Freddy Davis shares why the Theory of Evolution is not science.
The Theory of Evolution is a Crock
August 31, 2023 | Freddy Davis
Sign Up To Receive Our Free Newsletter In Your Inbox!
https://gerald-schroeder.com/articles/the-age-of-the-universe
Day one in Genesis was 8 billion years, day 2 was 4 billon, day 3 was 2 billion, day 4 was 1 billion, day five was have a billion or 500 million. Day six when man was created was 250 million years ago.
This is more exact and precise if you use 1.8 instead of 2.0.
Your argument says absolutely nothing about the validity of the TOE. It is not based on science, it is based on a set of philosophical presuppositions. I don’t care hove many billions of years you throw out there, there simply is no science to back it up.
Read the article and watch his videos. He provides different insights on this topic.
You will see his viewpoints and understand why he makes those assumptions.
An excerpt from it:
“Einstein taught the world that time is relative. That in regions of high velocity or high gravity time actually passes more slowly relative to regions of lower gravity or lower velocity. (One system relative to another, hence the name, the laws of relativity.) This is now proven fact. Time actually stretches out. Were ever you are time is normal for you because your biology is part of that local system.
That is Einstein and gravity and velocity. But there is a third aspect of the universe that changes the perception of time, Not gravity and not velocity. That is the stretching of space. The universe started as a minuscule speck, perhaps not larger that a grain of mustard and stretched out from there (E. Hubble, ca 1950; NASA ca 2000; Tankhuma, ca 200; Nakhmanides, ca 1250). Space actually stretches. The effect of the stretching of space produces the effect that when observing an event that took place far from our galaxy, as the light from that event travels through space and the sequence of events travels through space, the information is actually stretched out. (In The Science of God I give the logic in detail in simple easy to understand terms.)”
What is your point? This doesn’t really have anything to do with the content of the video as far as I can tell.
My point is, that you haven’t refuted the content of Gerald Schroeder’s article yet.
What exactly do you want refuted? My point is that all you have done is make a bunch of assertions based on presuppositions that you can’t back up with actual science. At this point I don’t see anything to refute. You haven’t said anything of substance at all.