I was going to bring up the threads where you people could not reasonably substantiate it and they all fled including the Op workch, but because of the mentions springing up, I could not do so.

SSIPON:

...and I am asking you for the evidence of talking snakes. Let's start from there.

The case on ground is Uncle Bang, you therefore can not bring in talking snakes especially as I, your opponent did not bring it in.

Dtruthspeaker:


I told you that I was going to bring up the threads where you people could not reasonably substantiate it and they all fled including the Op workch, but because of the mentions springing up, I could not do so.



The case on ground is Uncle Bang, you therefore can not bring in talking snakes especially as I, your opponent did not bring it in.

You called the Big Bang unsubstantiated, I called the Talking snakes hypothesis, unsubstantiated. Na you start am first.

Workch:
Please I am still waiting for the lies in Big Bang theory that you discovered.

I have asked about 10times. No one will take you seriously unless you discuss it.

Then stop raining mentions so that I can go search for the other threads.

Or in the alternative can someone bring those other threads on biggie banger for me please?

SSIPON:


Give him sometime to think of something useless, then post it here.

He won’t reply to that question, it’s like shooting himself on the foot.
Big Bang theory is not something you can just read on google and understand right away, that’s why he has nothing to say unless you have good physics background.

Dtruthspeaker, please tell us the lies in Big Bang.

Dtruthspeaker:


I told you that I was going to bring up the threads where you people could not reasonably substantiate it and they all fled including the Op workch, but because of the mentions springing up, I could not do so.



The case on ground is Uncle Bang, you therefore can not bring in talking snakes especially as I, your opponent did not bring it in.

The universe began as a very hot, small, and dense superforce (the mix of the four fundamental forces), with no stars, atoms, form, or structure (called a "singularity". Then about 13.8 billion years ago, space expanded very quickly (thus the name "Big Bang". This started the formation of atoms, which eventually led to the formation of stars and galaxies. It was Georges who first noted (in 1927) that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point. The universe is still expanding today, and getting colder as well.

As a whole, the universe is growing and the temperature is falling as time passes. Cosmology is the study of how the universe began and its development. Some scientists who study cosmology have agreed that the Big Bang theory matches what they have observed so far.

Fred Hoyle called the theory the "Big Bang" on his radio show. He did not believe the Big Bang was correct. Scientists who did not agree with him thought the name was funny and decided to use it.

[b]Scientists base the Big Bang theory on many different observations. The most important is the redshift of very far away galaxies. Redshift is the Doppler effect occurring in light. When an object moves away from Earth, its color rays look more similar to the color red than they actually are, because the movement stretches the wavelength of light given off by the object. Scientists use the word "red hot" to describe this stretched light wave because red is the longest wavelength on the visible spectrum. The more redshift there is, the faster the object is moving away. By measuring the redshift, scientists proved that the universe is expanding, and they can work out how fast the object is moving away from the Earth. With very exact observation and measurements, scientists believe that the universe was a singularity approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Because most things become colder as they expand, scientists assume that the universe was very small and very hot when it started.[/b]

Other observations that support the Big Bang theory are the amounts of chemical elements in the universe. Amounts of very light elements, such as hydrogen, helium, and lithium seem to agree with the theory of the Big Bang. Scientists also have found "cosmic microwaves background radiation". This radiation is known as radio waves, and they are everywhere in the universe. This radiation is now very weak and cold, but a long time ago it was very strong and very hot.

It can be said that time had no meaning before the Big Bang. If the Big Bang was the beginning of time, then there was no universe before the Big Bang, since there could not be any "before" if there was no time! Other ideas state that the Big Bang was not the beginning of time 13.8 billion years ago. Instead, some believe that there was a completely different universe before the Big Bang, and it may have been very different from the one we know today.

SSIPON:

You called the Big Bang unsubstantiated, I called the Talking snakes hypothesis, unsubstantiated. Na you start am first.

No be so argument they go. You stick to the issue of the thread and you no fit bring NEW MATTER for inside am.

Dtruthspeaker:


No be so argument they go. You stick to the issue of the thread and you no fit bring NEW MATTER for inside am.

I have already given you a short summary on the BB.

Dtruthspeaker:


Then stop raining mentions so that I can go search for the other threads.

Or in the alternative can someone bring those other threads on biggie banger for me please?

What is the lie in Big Bang?
This is a summary of Big Bang theory;


1. The relative amount of light elements (depends on conditions a few minutes after the starting point)
2. The cosmic microwave background (depends on conditions 100,000 years after the starting point)
3. The expansion of distant galaxies away from each other (depends on the density of matter in the universe, and on the cosmological constant, if it is not zero)


Show me the lie here

Dtruthspeaker:


No be so argument they go. You stick to the issue of the thread and you no fit bring NEW MATTER for inside am.

Scroll up and read my summary of the BB.
Saying the BB isn't true also means that you are claiming that the universe is not expanding. But we know that the universe is accelerating out of control thanks to Einstein's Dark Energy.

SSIPON:

Every reasonable person knows that the Earth is around 4 billion years old. So when did the creation story happen? 4 billion years ago?

Every reasonable person? You mean say if I go ask okacha for trade fair, e go talk 4 billion or Mary for Ariaria?

Bros, you far from correct.

Workch:
What is the lie in Big Bang?
This is a summary of Big Bang theory;


1. The relative amount of light elements (depends on conditions a few minutes after the starting point)
2. The cosmic microwave background (depends on conditions 100,000 years after the starting point)
3. The expansion of distant galaxies away from each other (depends on the density of matter in the universe, and on the cosmological constant, if it is not zero)


Show me the lie here

I have given him a much longer summary.

Dtruthspeaker:


Every reasonable person? You mean say if I go ask okacha for trade fair, e go talk 4 billion or Mary for Ariaria?

Bros, you far from correct.

If you like ask your father, My point is that every reasonable person knows that the Earth is around 4 billion years old.

Dtruthspeaker, have you got any questions from my summary?

Evolution
In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can culminate in the emergence of new species. Indeed, the similarities amongst species suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence .

The basis of evolution is the genes that are passed on from generation to generation; these produce an organism's inherited traits. These traits vary within populations, with organisms showing heritable differences (variation) in their traits. Evolution itself is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation, and processes that make variants either become more common or rare. New variation arises in two main ways: either from mutations in genes, or from the transfer of genes between populations and between species. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are also produced by genetic recombination, which can increase variation between organisms.

Two major mechanisms determine which variants will become more common or rare in a population. One is natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce, meaning that more individuals in the next generation will inherit these traits. Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment. The other major mechanism driving evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role that chance plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals survive and reproduce.

Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when studies of the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species changed over time. However, the mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theories of natural selection were independently discovered by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Darwin's landmark work On the Origin of Species of 1859 brought the new theories of evolution by natural selection to a wide audience. Darwin's work soon led to overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory directs research by constantly raising new questions, and it has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

SSIPON:

I have already given you a short summary on the BB.

Dtruthspeaker, please wow us and point to the lies in Big Bang.
Kindly tell us the lies in this:

1. the relative amount of light elements (depends on conditions a few minutes after the starting point)
2. the cosmic microwave background (depends on conditions 100,000 years after the starting point)
3. the expansion of distant galaxies away from each other (depends on the density of matter in the universe, and on the cosmological constant, if it is not zero)

SSIPON:

Have a nice day. Don't bother replying, I won't read it anyway.

When dealing with ATHEISTS true Christians do so for two major reasons!

[1] To prove the existence of a Supreme Being whose IQ surpasses all.
[2] To help observers see how intelligent those taught by the most high are compared to the unbelievers!

So don't worry followers underG are reading through all the comments and trying to figure out where wisdom lies!

MaxInDHouse:


When dealing with ATHEISTS true Christians do so for two major reasons!

[1] To prove the existence of a Supreme Being whose IQ surpasses all.
[2] To help observers see how intelligent those taught by the most high are compared to the unbelievers!

So don't worry followers underG are reading through all the comments and trying to figure out where wisdom lies!

But I'm not athiest tho.

MaxInDHouse:


When dealing with ATHEISTS true Christians do so for two major reasons!

[1] To prove the existence of a Supreme Being whose IQ surpasses all.
[2] To help observers see how intelligent those taught by the most high are compared to the unbelievers!

So don't worry followers underG are reading through all the comments and trying to figure out where wisdom lies!

But the topic is not about proving the existence of a god.
It’s about why creation is not accepted by science.

Do you get the difference, learn to comprehend the topic before showing us wisdom.
There’s no wisdom in not understand a topic before addressing it.

Workch:
But the topic is not about proving the existence of a god.
It’s about why creation is not accepted by science.
Do you get the difference, learn to comprehend the topic before showing us wisdom.
There’s no wisdom in not understand a topic before addressing it.

When we sight an evil tree we don't just cut it's leaves or branches we UPROOT it completely!

Your disbelief in CREATION will disappear when you can't find a better offer than what the book of Creation presents.

Only the book of Creation teaches on how humans can cohabit peacefully on this planet and the teaching is working out in the midst of those applying it!

Science on the other hand is a thief!
Why? It's only building on the things found on planet earth it couldn't solve any problem rather it's creating more!
Science without the book of Creation is gradually leading mankind to self-destruction because science is all about the survival of the fittest while the book of Creation is about how to cohabit peacefully on the planet!

MaxInDHouse:


When we sight an evil tree we don't just cut it's leaves or branches we UPROOT it completely!

Your disbelief in CREATION will disappear when you can't find a better offer than what the book of Creation presents.

Only the book of Creation teaches on how humans can cohabit peacefully on this planet and the teaching is working out in the midst of those applying it!

Science on the other hand is a thief!
Why? It's only building on the things found on planet earth it couldn't solve any problem rather it's creating more!
Science without the book of Creation is gradually leading mankind to self-destruction because science is all about the survival of the fittest while the book of Creation is about how to cohabit peacefully on the planet!

Stay on the topic.
The topic is discussing why creation doesn’t get attention in science.

It’s not what will happen if science doesn’t accept creation. Read the topic carefully to avoid strawman fallacy.

Address the topic, stay on it

Workch:
What is the lie in Big Bang?

1. The relative amount of light elements (depends on conditions a few minutes after the starting point)
2. The cosmic microwave background (depends on conditions 100,000 years after the starting point)
3. The expansion of distant galaxies away from each other (depends on the density of matter in the universe, and on the cosmological constant, if it is not zero)

Show me the lie here

The First sets of problems you have is that you have destroyed the basis of your thinking even before you started.

You clearly CONFESSED THE TRUTH IN
YOUR PRESENTATION IN SAYING

Workch:

The universe comes to be. HOW IT HAPPENED IS UNKNOWN.

If You Do Not Know, THEN HOW IS RIGHT AND VALID For You To Talk About What You Do Not Know?

Secondly, the word Universe.

What we call "Universe" I believe we are referring to both this House which we call earth and the things we can see eg moon, sun, stars and the wallpaper or background settings of these easily seen things.

Now the query!

Can a person measure and take hold of the whole matter of a football field without knowing the borders of it?

No! We can not. For it is exactly as no ordinary person can just go to kuramo beach to say this is the end and beginning of it, without he showing how he reasonably and practically went around the whole of the beach.

We can validy talk about the football field because we covered the whole of it.

But no one can validly talk about the universe without going around the whole of it.

So the thinkings of this thoughts on biggie are mere wishes.

And this is besides the fact that I have not yet gone into your theory up above.

Your response, if any.

Workch:

Stay on the topic.
The topic is discussing why creation doesn’t get attention in science.
It’s not what will happen if science doesn’t accept creation. Read the topic carefully to avoid strawman fallacy.
Address the topic, stay on it

Guy, scientists know nothing about this planet!

You yourself know that all what Scientists know today are updates of what they formerly got wrong!

For instance, long ago scientists used to teach people that human excrement could be used for the treatment of wounds:
Contrary to that the book of Creation says excrement belongs to the soil so it must be buried {Deuteronomy 23:13} it was centuries later before scientists began updating their so called knowledge about the dangers in human excrement!

Thousands of years ago scientists used to teach their scholars that the earth was flat and that we could be travelling one day and fall of it's edge if care is not taken:
Contrary to that the book of Creation says the earth is Spherical in shape and all the creatures on it are like tiny ants {Isaiah 40:22} it was over 2,000 years after Isaiah's document that Christopher Columbus discovered that the earth is round!

Thousands of years ago scientists used to teach their scholars that the earth is supported by several gigantic animals:
Contrary to that Moses the man who penned down the first five books of the Bible penned it down in the book of Creation that the Creator is hanging our entire inhabited earth upon nothing {Job 26:7} it was more than 3,000 years later when Isaac Newton discovered that the earth is sustained by gravitational force in space!

Please how come those ancient men knew all these things ahead of your so called scientists?

Just of recent, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced blood transfusion and the whole world embraced it as a good form of treatment. Only those strictly obeying the warnings found in the book of Creation that rejected such form of treatment insisting on non-blood form of treatment. Genesis 9:4 compare to Act 15:29
Today WHO is no more promoting blood transfusion after discovering the damages it has caused over the years!

So if faithless individuals like you now wants to make scientists your god, we aren't objecting to your decision but please stay on your lane, never open your mouth to speak against the book of Creation because it's has always been ahead while your scientists keep following after causing more than enough damages!

MaxInDHouse:


Guy, scientists know nothing about this planet!

You yourself know that all what Scientists know today are updates of what they formerly got wrong!

For instance, long ago scientists used to teach people that human excrement could be used for the treatment of wounds:
Contrary to that the book of Creation says excrement belongs to the soil so it must be buried {Deuteronomy 23:13} it was centuries later before scientists began updating their so called knowledge about the dangers in human excrement!

Thousands of years ago scientists used to teach their scholars that the earth was flat and that we could be travelling one day and fall of it's edge if care is not taken:
Contrary to that the book of Creation says the earth is Spherical in shape and all the creatures on it are like tiny ants {Isaiah 40:22} it was over 2,000 years after Isaiah's document that Christopher Columbus discovered that the earth is round!

Thousands of years ago scientists used to teach their scholars that the earth is supported by several gigantic animals:
Contrary to that Moses the man who penned down the first five books of the Bible penned it down in the book of Creation that the Creator is hanging our entire inhabited earth upon nothing {Job 26:7} it was more than 3,000 years later when Isaac Newton discovered that the earth is sustained by gravitational force in space!

Please how come those ancient men knew all these things ahead of your so called scientists?

Just of recent, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced blood transfusion and the whole world embraced it as a good form of treatment. Only those strictly obeying the warnings found in the book of Creation that rejected such form of treatment insisting on non-blood form of treatment. Genesis 9:4 compare to Act 15:29
Today WHO is no more promoting blood transfusion after discovering the damages it has caused over the years!

So if faithless individuals like you now wants to make scientists your god, we aren't objecting to your decision but please stay on your lane, never open your mouth to speak against the book of Creation because it's has always been ahead while your scientists keep following after causing more than enough damages!

So in conclusion, scientist are wrong about by not accepting the genesis story of the Bible?

Dtruthspeaker:


The First sets of problems you have is that you have destroyed the basis of your thinking even before you started.

You clearly CONFESSED THE TRUTH IN
YOUR PRESENTATION IN SAYING



If You Do Not Know, THEN HOW IS RIGHT AND VALID For You To Talk About What You Do Not Know?

Secondly, the word Universe.

What we call "Universe" I believe we are referring to both this House which we call earth and the things we can see eg moon, sun, stars and the wallpaper or background settings of these easily seen things.

Now the query!

Can a person measure and take hold of the whole matter of a football field without knowing the borders of it?

No! We can not. For it is exactly as no ordinary person can just go to kuramo beach to say this is the end and beginning of it, without he showing how he reasonably and practically went around the whole of the beach.

We can validy talk about the football field because we covered the whole of it.

But no one can validly talk about the universe without going around the whole of it.

So the thinkings of this thoughts on biggie are mere wishes.

And this is besides the fact that I have not yet gone into your theory up above.

Your response, if any.

ok, What is the lie in Big Bang?

Each person is entitled to his/her own opinion but just as Chris isn't worthy to teach people about marriage, scientists aren't competent enough to debunk the book that has always been ahead of them: BIBLE!

Workch:
So in conclusion, scientist are wrong about by not accepting the genesis story of the Bible?

MaxInDHouse:
Each person is entitled to his/her own opinion but just as Chris isn't worthy to teach people about marriage, scientists aren't competent enough to debunk the book that has always been ahead of them: BIBLE!

So that means what scientist think is their opinion and theory of evolution is wrong?

Workch:
So that means what scientist think is their opinion and theory of evolution is wrong?

You can decide that on your own but please don't place evolution on top of the book that talks about Creation because that book (Bible) has got so much more than evolutionist could decipher!