The three biggest lies of science

1. "The Big Bang Theory"

Science wants to convince you that the entire universe, everything, came from nothing. This is obviously an incoherent idea. By definition, something can't come from "nothing", otherwise you have to throw out all of science. All of science is predicated on cause and effect, and "nothing", by definition, can't cause "something".

1. Neo-Darwinian Evolution

The modern, neo-Darwinian theory of evolution states that all of life comes from non-life. This is predicated on the idea that proteins (not to mention DNA), "evolved" from a slew of base materials. The problem with this is that there is no mechanism to cause this to happen. By random chance, it would be almost impossible (less than 1 in 10 to the 40th chance) for a single protein, much less all of the proteins, to begin to exist. This is impossible.

Furthermore, DNA is the most complicated computer program ever. So complicated that it's self-replicating, self-healing, and self-propegating. More complicated than any computer program written. If I told you the computer you're on right now came about by random chance, you'd laugh, yet that is the exact story, with no evidence, for DNA.

1. The Copernican Principle

This is the grand-daddy of them all. The "Copernican principle" is a theory of astrophysics that states that no where in the universe is special. That we are on a random rock in a random solar system in a random galaxy in a random spot in the universe. This is a basic assumption, not something that is borne out by the evidence. What evidence? Well let's go with three experiments that demonstrate that the earth almost certainly isn't moving.

First, the Michelson-Morely, and Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiments. These are interferometer experiments that seek to detect motion of the earth through the aether. Specifically, the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the earth is not translating around the sun at the requisite speed for the earth to be revolving around the sun, as demanded by the heliocentric (Copernican principle) worldview. In contrast, the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment was done to detect the revolution of the earth. This experiment, was positive. So we have 2 experiments: Michelson-Morely showing that the earth is not revolving, and the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment showing the earth is rotating. If the earth was only rotating, however, there would be no seasons, so the earth cannot be rotating, and by the Michelson-Morley experiment the earth is not moving. Thus the conclusion to be drawn is that the universe is in fact rotating around the earth, with the earth at the center.

The second experiment is known as "Airy's Failure". In this experiment, Airy setup 2 telescopes, both pointing at a single star. One telescope was filled with air, and the other filled with water. The theory is that since the earth is moving (according to the heliocentrists), if both telescopes are focused in the same way on the same star, then one of them will not see the star whereas the other will. Why? Because due to the motion of the earth and the different refraction properties of air and water, the focus would be out for one of the telescopes. This experiment showed that both telescopes were focused on the star, indicating the earth is not moving, and geocentrism is true.

A third series of experiments are the COBE, WMAP, and Planck missions. Each of these missions set out to map the cosmic microwave background radiation of space (one after another, to confirm the results, since they were unbelievable). In all cases, the mapping found that there was a distinct symmetry of the background radiation centered around the earth, leading to Michigan researchers to dub this symmetry the "axis of evil", and jewish atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss to opine that it made it look like the earth is the center of the universe.

If you believe that the government is lying to you, why do you trust the scientists?

I didn't even bother mentioning climate change, which everyone knows (www.realclimatescience.com) is a hoax.

Do your own research. Trust no one. You have more than you know.

>>11042874

Of course it does. They posit a singularity of 0 size. If something is of 0 size, it cannot have mass.

Conversely if they say it's infinitesimally small, but has mass, then that just pushes the question back to why that mass existed, and decided to explode at all?

It's all based on faulty presuppositions that cannot be falsified by the scientific method. It's an insane theory in order to attempt to justify a naturalist interpretation of the universe, even though it makes no sense.

>>11043132

See: https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/coming-paradigm-shift-pop-goes-universe/ which links to: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf

>>11043135

Which means that anything can come from nothing, and the laws of the universe are, by definition, nonsense. Nothing can come from nothing, by definition.

>>11043245

Which means, God exists, and put the earth at the center of the universe, as it says in the Bible.

>>11043272

All of them are about denying God's existence, and His revelation in the Bible. It's all about mind control, and destroying God's children.

Some are just more effective lies of satan than others.

>>11043333

The "Big Bang" as defined by modern physicists denies the existence of God. I don't know how you are going to argue against that?

All modern atheistic (especially jewish) physicists completely deny God's existence, and use "The Big Bang" theory to push naturalism.

I don't know why you're so hostile, and calling me an "asshole" for stating the truth.

>>11043385

Should have looked it up, and not argued with the shill. My bad. Thank you anon.

>>11043393