Search Results
6/28/2025, 5:00:31 AM
>>713858816
>>713858943
You can take a rock from a 1980 volcano eruption that is supposed to date to 1980, and Potassium-Argon dating gives erroneous dates of 100,000+ years.
Radiometric dating is FALSE and it's the ONLY evidence of old Earth.
Pic related, fossilized trees inside rock layers SUPPOSED to be millions of years old
This couldn't have happened unless they're not millions of years old but were rapidly deposited by something like a flood
We find many animals fossilized through different layers like this
>>713858943
You can take a rock from a 1980 volcano eruption that is supposed to date to 1980, and Potassium-Argon dating gives erroneous dates of 100,000+ years.
Radiometric dating is FALSE and it's the ONLY evidence of old Earth.
Pic related, fossilized trees inside rock layers SUPPOSED to be millions of years old
This couldn't have happened unless they're not millions of years old but were rapidly deposited by something like a flood
We find many animals fossilized through different layers like this
6/22/2025, 5:12:32 PM
If these rock layers were million of years old, a tree couldn't be inside them
The only way that happens is if they're not millions of years old but these layers were rapidly deposited around the tree by something like a global flood
Countless examples of other living animals/plants fossilized inside different rock layers supposed to be millions of years apart
>>713350714
>Origin of life
There's no known way to turn non-living material into life, it's never been done before even in a lab. The belief that dust/water just randomly formed into functional DNA, proteins, a cell, etc. capable of reproducing itself is absurd.
>DNA
We OBSERVE genetic mutations delete data over time (e.g. we started with a grey wolf and only got increasingly retarded dogs like pugs and chihuahuas). You're just deleting or changing data randomly, and SELECTING from what is already there, and over time it always results in a net loss.
This alone proves Darwinism couldn't happen. Natural selection is real but it has limits, Darwinists are so retarded they look at a process and think it must have no limit.
https://youtu.be/jyATE9StbK8
>Origin of sexual reproduction
There is no known way asexual creatures could develop sexual reproduction through mutation. Any benefits (or the obvious -50% efficiency) are irrelevant. It's not possible.
This is called irreducible complexity, one part is useless or harmful without the other part(s).
>Missing links
There is not a SINGLE transitionary fossil series. There is some speculated, but none show transitions.
The scientific community believed Piltdown Man was a human ancestor for decades before discovering it was a hoax. The entire "fossil record" is unscientific, lining up the remains of different animals is not evidence they evolved into each other.
The only way that happens is if they're not millions of years old but these layers were rapidly deposited around the tree by something like a global flood
Countless examples of other living animals/plants fossilized inside different rock layers supposed to be millions of years apart
>>713350714
>Origin of life
There's no known way to turn non-living material into life, it's never been done before even in a lab. The belief that dust/water just randomly formed into functional DNA, proteins, a cell, etc. capable of reproducing itself is absurd.
>DNA
We OBSERVE genetic mutations delete data over time (e.g. we started with a grey wolf and only got increasingly retarded dogs like pugs and chihuahuas). You're just deleting or changing data randomly, and SELECTING from what is already there, and over time it always results in a net loss.
This alone proves Darwinism couldn't happen. Natural selection is real but it has limits, Darwinists are so retarded they look at a process and think it must have no limit.
https://youtu.be/jyATE9StbK8
>Origin of sexual reproduction
There is no known way asexual creatures could develop sexual reproduction through mutation. Any benefits (or the obvious -50% efficiency) are irrelevant. It's not possible.
This is called irreducible complexity, one part is useless or harmful without the other part(s).
>Missing links
There is not a SINGLE transitionary fossil series. There is some speculated, but none show transitions.
The scientific community believed Piltdown Man was a human ancestor for decades before discovering it was a hoax. The entire "fossil record" is unscientific, lining up the remains of different animals is not evidence they evolved into each other.
Page 1