Missouri Town Cancels Cosmos Because ‘Show Claims Earth Is 4.5 Billion Years Old, When It’s Only 6,000 Years Old’
In the most recent episode of Cosmos, titular narrator Neil DeGrasse Tyson went full out with The Big Lie. The greatest lie of evolutionary theory is that of the Earth’s age. These supposed learned people claim Earth is over 4.5 billion years old, despite there being no evidence whatsoever to support that ridiculous claim.
I preached a sermon and lead a protest in my town because the most recent show went too far over the line. Claiming the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, then demonizing those who say otherwise, is just mean-spirited and not true science. It is manipulative and discriminating against Creation Science. Now New York Times, HuffPost and others are barking at my doorstep, mocking our beliefs and trying to figure out why we ‘don’t like Tyson’.
Here is a big reveal for you non-believers out there: there is an ultimate proof that the Earth is 6,000 years old. You can find that proof here.
The Bible stands for Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. When you realize the universe was created by the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God, it does not seem so mind staggeringly big that you have to make up obscene numbers to claim humans ‘evolved’ from monkeys. You don’t need to falsify a timeline to make your claims.
There is a reason towns in the Heartland of America are cancelling Cosmos from their tv stations. The show is full of dangerous, poisoned lies that threaten the future of humanity.
I challenge any non-Creationist to answer one question: how does something come from nothing?
If we are to believe in Evolutionary Theory and Tyson’s claims that Earth is 4.5 billion years old, then where did it all come from?
If matter cannot be destroyed or created, then how does a universe chock full of matter exist? While you fail to answer that question, I will give you the real answer.
In the Beginning, GOD…
That is right. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
The Earth was without form and it was void in the beginning. What does that mean to us and people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson?
Simple. God is the true universal constant. God has always existed. He is the Alpha and Omega, the solution to evolutionist’s major problem with thermodynamics. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, unless there is a controlling force who can create it. God created the universe and the laws that govern our ability to explore it.
Cosmos was supposed to resolve the issue of faith and science for those who cannot wrap their head around one important concept. One can never fully understand the universe, until they accept God.
The Earth’s age, by carbon dating, is easily explained: God created the ‘elements’ of the universe billions of years ago, therefore, when we carbon date things we find the Earth looks really old. But the truth is civilized life on Earth is not necessarily old, it is instead that the building blocks that make up Earth are old.
God just did not assemble them as we know them as long as some scientists predict. Biblical timelines make this truth very clear.
And if Neil DeGrasse Tyson continues to lie about such things, we have no choice but to keep protesting and supporting towns who refuse to air Cosmos on their local airwaves.
I do fully believe that the earth is 4.5 billion yrs old. I find no contradiction with any type of faith. Is it not possible that humans as we know them came into being 6k years ago. This does coinside with the first known writting of and the semi-agreed invention of writing. I know they have found skeletons that show us being older but in my view unles they had formed language and were able to reason on a similar level as we are then they were not modern human.
Like or Dislike: 0 0
I want to see this unsound degenerate burn. How can he even begin to challenge science; to challenge logic?
Every single time, he falls back on his Holy Bible for the answer, but then out of the blue flaunts some random theory he’s concocted to fill in the blanks as a hard fact. For lack of a better (more offensive) word he’s literally retconned the Bible.
Would you kindly tell me EXACTLY where your supposed God came from? Maybe then I’ll warm up to answering your little query on matter.
Like or Dislike: 1 0
“If matter cannot be destroyed or created, then how does a universe chock full of matter exist?”
Are you kidding me? Your entire argument is based on your complete ignorance of the big-bang theory and your only defense is an image of the bible…. THIS is why no one takes people like you seriously.
Like or Dislike: 0 0
Also, the earth is still flat.
Like or Dislike: 0 0
I wonder why creationists find it acceptable to trust carbon and radio-metric dating as evidence in the conviction of a crime, but not when it comes to proving the real age of the planet? There is a ton of evidence to support this and many other scientific claims because the nature of the scientific process is to try and prove theories wrong by accumulating factual evidence gained from applicable experimentation, rather than faith in what an anonymous predecessor wrote in a book that has had to be translated, by other anonymous predecessors, through countless languages, to become what it is today. The only thing consistent about the bible is it’s never ending stream of contradictions.
Like or Dislike: 2 0
[…] Well, it seems my protest of Cosmos: A Space Odyssey has upset the radical left-wing zealots of the world. […]
Like or Dislike: 0 0
Ha ha ha! Snark! Not only can the bible belt be fooled but so can those who don’t believe in God. LOL! I thought this was the onion for a moment. Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!
Like or Dislike: 0 0
What preacher came up with the laws of thermodynamics?
Like or Dislike: 0 0
Far from being ‘deception’ or speculation, constructs full of sources of error and unproven assumptions, radiometric dating techniques are actually on a very sound theoretical and procedural basis. To destroy that basis, creationists would have to destroy much of chemistry and a lot of atomic physics too. The periodic table is the bedrock on which modern chemistry is built. The constancy of the velocity of light is a basic axiom of Einstein’s theories of relativity, theories which have passed every test physicists could devise. The constancy of radioactive decay rates follows from quantum mechanics, which has also passed every test physicists can create. In short, everything we know in chemistry and in physics points to radiometric dating as being a viable and valuable method of calculating the ages of igneous and metamorphosed igneous rocks. To question it seems to be beyond the bounds of reason.
To charge thousands of chemists all over the world with mass incompetence also seems to be beyond the bounds of reason. Radiometric dating has been used ever more widely for the past forty years. The dates produced have gotten steadily more precise as lab techniques and instrumentation has been improved. There is simply no logical reason to throw this entire field of science out the window. There is no reason to believe the theory is faulty, or to believe that thousands of different chemists could be so consistently wrong in the face of every conceivable test.
Further, radiometric dates can be checked by other dating techniques. When they are, the dates almost always agree within the range of expected error. In cases where the dates don’t agree, it’s always been found that some natural factor was present which selectively affected one or the other dating method being used.
Creationists are forced to challenge radiometric dating because it stands as the most powerful and most damning evidence against their idea of a young Earth. But in the end, they are reduced to saying that “radiometric dating must be wrong, because we know it happened this way.” And that is not a scientific position. If theory says it happened this way and evidence says it happened that way, theory must be revised to fit the evidence. Creationists won’t do that. That reveals creation ‘science’ to be a sham, and not any kind of science at all..
Like or Dislike: 0 0