Imaginary Ancient Big Bomb Believer Bigot Jim Villanuci and Darwinist Friends Refuted

According to the KKOB radio show host Jim Villanuci, who said repeatedly today that he doesn't care [about the truth], there are no Christian scientists who believe in a "young" earth (6500 is old young?), and anyone who believes in a young earth can't perform science at all and can't understand anything correctly because they don't listen to the facts, and merely explain everything with, "Jesus did it," or "angels did it". Is that why I'm repeating what you said and refuting it, again?

Where bigot, in this refutation of your ranting, and your ranting anti-Christian callers, have I said anything like that or an earlier one refuting your claim that we must have sex with a person to know if they are gay or straight?

Do you have the patience to read less than a few pages, if not, how can you claim to know what you are talking about when it comes to "young earthers" let alone Christians, science, evolution or the big imaginary bomb no one ever saw from billions and billions of years ago?):

Christians are scientists too, and not merely because I said so. You don't you know history and don't care to know it, and don't know what's going on around you accurately either, and don't want to, that is why in large part you are ignorant. Don't you know that Galileo, Copernicus and Euler were all Christians, and that atheists tried to shut them up using other Christians? No doubt, you being an ignorant mocker, if I hadn't added that last part you would have said, "Yeah and look what the Christians did to them." In addition to that Catholics are false Christians, so big surprise they would turn on their own at the request of atheists. Further, there are two recent polls that show about half of all scientists are religious as in believing in the supernatural, and CHEMISTS especially believe in God (gee can you figure out why CHEMISTS would especially believe in God? Could it be because they not only see the macro design in the universe, but also see the micro design which you stupidly ignore?)

Yet you pretend their are no young earth Christian scientists let alone religious ones, and that we all say, "Jesus did it," or "It looks young" or stupid things like that, which idiots like you actually say with, "But Darwin said so," "It evolved," "Oil is old," "Fission wouldn't work." You google "Evidence against young earth" or "creationism" and believe whatever so called scientific evidence there is against it. What a simpleton. Study Jim, don't just have faith.

Ironically, it's by your bigoted sarcastic statements like, "Jesus did it," or "The Grand Canyon looks young to me," and, "Evolution did it,", "The Big Bang did it", "Dinosaurs died a long time ago and did it", "The Hubble saw it," which shows that you are the one who reasons be feelings. It's you who don't believe in science and you who don't know what science is. Science is not, "It looks old to me so it must be old," or "Darwin did it" (to use your stupid bigoted sarcasm) or "evolution did it." Further, how in the Hell genius, would you figure out the Grand Canyon is very old let alone old from just looking at it? What the Hell? Can you explain that bizarre reasoning? No, you were brainwashed with endless propaganda that you in your gullibility bought into. You were repeatedly taught "this is clearly old" and so you think that way. Further, what the Hell scientist even says you can judge that a rock is old just be looking at it? Stupid. And can you show that any young earth CALVINIST (not some idiot Christian, a false one) doesn't believe in science? The father of microbiology was a Calvinist "young earther" you parrot.

You clearly don't understand what Young Earth geology is about, it's not simply, "The Earth is about 6000 years old" (it's a little older than that actually) and it's not about "Jesus lived with the dinosaurs".

You also don't understand nuclear power. Also the two caller that said it's a matter of faith and non-reason made no sense, unless he meant that old earth geology is non-reason, which would only be figurative. Regardless it was poorly worded and sounded stupid. The woman who mentioned the Christian that said it's just a faith issue was talking about a stupid Christian then, further she herself was ignorant and stupid since she said that young earther's explanation about why carbon dating isn't accurate is complicated, because IT'S NOT complicated, it this simple: Carbon dating has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate. It's also got nothing to do with nuclear power, you obviously don't know physics very well. Carbon dating is only accurate to about 5000 years, when it's used to measure things beyond that it's wildy inaccurate and what Darwinists / evolutionist SCIENTISTS do is arbitrarily choose the dates that match their dating theories. If it doesn't fit, they dismiss it or won't even mention it.

Also the Hubble has not revealed the universe to be billions of years old, again it has to do with how the data is interpreted, and Darwinist / evolutionist scientist interpret in such a way that it fits evolutionary theory, it's circular reasoning.

Further, you clearly don't know much about evolution even, since you would have known that every informed "young earther" knows to reject carbon dating for the reasons I stated, if you were knowledgeable, you would have referred to other radiometric dating methods (which have also been shown to be inaccurate).

As for Wikipedia being good, no it's not at all, you think it's good because it says things that match your uniformed beliefs. What they do is repeatedly and instantly ban "young earthers" not listening to their arguments and merely stating that websites like answersingenesis.org and other young earth sites are not reliable. They also are against TRUTH. Yes, you heard it right, THEY ARE NOT FOR TRUTH. They will literally tell people like me, when I use a logical argument that Wikipedia is NOT ABOUT TRUTH but rather references. And they will ban you for trying to speak the truths IF it cuts the foundation of atheism or doubt of Christianity. They don't just ban anyone for speaking a religious truth obviously, but that which would leave atheism and anti-Christian skepticism hanging in the wind with nothing to support it. They also obviously wouldn't want themselves to have been shown to have been gullible for over 100 years, as that would be a devastating blow to their own faith, and then where would they turn? They'd have to be agnostic or witches.

Further, no true Christian simply says, "God said it so I believe it" as anti-Christians love to say. We don't think that way, in fact the Bible commands us to have evidence for our beliefs, and says not to be a simpleton, there is a verse that literally says not to be that way, and not to simply believe whatever you hear. It also says to test those who claim to be Christians to see if they are telling the truth about being a Christian.

On top of that, there are many non-Christian physicists who are opposed to the teaching of the Big Bang AND ASTRONOMERS, and some are nominal Christians, simply believing the Bible to be true to a degree. There is not a consensus, and even if there was, you can't vote something to be true or feel it into being true, so your comment "you can believe whatever you want to make yourself feel good" and about you living in reality and not us, is something which applies to you. Further, I study issues regarding truth and reality as do all Christians, but I spend my life doing so, so if anyone is going to know what is real or not and what truth is it would be me, not you, who merely talks about politics all day and avoids getting deep into philosophical and religious matters. Sure you mention religion now and then and how people should be free to have their own religion, but you don't go much further than that, you don't get into critical analysis for the basis of religion beyond you belief that Christians merely feel he exists (no that's not all there is to it).

As for how oiled formed, all you did was read a statement claiming how oil was made, you didn't give any scientific evidence for it. Also, it's been a long time that that theory has been shown to be BASELESS. So you just read a statement that is based on a theory that was shown to be in dispute for many years. That shows how out of touch you are with modern scientific findings let alone old ones, including old ones that are still true which you are clueless about.

Now, if you want data, scientific data backing up what I said, and about their being no evidence for the Big Bang and no consensus:

No consensus, Darwinists ban and libel young earth creationists AND Intelligent Design OLD earth creationists (showing how intolerant they are and arbitrary and that it's about their hate for God, not "pseudoscience" as they pretend)

1) Ben Stein's: Expelled (which shows that Darwinists ban scientists to make it look like there is a consensus against Darwinism)
2) http://s8int.com/bigbang3.html
3) http://cosmologystatement.org
4) http://s8int.com/bigbang5.html
4) http://thunderbolts.info/home.htm
5) http://sn.im/archeology (don't you love how this book shows your "scientists" cover up geological and archeological findings in the name of science and for prestige and more money?)
6) Further, there were many "young earth" scientists
and there still are, and the first ones were the human basis
for modern science (now twisted by evolutionists):

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

Clearly these are not scientists/Christians who say, "Jesus made the oil the end."

Oil wasn't made millions of years ago or by dinosaurs:

1) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil
2) http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2007/08/23/australian-oil-its-quite-young

Starlight doesn't show the universe is billions or millions of years old:

1) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/star-formation-and-creation
2) http://icr.org/articles/view/214/245

The distance of objects in space has been in dispute for many years Jim. But you Jim, were gullible, you were deliberately ignorant even though you KNEW there is mass propaganda of all kinds. You imply "young earth" creationism is mass propaganda (why else would you say it scares you?) yet it never occurred to you that Darwinists were lying in any way, not even for money? So who's the stupid gullible simpleton? Hint for you skeptic Jim: Don't skeptics (who are nearly all Darwinists) always whine about how there can't be aliens here from other planets because the distance they would have to travel requires an "insane" amount of energy? Hint hint Jim, aliens are clearly still coming and are sighted all the time. Can you take the hint? MAYBE THE STARS AND GALAXIES AREN'T BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS AWAY AS DARWINISTS CLAIM? Super duh? Ultra duh? Massive duh? Big circular reasoning duh? Circular reasoning check Jim: "The stars must be billions of years old because they are billions of light years away, and they are billions of lights away, and they are billions of light years away because scientists said so, and there are no 'young earthers' scientists who say the opposite because I Jim said so, and I'm right because scientists said so, and scientists are right because I said so." Is that science Jim? That's your science Jim, not the science of true Christians.

There was no billions of years old big bomb that no one ever saw and never will that they just must believe in to be real scientists, cuz you anti-Christians said so:

1) http://thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/davesmith_au.htm
2) http://thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/090807_sjc.htm
3) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/big-bang
4) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/billion-problems-with-big-bang
5) http://creation.com/no-dark-matter-found-in-the-milky-way-galaxy
6) http://orionfdn.org/papers/arxiv-1.pdf
7) The Cult of the Big Bang
8) http://spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm (is this physicist "insane" Jim? Can you show us why Mr. Physicist Expert Jim Villanuci?)
9) http://orionfdn.org/papers/predicts-enhanced-galaxy-brightness.htm (is this physicist "insane" too Jim? Can you show us why Mr. Physicist Expert Jim Villanuci?)
10) http://physorg.com/news85310822.html (is physorg.com a creationist website Jim?)
11) http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/26666 (is physicsworld.com a creationist website Jim?)
12) http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090422085830.htm (is sciencedaily a creationist website Jim?)
13) http://astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=8435 (is astronomy.com a creationist website Jim?)
14) And what were you saying about Hubble Jim, as if you understood his scientific teachings or knew them? Was he and Einstein "dumb nuts" and "young earthers" too Jim?

Yet the true "dumb nuts" like you continue to claim INVISIBLE MATTER is everywhere and is evidence of the Big Bang. WHAT DARK MATTER JIM? OUR DARWINIST SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING IT'S NOT THERE, AND BIG SURPRISE SINCE IT'S INVISIBLE. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN WHAT IN INVISIBLE MATTER FOR WHICH THERE IS NO INDIRECT EVIDENCE JIM WHILE MOCKING CHRISTIANS FOR BELIEVING IN GOD WHO TO THOSE ON EARTH IS PURPOSELY INVISIBLE AND FOR WHOM THERE IS COUNTLESS EVIDENCE FOR, AS I'VE PARTIALLY SHOWN HERE? What's wrong with that picture you've given us Jim? Isn't the one who "believe[s] fairies run your engine" you, the guy who believes in invisible matter that no one can detect and in your ignorance keep claiming all scientists say is there?

"Old-earth" radiometric dating is arbitrary and flawed and one form shows the universe is "young" (though 6500 years old is hardly young compared to the age of the oldest humans):

1) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
2) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove
3) http://answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-058/radiometric-dating-shows-young-earth
4) http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp
5) Creation's Tiny Mystery

Man did live and still does live with dinosaurs you idiot.

"Jesus lived with the dinosaurs" you said in sarcasm. MORON: DARWINISTS SAY HUMANS LIVED WITH DINOSAURS AND HAVE BEEN SAYING SO FROM THE BEGINNING YOU IDIOT. IT WAS ONLY RECENTLY THAT NORONS LIKE YOU, IGNORANT OF DARWINIST EVOLUTIONARY THEORY STARTED COMING UP WITH NONSENSE LIKE THAT, WHICH DARWINIST SCIENTISTS STILL DON'T USE YOU IDIOT. What they say moron, is that Noah's Ark is absurd, and for those who are more clever, they say it's also a contradictory story. You're so dumb you can't even be bothered to learn the precious theory of your heros correctly. That's how careless you are with the truth. On top of that moron, who in the Hell said dinosaurs were all dead, or that they all magically died when the first "Homo sapien" appeared? Do you know what living fossils are? Now that's not a big surprise you wouldn't though still is hardly excusable since Darwinist mention them now and then, and of course not to often SINCE THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CREATURES REFUTE EVOLUTION. Here Jim, more easy work for you that you could have done for yourself:

1) http://creationwiki.org/Living_fossil. Some are also listed in your precious Wikipedia (is Wikipedia a creationist website Jim?)

And how are you ignorant of dragon sightings and other dinosaur sitings, both ancient and modern? Why are you so unfun that you can't look into such stories? Why didn't the Loch Ness Monster sightings get you to start reading about such sightings? Is everyone who lives around the Loch Ness and all the tourists who have been there, who have seen dinosaurs there "nuts" too Jim? Is everyone nuts who sees what you don't?

And you're so stupid you can't figure out that we wiped out most of the dinosaurs by hunting them down for food, sport, or prestige, or that we burned down their habitat, as Aboriginees in Australia and those living in the Amazon still do today, in order to make the land safer for ourselves and to farm? But no, you think, "A comet did it," "A meteor did it," or "A volcano did it," don't you gullible Jimmy? And of course we just happened to survive while all the dinosaurs magically died or shurnk to the size of birds and mice. Nice stupid simpleton "fairy tale" Jim. Here little Jimmy, here unfun Jimmy, here unimaginative Jimmy, here Magic Meteor Jimmy; more help for your hardly imaginitive, lazy mind, lazy eyes and hands:

2) http://cryptozoology.com
3) http://theserenedragon.net/Tales/tales.html
4) http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html
5) http://s8int.com/dino1.html
6) http://newanimal.org
7) http://lorencoleman.com/top_cryptids.html
8) http://cryptozoo.monstrous.com
9) http://cryptids.net/cryptopedia/index.htm
10) http://nwcreation.net/dinosdragons.html
11) http://genesispark.com/genpark/history/history.htm

And no biased Jim, those aren't all creationist websites; only three are. And even if they were, what matters is if they are true, not, "But those are all Darwinist sites." Even your precious Wikipedia lists cryptids Jim, even they declare them to be "noteworthy" Jim. Even "skeptics", your mentally ill kin, talk about cryptids in Skeptic Magazine, and very often.

And Jim, what happened to mammoths? Don't they count as dinosaurs? Oh, is it because they weren't reptiles? So only reptiles are dangerous? Mammoths were nice huh? And who said reptiles can't be lived near? I think you deluded yourself into thinking that all dinosaurs eat people from all the silly propaganda you were raised on, on those silly dinosaur coloring books, Discovery Channel and Jurassic Park cartoons, and B horror movies. But if only you had paid a little closer attention and put in a little more thought, and realized not all dinosaurs ate flesh you idiot, no dinosaur was said to have eaten humans you idiot, and that Discovery Channel isn't a nonprofit company that shows cartoons because they are just so concerned about teaching you how the entire planet was covered with man-eating Tyrannosaurs. Oh wait, they don't teach that. But you're an idiot who misses the details even when the propaganda is light.

And are Komodo Dragons good enough for you Jim? Do they count as dinosaurs? Duh? Are all the people living near Komodo Dragons dead? No, in fact the Komodo Dragons are the ones who are almost dead, and hardly anyone goes near them except to take a picture.

Your dumb Jim.

Another thing about your Wikipedia, where "the site all you nuts come from":

The long term editors and administrators deliberately try and make alternative scientists look bad regardless of whether or not their theories have been shown to be true, they try to have articles on breakthrough scientists and inventors deleted or made to look silly. You just are ignorant and don't care much about the truth Jim, no offense. You obsess on what you feel is true and believe what merely sounds to be true to you, and don't go further.

Jim, you're being hypocritical: many Darwinist Scientists and non-scientist Darwinists, often simply as you do, say the equivalent of, "It's so," "That's the way it is," "There's [scientific evidence]", and some even say, "Atheist" as their source/reference, referring to themselves. They might as well say, "Me,". You also merely make empty claims backed by mere emotion. You merely claim that oil is formed in such and such way and that's it's millions of years old. That's not evidence let alone scientific evidence. It's no better than your sarcastic stereotypes like,"Jesus made the oil" or "angels make radio waves".

As for your magical scientific evidence, "They all come from the same website" as in "Young Earth Creationists all come from the same website", says who? And what does that even mean? So all "young earthers" contact you via answersingenesis.com? Really? So now it's, "AIG did it!" Jim? That's your new scientific evidence against young earthers? Lame. AIG is staffed by people born from humans raised in many different ways, some who were former atheists or agnostics, not people who were born by a website. "Young Earthers" no more all or mostly come from AIG anymore than Gullibles like yourself all come from Wikipedia (Mr. Wikipedia Referring Jim). AIG refers to scientific evidence from multiple sources, they don't just invent things from a vacuum or say, "The Bible did it," and unlike Wikipedia - which you love and seem to think is evidence in and of itself - does not reject truth in favor of keeping the appearance of truth to suit their feelings.

Further, if we "all c[a]me from the same [web]site," whatever that means, how is that evidence, let alone scientific evidence that "young earth" creationism is wrong? So if "you all" Billions of Years Old Big Bombers came from Wikipedia, TalkOrigins or KKOB that would make you wrong? Well then you must be wrong too; you've contradicted your own arbitrary logic. And oooo, how bad: "They all have an organization, they're all organized," is basically what you said: yeah what a horrible thing Jim, what a sin, gotta really hate ORGANIZATION, cuz ORGANIZATION is so bad, right Mr. Chaos? Why do you chaos believers hate DESIGN, and ORGANIZATION so much? See how illogical your DISORGANIZED CHAOTIC mind is? Your hang ups say some powerful things about your false logic. It's just so bad to make things convenient for you anti-Christians isn't it Jim? If the information was chaotically spread out all over the Internet no doubt your hateful self would then say something like, "They're scatter brained and disorganized." Sorry to make things convenient for you Jim, so sorry to help you out by putting the info all in one place. So evil and unscientific of us. Wait, if that's a sin, why do you love Wikipedia?; yet again your insults backfire. Can't you stop contradicting yourself?

Further, you really don't know Christians or young earth scientists: you said 60+ million Calvinists come from ansswersingenesis. Really? Yes Jim, that's how many "young earth" believers there are. You're truly ignorant. But no, we don't all simply use that website, there are many "young earth" science sites, some of which are linked to the side of my journal and two others I have:

http://creationengineeringconcepts.org
http://answersincreation.org
http://answersingenesis.com
http://christiananswers.net
http://creationwiki.com
http://genesispark.com
http://creationists.org
http://unevolved.org
http://creation.com
http://orionfdn.org
http://nmidnet.org
http://halos.com
http://yecs.org
http://icr.org

So what was that about us all coming from one site Jim? Is what matters is, "Nanny nanny boo boo you only have one site we have more," or, "It's just a few people," "They're all from one house," "They're all from one apartment complex," "They're all from one block," "They're all from one town," "They're all from one city," "They're all from one state," "They're all from one country," "They're all from one side of the planet," "They're all from one planet," "They're all from one solar system," "They're all from one galaxy," "They're all from one galaxy cluster", "They're all human," "They're all from one universe"? No, what matters is: IS WHAT "THEY" SAY TRUE."

Ironically I met a moron even dumber than you who made fun of Christians for being "lazy" she said, because,"notice" she said, "You have more sites", "MORE" Jim, not "They're all from one site." So which nut arbitrary nut should the world, including us "young earthers" believe Jim? Oh God of Science and Religion Jim, which stupid insult defeats us? They can't be both right since they contradict. Hence, why we don't believe your ranting, because that's all you anti-true Christians do. You anti-true Christians show every hour that you are arbitrary, paranoid, racked with bitterness, and that your morality and logic is backwards. Yes "conservative" Jim, you're better than liberals in that you say Christians should have the right to home-school their children under Christianity, but you err when you discriminate against "young earthers", claiming that we're teaching children "to answer wrong on tests" you said. As you would notice if you bothered to READ FIRST OUR TEACHINGS, rather than putting childish words in our mouth, you bully, you would see WE TEACH YOUR STUPIDITY NECESSARILY, since you idiots won't shut up about it. You moron.

If you or others think I've not read the rebuttals to the sites and specific arguments I showed, you're wrong:

1) There isn't a rebuttal for many arguments against your arguments against the Bible. Can you guess the reason why besides some cheap lie you'd first think like, "We'll because you Christians are just nuts, and you say things that don't make sense"? Hints: THEY ARE TRUE AND CLEARLY TRUE, AND WHO IS GOING TO CHALLENGE ANTI-CHRISTIANS WHEN THEY SAY THE SAME THING AS "YOUNG EARTHERS". Were those hints clear enough?

2) I refuted the rebuttals, for example on Yahoo Answers and on Amazon.com. On Amazon.com I refuted a ranting nut like you, only more clever and who actually bothered to at least read what the opposition said, whole books even. I documented it early in my journal here. But what did two Amazon moderators do when I complained about this nut deliberately skewing the ratings of creationist books by repeatedly voting them down, and by repeatedly voting down my replies to him so that they would be hidden, and stalking me?: They deleted not only some of my reviews but dozens of my replies in the comment field to the ranting nut who was clearly stalking me. And what were your Amazon moderator buddies' reason for doing so? The one who bothered to email said it was because what I said was all hateful. Sure. Isn't that just such a good reason to censor replies to a ranting stalker Mr. "Christians Just Say Jesus Did It" Loving Non-Hateful Jim? You hypocrites. Ooops, I shouldn't have said that that's hateful because it hurts your feelings, your loving scientific "Christians are hypocrites for judging right from wrong and have no right to judge others who call themselves Christians or not," feelings. No you didn't literally say that, but you said the equivalent in your ranting one day against a congregation that was judging a former member who was still calling herself a Christian, the same day you said we can only know if someone is gay or straight if we have sex with them. No, ur not nuts and evil at all, not.

And Mr. Jim Pro Science Villanuci, how can there be scientific progress if you slander "young earthers" and misrepresent them and try and block them from being heard? So that's science, to block opposing view points that you can't even be bothered to listen to? So we should just believe whatever you and your Darwinists say is true and ask no questions and never point out any errors we see? It's because of morons like you, Darwinist morons like you, afraid of facing God, that there is gross scientific stagnation and fraud in Darwinist Mainstreamer dominated organizations like Wikipedia, the Smithsonian, NASA, and the U.S. Government in general, the same government you constantly rail against forgetting that it's mostly composed of Darwinists like you.

As usual, you anti-Christians accuse us of what you are guilty of doing, while pretending to be for Christ or neutral, while we really are for Christ, and believe the truth, rather than being neutral.

So is it any wonder that you're stuck below the top 65 radio show hosts in the US? Being a smug, boring, mocker who makes cheap lazy slanderous insults at Christians who spend their time and money helping the poor and needy only gets you so far.

Your the one teaching kids to answer wrong on man's tests, and much worse: wrong on God's tests.