Debunking ”The Laughable Age of the Universe by wild guesses and Modern Pseudoscience” by Antonio DeAguiar

This article debunks Antonio DeAguiar’s so called evidence against the Big bang, evolution, and abiogenesis (
For you who are lazy, we can summarize this whole paper in just a few words:
Antonio DeAguiar CLAIMS a lot of things, and he backs these claims up with nothing but quote mining and speculations without any evidence at all.
He also seems to have misunderstood what ”evidence” is, since he obviously consider missing evidence to be counter evidence.

Arguments surrounding the age of the universe and the big bang.

”Note, the following unverifiable assumption used to date the universe:
– that the Big Bang happened even though it defies scientific laws and principles”

Antonio will have to provide EVIDENCE for this. Right now (and trough this whole paper), he just keeps on claiming such things without in any way proving himself true.

”and is falling out of favour due to many contradictory issues”

It is still accepted as the number one theory on the origins of the universe, if not, present the new theory.

”and many ad hoc rescue notions like Dark Matter/Energy”

Antonio will need to provide EVIDENCE for this claim. Just claiming that Dark matter and Dark energy is not there, will make no difference to anyone.

”- that the one-way speed of light from a star to the observer on planet earth is known and a constant”

It is, BUT, you also have to take relativity into account (that close to a clack hole, time slows down), which we do when measuring the universe.

”even though it cannot be measured/verified and that lab testing shows that the speed of light can be slowed and sped up”

No, it says that GRAVITY can speed up and slow down time, not the speed of light.

”- that the expansion rate of the Universe was a constant and that measurements are accurate even though a red shift can be due to other reasons”

No one is saying the expansion rate is constant, in fact, every single scientist say it is not, BUT, this does not mean it cannot be calculated.

Also, what are these other reasons for red-shifting? Once again, Antonio just claims things.

”- that the distance of stars are accurately known even though parallax is not an accurate method and is very limited in range”

We have so much more that Parallax. We have Angular distance and Red shifting for example, among with a large variety of other methods, all giving the same results.

”and that all the celestial bodies are careening is space in unknown chartered orbits”

Antonio is once again making a claim and does not provide any evidence at all.

”- that star brightness and mass/density can be used to determine the distance of the stars even though this assumed method cannot be verified”

Of course it can be verified. We have MANY methods of measuring distance, and when they all give the same results, it is verified.

”- that distant stars can be resolved with a telescope when all the celestial bodies are careening in space (as is our solar system) in uncharted orbits i.e. the light from distant stars that are careening in space cannot be resolved if the speed of light is not instantaneous”

Antonio will once again have to provide EVIDENCE for this claim.

”There are several uniformitarian measurements perfectly supporting a Young Earth”

Such as? No examples are given of course..

”and Universe that contradict the alleged age of the universe (and Earth)”

According to who? Oh, people with no education on the subject, that’s right…

”such as Lunar Recession”

Debunked here:

”Short Period Comets”

This is a classic Hovind argument, a true liar who’s only objective is to steal money from morons (creationists). The projected life span of one short-period comet, that of Halley’s comet, is 40,000 years (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.339). Thus, we can forget about Dr. Hovind’s 10,000-year figure! A comet’s actual life span  depends on its size.

”Spiral Galaxies”

Spiral arms are density waves, which, like sound in air, travel through the galaxy’s disk, causing a piling-up of stars and gas at the crests of the waves. In some galaxies, the central bulge reflects the wave, giving rise to a giant standing spiral wave with a uniform rotation rate and a lifetime of about one or two billion years. The causes of the density waves are still not known, but there are many possibilities. Tidal effects from a neighboring galaxy probably cause some of them.

The spiral pattern is energetically favorable. Spiral configurations develop spontaneously in computer simulations based on gravitational dynamics (Carlberg et al. 1999).

”Saturn’s rings”

Saturn’s rings may be less than 100 million years old (Cuzzi and Estrada 1998). However, that says nothing about the age of the planet. The rings could have formed when Saturn captured a small moon that fell within the Roche limit (the distance below which moons will be pulled apart by tidal forces). This could have happened any time in Saturn’s history. Saturn’s moons shepherd the particles that make up the rings, preventing them from drifting and maintaining the gaps between the rings. This shepherding may allow the rings to be much older than 100 million years. (However, the color of the rings suggests not much more than 100 million years’ worth of accumulated dust.)
Thompson, Tim, n.d. Answers in Genesis and Saturn’s rings.’s_rings.htm
”volcanic activity of various moons”

Would prove exactly what???

”the actual Magnetic Field Decay of Planets recently measured”

The earth’s magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth’s history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth’s interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field’s polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006). Empirical measurement of the earth’s magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.

T. G. Barnes (1973) relied on an obsolete model of the earth’s interior. He viewed it as a spherical conductor (the earth’s core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser’s dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the ”current” caused by convection. Barnes cited Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling’s theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.
Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.

”See comments from scientists about the Big Bang being busted:”

These are of course 99% quote mines, as we all know, Creationists are incapable of being honest, so, such things happen, lets go trough these quotes!

“I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big-bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that
the theory rarely recovers.” Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang Under Attack,” Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.”

He formulated the steady state theory, now rejected.

“Observations only recently made possible by improvements in astronomical instrumentation have put theoretical models of the Universe [the big bang] under intense
pressure. The standard ideas of the 1980s about the shape and history of the Universe have now been abandoned—and cosmologists are now taking seriously the possibility
that the Universe is pervaded by some sort of vacuum energy, whose origin is not at all understood.” Peter Coles, “The End of the Old Model Universe,” Nature, Vol.
393, 25 June 1998, p. 741.

Yes, there are more than one theory.. The ΛCDM (Lambda cold dark matter) or Lambda-CDM model is a parametrization of the Big Bang cosmological model in which the
universe contains a cosmological constant, denoted by Lambda (Greek Λ), associated with dark energy, and cold dark matter (abbreviated CDM). It is frequently referred
to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology. Over 99% of all cosmologists accept it. So, yes, there are around halv a percent of scientists that does not accept it,
but to say that ”cosmologists” as a whole has rejected it is a straight out lie.

“In fact, studies we have done show that the distribution of matter is fractal, just like a tree or a cloud.” [Patterns that repeat on all scales are called fractal.] Francesco Sylos Labini, as quoted by Marcus Chown, “Fractured Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 163, 21 August 1999, p. 23.

This article does not argue against the Big bang, it is a quote mine:

“Astronomy, rather cosmology, is in trouble. It is, for the most part, beside itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles, and drifted into
the bizarre; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore fundamental laws, such as the second law of
thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rationale of saving the status quo. Perhaps no ‘science’ is receiving more self-criticism, chest-
beating, and self-doubt; none other seems so lost and misdirected; trapped in debilitating dogma.” Roy C. Martin Jr., Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco (New York: University Press of America, 1999), p. xv.”

We can easily see that this is creationist bull-crap, since it argues the laws of thermodynamics would be relevant on something that is not a closed/isolated system and also that entropy evenly increases. IT does not, it increases as a whole, but can decrease in certain areas.

The quote is from a person lacking education and that has a clear agenda:

He also has no relevant education:

“The expansion of the universe was long believed to be slowing down because of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe. We now know that the expansion is accelerating and that whatever caused the acceleration (dubbed “dark energy”) cannot be Standard Model physics.” Gordon Kane, “The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model,” Scientific American, Vol. 288, June 2003, p. 73.”

It WAS not. Now it has been included. This article is 13 years old… Since then, the standard model has been confirmed by the finding of the Higgs particle.
”The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.” Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.”

Redshift is a SCIENTIFIC LAW!

We also has several other methods for measuring distance, such as Angular distance, that confirms redshifting correct.

“The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.” Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33.”


“Despite the widespread acceptance of the big bang theory as a working model for interpreting new findings, not a single important prediction of the theory has yet
been confirmed, and substantial evidence has accumulated against it.” Ibid., p. 25.”

The Higgs particle is such a prediction. So yes, it has. It even won a Nobel price recently.

“And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful without some ad hoc parameterization to ‘adjust’ predictions that otherwise would have been judged as failures.” Van Flandern, p. 33.”

Yes, that is how science works, we adjust our theories according to our findings.

“The real puzzle is why there is an arrow of time at all; that is, why the Universe is not simply a thermodynamic equilibrium at all times (except during the inevitable local fluctuations). The theory of nonequilibrium systems [such as those described by Ilya Prigogine] may tell us how such systems behave, given that there are some; but it does not explain how they come to be so common in the first place (and all oriented in the same temporal direction). This is ‘time’s greatest mystery’, and for all its merits, the theory of nonequilibrium systems does not touch it. What would touch it would be a cosmological demonstration that the Universe was bound to be in a low-entropy state after the Big Bang.” Huw Price, “Past and Future,” Nature, Vol. 348, 22 November 1990, p. 356.

Once again, this does not argue against the Big bang. OR the age of the universe. We all know there are holes in scientific knowledge.

”The original Big Bang model had a number of serious and even fatal difficulties, including its own version of the ”starlight and time” problem known as the horizon problem. In an attempt to solve these issues, secular scientists proposed an ad hoc ”tack-on” to the model called inflation. Inflation was originally said to be an extremely rapid but brief growth spurt of the universe that occurred shortly after the supposed Big Bang, although secular cosmologists now tend to view it as the cause of the Big Bang itself.”

Inflation has evidence and is today the only theory that explains the uniformity of the universe.

We also have alternatives to it, since we are not sure:

”An article on titled ‘Big bang theory busted by 33 top scientists’ (27 May 2004) says, ‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’”

LOL, Big bang has support by millions of scientists. So, it is cute that 33 of them do not agree, and it is quite normal in science as well. Also, the letter was written before the LHC confirmed the Big bang by finding the higgs-particle. The letter is based on inflation, dark matter, and dark energy not being observable. Which is partly true (it was also true for black holes until recently, they were assumed mainly on Einsteins equations), but it does not question big bang theory as a whole, which is originally based on the galaxies moving apart, which is a fact.

”The open letter includes statements such as:
•‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’”

Without them, the big bang still stands. We just have to adjust the theory if that turns out to be the case. Every scientists is in agreement that we do not fully understand the universe. The big bang is originally based on the galaxies moving apart, this does not change if Dark energy, matter, and inflation turns out to be wrong.

”•‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic”

Inflation was thought out in the early 1980s, dark matter and energy even later on. So the Big bang was the strongest theory for 60 years, before we even theorized about them. So of course big bang is not out if these were proven wrong.

”•‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory [emphasis in original].’”

What are this guy talking about? Experimental physics, a whole field, contains ONLY such ideas. Things that cannot yet be observed.

And it is questioned! But so far, 99,9% of all scientists say it is the most plausible model.

”•‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.”

The cosmic background radiation was predicted to exist, before it was found. And even before it was found, it was said it would exist, and be strong evidence if ever found. Well, we found it, and the prediction checked out. Another prediction is the Higgs-particle, now observed in the LHC and given a nobel price for its discovery.

”Lawrence Krauss is exposed as a liar in the link below to a technical paper where the primordial lithium problem falsifies his claim that the Big Bang myth made the prediction to support the theory ops I meant myth/atheistic pseudoscience. He was aware of the problem before writing his book of twaddle.”

So I guess he is out of academia? Because otherwise, this would mean that no one cares about creationists and creationist sites, hmmm…””

Observations of lithium-6 in metal poor stars suggest this isotope was produced in large quantities during Big Bang nucleosynthesis, but the reaction has never been measured inside the Big Bang nucleosynthesis energy range. A team from the Helmholtz Zentrum

Dresden Rossendorf (HZDR) have recently measured this for the first time
in experiments conducted at LUNA, Gran Sasso.Scientists used LUNA (Laboratory for Underground Nuclear Astrophysics) to reproduce the nucleosynthesis of lithium by firing helium nuclei at deuterium in order to reach energies similar to those just after the Big Bang. They then measured how much lithium formed and confirmed the theoretical predictions, which differ to the observed lithium concentrations found in the Universe.

“For the first time, we could actually study the lithium-6 production in one part of the Big Bang energy range with our experiment,” said Daniel Bemmerer, who has also study the production of lithium-7.

So, to sum it up, The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

1)  Einstein’s general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.

2) The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.

3) The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.

4)v The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.

5) The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

6)  The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them. This is well documented and easy to double check.

”Big Bang nucleosynthesis from empty matter-less/energy-less nothingness is ridiculous i.e. you cannot make elements with elements before elements exist”

This is a CLAIM for which Antonio provides no evidence. It is COUNTER INTUITIVE, agree, but that does not mean it is not true.

”you cannot use collapsing stars to make stars. This is patently absurd, as absurd as you being your grandfathers father.”

When start explode, they produce a Nebula, Nebulas when set in motion (a spin), grows in density, and collapses into stars. An observed phenomenon.

Arguments for the Global flood happening

”The undeniable scientific and empirical evidence for the Global Flood of Noah:
The Global Flood of Noah was about 4300 years ago. Using 3 fertile couples and an average annual growth rate of 0.48% yields the 7 Billion people on earth by 2012.”

But population does not grow steadily, it grows expediently and has spiked because of modern medicine (based in evolution). In the 1300’s, we were less than a billion people.

Population Estimates: Year One through 2050 A.D.

”The Global Flood of Noah, the population/genetic bottleneck confirmed.
Use: P(t) = P(0)*(1+0.0048)^t = 7 Billion
P(0) = 8 (Noah and his family i.e. 7 others)”

Does not take modern medicine and expediential growth into account, just a thousand years ago, we were less than a billion humans. See source above.

”t=4300 years since flood to 2012 at world population of 7 Billion
Annual Growth Rate would be = 0.47997926135/100
Now show how the growth rate since the alleged appearance of the genus Homo 2.5 Ma ago according to the absurd notion of evil evolutionism produces ridiculously low growth rates which then demand ridiculously long life spans/survival rates that are impossible.”

What is impossible, is 8 people surviving the flood and becoming the whole population of Egypt + Slaves in less than a 1000 years. That means every woman must have given birth to over a 100 babies a year.

Arguments against Evolution:

”1- never happened historically,
[ According to evolutionism’s fairy tale that humans were not around to witness”

Wrong from the very beginning, we witness it all the time, evolution is all changes, not just big ones. WE do however not live long enough to witness large changes, the whole history of humanity is not enough to do that. Science also does not say that you must directly witness an event, it is the evidence that must be observable, not the even in itself.

”the alleged primordial soup spontaneously generated aka abiogenesis”

Abiogenesis is no part of evolution of course, they are not even in the same scientific field (Biology and Chemistry is not the same). Several experiments indicate that abiogenesis is correct however, such as the Miller Urey experiment that naturally produced Amino Acids..

”of the alleged first common ancestor of all from nonliving and mindless chemical elements that then transmuted aka macro-evolved”

There are several such experiments, but no, Abiogenesis is not a complete theory, but it is the only one we got on the origins of life.

”into all the life forms that ever lived. DUH THESE ALLEGED HISTORICAL EVENTS NEVER HAPPENED]”

OK, so Antonio CLAIMS it never happened, but provides no evidence.

”2- thus cannot have eyewitnesses,
[Humans were not around as the fairy tale claims, thus it cannot be a witnessed event]”

This is also true with the creation in genesis.. So, this argues against that as well. And that someone wrote in a book that god told them this is how it happened, is of course not evidence of it. In science, we of course only need to witness the evidence, not the event itself, just as in a trial.

”3- and thus left no forensic evidence,[Since evolutionism never happened, there can be no forensic evidence.”

But since there is MASSIVE evidence, that must mean that it happened then. Searching PubMed, there are over 150 000 articles providing well documented evidence:

”Fossils are not evidence of evolutionism since evolution does not make fossils i.e. Natural Selection”

This makes no sense at all. Natural selection is not the same as evolution, and of course evolution does not make fossils, fossilization does. But they can still be evidence for evolution. The evidence in fossils are mainly based on us seing a progression the higher up the rock layer we get. We do not find mammals before dinosaurs, and so on.

”very rare and deleterious mutations, descent with modification, and Lamarckism does not make fossils. A global watery catastrophe did.”

No one say they make fossils. So, this argues nothing.

And if a global flood caused the fossils, why didn’t one single one of them try to swim and save themselves? Instead, they ordered themselves according to biological advancement. That seems like weird behavior, but that is what we see in the fossil record, and would have to be true if the flood myth was true.

”4- and therefore, was never studied as it allegedly happened,
[Since it never happened historically, and thus could not have eyewitnesses or leave forensic evidence, then evolutionism cannot be studied using the scientific method.]”

So the argument is, ”it never happened, therefore, it cannot be observed”. Hmm, seems like Antonio starts with the conclusion, not the evidence.

”5- defies scientific laws and principles,
[ There are many that are defied and not just entropy”

Entropy would only be a problem if earth was a closed system since entropy can be overcome by adding energy. And I know, Kent Hovind says adding energy cannot counter
Entropy, but, that is how computers and TV work, we add energy to organize electrons. So if one says that Entropy cannot be overcome by adding energy, one better not write it on a computer, since computers are impossible in such a scenario.

”The absurd notion of biological evolution from nonliving and mindless chemical elements defies these scientific laws, principles or theorems”

OK, now lets see what Antonio has figured out by misunderstanding scientific laws and facts…

”1st (law of thermodynamics)

In physics, the 1st law of thermodynamics states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. But earth is not an isolated system, it gets energy from the sun, hence, is not closed. One may argue that the universe is closed, but we do not know that (it is not observed, and has not been proven one way or another).

” 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics [Conservation of Energy; ever increasing Entropy/Biological Entropy respectively”

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state or undergoing a reversible process. Once again, this is only true for ISOLATED systems, Earth is not isolated, we do not know if the universe is either.

”Law of Biogenesis [Life from nonliving materials is impossible I.E. ABIOGENESIS formerly Spontaneous Generation is impossible materialistically]”

Abiogenesis is NOT the same as spontaneous generation. The law of abiogenesis tells us that COMPLEX life can only come from other life (which spontaneous generation said was possible). It says nothing about chemicals not binding together to become more and more complex until it finally became a DNA molecule.

”Information Science & Theorems”

Debunked here:

”Mendelian Genetics”

Mendel’s laws are a part of evolution, so, this makes no sense.

”-Breeding Limitations [Variation limited to within Biblical Kinds; no cross breeding between Kinds possible]”

Evolution does not say that cross-breeding between ”kinds” is possible.. Evolution says that all ”Kinds” gives birth to the same ”kind” with small variations.

”-Haldane’s Dilemma”
Haldane’s dilemma is a limit on the speed of beneficial evolution, first calculated by J. B. S. Haldane in 1957, and clarified further by later commentators, it does not argue against evolution. Note that Haldane’s model assumes independence of genes at different loci; if the selection intensity is 0.1 for each gene moving towards fixation, and there are N such genes, then the reproductive capacity of the species will be lowered to 0.9N times the original capacity.

”-Chemical Laws”

Which ones? I mean, LOL, nice arguing.

”-The Law of Cause and Effect”

Evolution IS cause and effect. If this is an attempt to argue the big bang. Cause and effect are technically laws of motion, and they may not apply before the big bang.

”-This is my own law that follows that I need to give a good name for:
Only what is alive and possesses intelligence can contrive things i.e. technologies, dwellings etc. and living organisms/creatures.”

And what support does this law have in science? And how can it be mathematically expressed (a law must be mathematically demonstrable). This is a CLAIM, not a LAW.

”6 and therefore, cannot be reproduced materialistically.”

Once again, a CLAIM, not evidence.

”[Since evolutionism never happened as it defies scientific laws and principles”

No, they defy Antonio’s misunderstandings of them…

”then biological evolutionism from Pond Scum to all that ever lived cannot be reproduced materialistically.]”

Of course it cannot. And it is not something that is needed to do to prove something. I wonder if Antonio can reproduce the Biblical creation…

”7 This makes Pond Scum to all that ever lived Evolutionism,:
a- an atheistic myth concocted by reprobate atheists”

It has nothing to do with atheism, the majority of supporters are Christians, not atheists. So, if anything, it is a Christian myth.

”b- not even a working hypothesis much less a scientific theory,
[ Without actual phenomena occurring in real time that is repeating testable and observable, a hypothesis and a scientific theory is impossible.]”

It is supported by basically every scientist and have around 4 million pieces of evidence. I think everyone wants Antonio to disprove all this evidence before making these claims.

”c- the religion of the atheist,”

No, mainly of Christians if anything.

”d- force fed to KIDS/PUBLIC as an alleged FACT using evidence hijacked by atheists with pseudoscientific claims /LIES/Hoaxes/Fraudulent claims and fraudulent/fabricated evidence”

Yes, this is true, it is law to teach it to children, and it will stay that way if the best Creationists can produce are people like Antonio.

”e- Hence the Evil Atheistic ilk have brought upon the modern world the Dark Ages of deception and pseudoscience using atheistic pseudoscience/LIES.”

Well, we actually have a better life now than any time in history, so, than you atheism in that case?

”f- Therefore, future generation will look upon the generations since Briton’s reprobate family commencing with Charles Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin as the
beginning and source of the grand Cosmo-genic lie that deceives the whole word that the Bible mentions occurs in the latter days.”

Well, the Bible is not really reliable, for anything.

”Charles Lyell’s [1830-1833] lied for Darwin’s Evolution that was devastated by the Cambrian Explosion evidence”

The Cambrian Explosion is not a problem for evolution. Since fossils are not really important for it. For some reason, most likely a lack of bones, fossilization was very rare before the Cambrians. Not strange, and not a very big gap, we have several precambrian fossils connected to animals that still lives.

”Despite all the assumptions that cannot be verified making radiometric dating unscientific”

There are hundreds of different radiometric methods, that also can be confirmed by non-radiometric methods. To say they are unscientific, is to deny one of the fundamental forces of nature (Weak Nuclear force).

”the contradicting results when a rock is measured with multiple systems”

BY creationists that have no idea what they are doing, not when done by experts.

”the issue of Intrinsic C14 in all the alleged ancient materials and the many uniformitarian lines of evidence falsify deep time such as the decay of the Earth’s magnetic field, ocean salinity, erosion rates etc.”

Not according to any scientists though, but sure, according to lay-people not understanding the subejct, at all.

”the so-called scientific community boasts the Earth is 4.54 Ga and the gullible media and institutions of learn tow the line. That’s “modern science” for you. The grand empirical scientists, Newton and Einstein are in shock. ”

Yes, I believe they would be in chock that creationism is not yet gone.

”below are many failed predictions of Evolutionism.”

Would prove nothing. If prediction fails, a small part of a theory is proven wrong, and are therefore no longer a part of it.

”The Evolutionist/pseudoscientist, Theodosius Dobzhansky, pseudo-scientifically claimed with his famous maxim, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” a statement paying homage to Evil Evolutionism.”

But it is not a prediction. So, Antonio is now even showing a lack of understanding for English.

”Ask yourself, how can any Real Scientist produce this work and believe this work as fact and deceive the public with these so-called sciences/facts? ARE YOU AT ALL CONCERNED WITH THIS ATHEISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE?”

Well, they/we can because we have such massive evidence that every scientist on earth (basically) is convinced. We use evolution PRACTICALLY, so, that is sort of the
ultimate conclusive piece of evidence. To deny evolution is to deny the existence of vaccines.

”Some of the fraudulent atheistic pseudoscience popularized for Evil Evolutionism to DECEIVE THE PUBLIC/KIDS”

Yes, it is. Just like the Bible is taught to kids by Christians. So, do not throw rocks. Main difference here being, that we are simply showing kinds observable

evidence for evolution, we do not tell them what to believe, just where to look.

”-Vestigial organs [180 such organs now all proven functional; evolutionist don’t volunteer to remove them.]”

Why would anyone volunteer for an unnecessary surgery?? We do remove these organs from time to time when needed, so…

”-Whale Vestigial hind legs [are only hips bones not attached to the spine are used to attach male sexual organ ]”

So, the male sexual organ, in whales, is attached to a bone? Strange, considering no otehr penis in the animal kingdom is.

”-Abiogenesis [Formerly Spontaneous Generation is impossible materialistically]”

This is just a CLAIM that needs evidence.

”-Transmutation aka macroevolution [Unseen & no evidence and impossible]”

Once again, just a claim, no evidence for the claim. Even if it was never observed, it would not be impossible. So, what is the evidence that it is?

”-Phylogenetic trees, cladograms, cladistics [Purely imaginative deception based on the presumption of pond scum to all evolution]”

So, what we can see with our own eyes at museums does not exist? Also, god cannot be observed, but, of course that is different, LOL.

”-All missing links [all hoaxes or false claims]”


”–The Walking Fish hoax. Tiktaalik is a lobbed fin fish and doesn’t have a waist girdle with legs & feet bones, muscles & nerves etc. It’s been falsified by modern discoveries of tracks and fish in other layers.”

This is a CLAIM with no support in science. Tiktaalik is also a PREDICTION. We said it would be a ”fish” looking like that, and where it would be, before we found it.

”Evolution doesn’t make fossils so fossils aren’t evidence of evolution but of a global catastrophe.”

No one claims fossilization is evidence of evolution. Antonio obviously do not understand what fossils are supposed to prove within evolution. It is hard to argue against things you have no idea what they mean, of course.

”– Evil lying evolutionists are trying to force feathers onto dinosaurs [large lizards].”

No, it is based on chemicals in their skeletons only found in animals with feathers.

”“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’
is going to change that.” -Dr Alan Feduccia”

So CLAIMS Antonio.

”–“Lucy and her “child” look like extinct apes after all [Deliberate illustrations depicted Lucy as a very feminine upright human with human feet, hips, long legs, and whites of the eyes. This deception is still going on in Museums.]”

Lucy did walk upright based on the evidence we have. So, it is not deception, it is what we know by evidence. It may be wrong, but we only use the evidence we have.

”–Horse Series [Fraudulent and still in museums]”

Antonio CLAIMS they are fraudulent, but provides no evidence, I am starting to see a pattern here..

”–Whale Evolution [Pseudoscience based on no evidence, and fraudulent claims about cheek, and ear bones]”

Antonio CLAIMS they are fraudulent, but provides no evidence that they are. These are just the opinions of a person with no education on the subject.

”–Piltdown Man [Fraud]”

Yes, discovered to be a fraud by EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS when finding THE REAL LINK (Homo Erectus).

”–Minnesota Iceman [was clearly a gigantic hoax]”

The Minnesota Iceman is a sideshow exhibit., LOL.. It was never used as evidence, it was featured at carnivals and such.

”–Nebraska man [that now-discarded pig’s tooth that was reconstructed by some to look as though it came from a primitive evolutionary ape-man]”

Nebraska Man was a name applied to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape. Hesperopithecus meant ”ape of the western world,” and it was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. Although Nebraska man was not a deliberate hoax, the original classification proved to be a mistake.

”–Java man [was trumpeted around the world as indisputable proof of human evolution]”

And still is..  Java Man (Homo erectus erectus)is the popular name given to early human fossils discovered on the island of Java (Indonesia) in 1891 and 1892. Led by Eugène Dubois, the excavation team uncovered a tooth, a skullcap, and a thighbone at Trinil on the banks of the Solo River in East Java. Arguing that the fossils represented the ”missing link” between apes and humans, Dubois gave the species the scientific name Anthropopithecus erectus, then later renamed it Pithecanthropus erectus.Eventually, similarities between Pithecanthropus erectus (Java Man) and Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Man) led Ernst Mayr to rename both Homo erectus in 1950, placing them directly in the human evolutionary tree.

”–Homo habilis > Junk category mixing some human and some ape fossils [Now an ape Australopithecine]”

Homo habilis (meaning ”handy man” or ”able man”) is a species of the tribe Hominini, during the Gelasian and early Calabrian stages of the Pleistocene period, which lived between roughly 2.8 and 1.5 million years ago. IT is still considered a link between ape and human and Antonio saying it is not will not change that.

”ergaster/erectus/Ardipithecus, Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, Ramapithecus, Australopithecus afarensis/africanus/boisei/robustus > Extinct ape”

Humans are apes according to biological classification today. But it is an early link between apes and humans. IT is an extinct ape, just as humans would be if we went extinct.

”–Pan troglodytes & Pan paniscus, Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei, Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii (orangutan) > Living ape”


”–Homo floresiensis [diminutive human with Down Syndrome/Microcephaly], Cro-Mgnon, Neanderthalensis/Heidelbergensis/sapiens/Denisovan [Neanderthal male and female DNA confirms they are human as did, ritual burial, jewelry, musical instruments]> ALL Human”

So, all fossils found, are of people with syndromes and chromosome disorders? Seems strange that we only find these and not ”normal” humans if we look in the rock layer
of that time and place. We have 9 of them.

”God made them fully formed & functional.”

A CLAIM that requires evidence of this god and of creation. According to Antonio’s own level of requirement, they must be directly observed if not to be deemed a fairytale.

”Evolution doesn’t make fossils.”

Every scientist agree, and yet, they accept them as evidence for evolution. Maybe Antonio misunderstood something?

”– ‘One of the best documented cases of evolution’ in the fossil record has recently been exposed as more atheistic pseudoscience. Paleontologist A.E. Trueman in 1922 claimed that the ‘flat’ oyster, Ostrea sp., evolved into the coiled shell Gryphaea sp. About three generations of so-called science students were taught this pseudoscience.”

Science is wrong sometimes. I do not know this particular case, but, if a case would be wrong, it is not evidence against evolution, of course.
”-Chromosome 2 fusion [Argumentum ad Ignorantium based on the blind ridiculous notion of Evolution”

No, based in:
1) Humans have 1 chromosome less that apes.
2) Humans are missing 2 chromosomes that apes have.
3) Humans have a chromosome that looks exactly like the 2 missing ape-chromosomes that has merged.

I mean really Antonio, put 2 and 2 together.

”The latest research of the alleged fusion site clearly shows that there’s no evidence of a head to head Telomere fusion that occurred with the alleged evolution”

Which research? Antonio of course does not refer to that… (Since it does not exist most likely).

”The neo-Darwinist is now reaching the point of dignity in the history of science that the Ptolemaic system in astronomy, the epicycle system, reached long ago. We know that it does not work.”

BUT we use it practically to save billions of lives trough GMO and Vaccines. Strange that it is a lie, considering that things built on this lie works..

”And that is interesting. Because from the actual structure of the chromosome we can demonstrate that the human species did not come from a progressive humanisation of
a pre-human.”

So because we have a Chromosome that is identical to the 2 missing ape chromosomes that has merged, we have evidence that we hare not related. STRONG fucking arguing!

”-Junk DNA [Argumentum ad Ignorantium based on the ridiculous notion of Evolutionism. There’re no vestigial/Junk DNA; the pseudo-genes have critical regulatory function.]”

Which function? Once again Antonio claims things, things that would not disprove evolution even if true..

”- ERVs are inadequate in principle to support Dr. Theobald’s claim of universal common ancestry, because they are not shared by all groups of organisms.”

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that closely resemble and can be derived from retroviruses. They are abundant in the genomes of jawed vertebrates, and they comprise up to 5–8% of the human genome (lower estimates of ~1%). They are not EXPECTED in all lifeforms, so that they are not, does not prove evolution wrong.

This argument is debunked here:

”To quote Dr. Max, “Another limitation [of this argument] is that there are no examples of ‘shared errors’ that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree of life on earth… Therefore, the evolutionary relationships between distant branches on the evolutionary genealogic tree must rest on other evidence besides ‘shared errors.’”

Humans and some Apes share 97% of their genes, they do share ”errors”. So, this makes no sense.

“It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that the same ERVs will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.”

This argument is debunked here:

”After all, evolutionary theory was considered robust prior to the discovery of ERVs.”

And with the discovery of them, it got stronger. They are considered EVIDENCE for evolution by basically all relevant experts.

”-regarding the alleged 98% similarity between chimps and humans [It’s a deliberate deception ignoring the majority of critical regulating genes and using only a select coding region of about 3% which also considers some differences as intron or exons. Using all the chromosomes/genes there is only about 70% similarity due to common physical terrestrial living and processes, the 900 million gene differences gives Humans abilities approaching the image of God. The Chimp and Human “Y” Chromosome have large differences.]”

But the main evidence from DNA is that the further away from us an animal are, the more unlike is the DNA. So, that is not really important information if correct. All though I trust the calculation of experts over Antonio, especially after the calculation on earths population growth earlier on.

”-Pseudo-scientifically claiming Mutations are the “Engine of Evolution”

No one is claiming that, but they are a part of it.

”[In actual Fact Mutations or Noise Pollution/Corruption of the genome program of life for every kind of creature i.e. biological genetic entropy is ultimately causing the extinction of species, and in the meantime some 4600 catalogued mutations in humans are causing defects/deformities, disease, syndromes and death.]”

Yes, there are defects, but since these are hereditary, there is not really that much of a risk of them becoming dominant in a population.

”-Punctuated Equilibria/Equilibrium is an ad hoc rescue mechanism for the record of Stasis/No CHANGE/NO EVOLUTION i.e. from the absence of evidence in the Global Fossiliferous Sedimentary Layers by Communist/Atheist/Pseudoscientist Steven J. Gould”

1: What Gould says is not that animals are static, but that the fossil record is incomplete.
2: What is your EVIDENCE that he is wrong?

”Tax dollars pay for Evil Atheists to concoct just-so-stories which others use in Children’s story books [The Wonderful Egg] to indoctrinate the very young to accept the LIE of Evolutionism.”

Children have a great learning capacity, so of course we start EDUCATING them at a young age. Basically every creationist is a creationist because he/she has been brainwashed by his/hers parents. The difference between religion and science however, is that in science, we teach the children to figure out what is true for them selves, this is unlike ”Chris Camps” that are nothing put brainwashing facilities.

Point being, we do not teach Children evolution is true, we show them the evidence, and let them take a stance for themselves.

”-Industrial Melanism is another fallen icon of fraudulent/criminal Evil Evolutionary atheistic pseudoscience. This experiment wasn’t naturalistic at all in the
capture and release of the moths, they were artificially affixed on surfaces for photos, the two varieties i.e. White and Black still exist as they always have, and
their percent population in white and black still varies without industrial pollution.”

This is a CLAIM, so, of course we will believe in Antonio, WHEN HE BRINGS EVIDENCE.

”-Bad Design is used by Evolutionists in an Argumentum ad Ignorantium fashion and is self-refuting since the argument is from Design which can and does include “Bad”
or less the perfect design in human contrivances. The recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) is one such argument from ignorance that is used without understanding why the
nerve needs to take a longer route as the result of the growing process of the development of the embryo to baby while maintain it alive”

Which is STUPID design. IF a creator created us, and he put the RLN in this way on purpose. The creator is RETARDED, there is no other way to put it. The RLN makes PERFECT sense in the light of evolution, but it makes ZERO sense if we had a creator, it is an incredibly flawed design.

”What kind of God has thoughts to be searched by human minds and that he considers to have made the universe? Newton and many founding fathers of the scientific
method/revolution did the same?
“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The
rest are details.” ―Albert Einstein

Einstein is using ”God” metaphorically. He is extremely clear that he does not believe in any sort of a personal god:

”It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have
never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world
so far as our science can reveal it.”

”The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings.”

That is in NO WAY connected to evolution. Evolution starts when life starts. And it is not a flaw to abiogenesis either, we have very promising evidence. Also, ”information” in this sense, is carried by all chemicals, not just DNA. DNA just have more because it is a more complex molecule that has had a lot of time to accumulate particles.

”It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself”

DNA is not a code, it is LIKE a code. But so are all chemicals. One have to choose:
1) DNA is a code, but then a code does not need a creator (until we prove they all had one).
2) A code needs a creator, but then you have to prove that DNA was created to call it a code.

”in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.”

This is the Big bang we are talking about, it created the forces of nature. This means, that no laws are of any consequence before it. Cause and effect may be out, and so on. We just do not know.

“Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero.”

Yes, but the odds for all other explanations are even lower, so, it is still the best explanation we got.

Also, no one say it was a random process. Evolution is not random, why would abiogenesis be? That it is RANDOM is an ASSUMPTION that Antonio has not proven.

“No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning.”

Why? Also, the choice is not between ”god” and ”random”. Evolution is a NON-RANDOM natural process. So we can have order without intelligence.

”Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare”

Randomly, no, but with a type of natural selection, the way evolution works, they could. Lets say that I must randomly write the sentence ”Hello good sir”, but, just as with evolution, the successful mutations are selected for by nature:

Hfdskn (There I got the H, so now, as with evolution, all my random klicks starts with H)

Hefafnl (There is the E, so now, as with evolution, they all start will ”He”)

Heloadwihfh (There we got the next one)

And so on.

“From the beginning of this book we have emphasized the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems. The information cannot in our view be generated by what are often called ‘natural’ processes”

This is a CLAIM, not evidence. Antonio sure like making claims.

”As well as a suitable physical and chemical environment, a large initial store of information was also needed. ”

What is the evidence for this claim?

”We have argued that the requisite information came from an ‘intelligence’, the beckoning spectre.”

Which there is absolutely no evidence for. It is a pure GUESS.

“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think
that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.”  Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 141.

No one said it was random. Natural does NOT mean random.
This is Richard Dawkins explaining just this:

“… there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. … There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 116–117.”

Yes, and then Dawkins goes on to explain that this does not argue against natural origins, you little quote miner you…,+all+30+volumes+of+it,+three+or+four+times+over.&source=bl&ots=xLaICdA0JQ&sig=SmlBGul-SD6mn9XjhMAQoPdutog&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw4c_06d7PAhXDB5oKHSxhBNgQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=there%20is%20enough%20information%20capacity%20in%20a%20single%20human%20cell%20to%20store%20the%20Encyclopaedia%20Britannica%2C%20all%2030%20volumes%20of%20it%2C%20three%20or%20four%20times%20over.&f=false

 “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.”

Point mutations ALTER information, they do not remove or add. Duplication events, however, do add information. And we have documented several of those.

– Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
– Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
– Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
– A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
– Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
– In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

“Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) [so-called junk RNA] have been found to have roles in a great variety of processes, including transcription regulation, chromosome replication, RNA processing and modification, messenger RNA stability and translation, and even protein degradation and translocation.”


“The term ‘junk DNA’ is a reflection of our ignorance.”

Yes, it may be. We are just not sure. But it in no way argues against evolution or abiogenesis.

”The semantic commands/instructions in the genome program of life written for every kind of organism were only once specified during the creation week by God.”

This, of course, is a CLAIM, requiring evidence. Extraordinary evidence according to Antonio himself, since this is an extraordinary claim.

”Since man’s rebellion, corruption of the genome/DNA [mutational load of approximately 4600 cataloged mutations] has occurred.”

Mutations are not corruptions. They are simply different. Saying mutations are corruptions only proven Antonio has no idea what a mutation is.

”The defects, disease,”

Are weeded out by natural selection.

”syndromes, deformities, and deaths that occur due to these ”mutations” are post creation and possibly mostly attributable to human foolishness either ignorant or deliberate .i.e. aberrant sexuality, abject hygiene, forbidden diets and abuses of drugs, exposure to man-made compounds/drugs and industrial environmental exposure to carcinogens, mutagens, etc.”

Well, sure, some of those could cause mutations in the offspring, but no matter how you live, mutations will always happen every time any lifeform reproduces.

”The Global warming gang and the deluded that hop on board to be politically correct or for political points i.e. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, B. Obama and company i.e. liberal media like CNN are promulgating the LIE.”

Well, earth, globally, is becoming warmer every year, that is a fact. Anyone can actually double check these facts.



Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in: Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Ansluter till %s