6 days Creation

[KiwiChristian]

Sorry, this is long. But this is an important topic.

Either God created everything, or NOTHING exploded and became SOMETHING.

 

For me, one of the main reasons i believe in God is the sheer impossibility of the alternative.

We are living on a 6,371 km diameter rock, hurtling through space at a speed of 30 km/sec 93 million miles away from a 27 million degrees Fahrenheit inferno and no-one in charge.

The Bible is not a book. It is a COLLECTION of 66 books, written over a span of 1600 years, across three continents by over 40 writers inspired by God in three languages.

 

 

Big Bang Baloney- EVIDENCE DISPROVING THE BIG BANG THEORY

Did the Universe begin with a super explosion of a small mass 10 billion years ago?

Briefly, the following problems are observed in our solar system that defy the Big Bang
explanation:

1. Uranus and Venus rotate in the opposite direction to the other planets.
2. Some planets have eccentric or tilted orbits.
3. Some planet’s satellite moons move in retrograde (backwards) motion.
4. Our moon has a lower density than earth. If it was thrown out from earth, it’s density would be more.
5. The sun’s angular momentum is 1/200th of the planets.

This small angular momentum makes it unlikely that the planets could be thrown out of the sun.

Source: “Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation”. D.R. Peterson, p.45.

Big Bang theory says that a large quantity of nothing condensed by gravity into a single tiny spot and then exploded outward into hydrogen and helium to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets and moons.

Question: What is wrong with this theory? A lot!

1. Nothingness cannot pack together.
2. There would be no ignition to explode a speck of nothingness.
3. The theoretical explosion would fall back on itself giving a theoretical black
hole. R L St. Peter, 1974.

4. There is not enough anti-matter in the universe. A Big Bang would produce equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, but only small amounts of antimatter exists. (Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p.343).
5. The anti-matter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter.
6. There is no way to unite all the outward rushing particles from the central
explosion, because they would keep getting farther apart over time travelled. (See Novotny’s research).
7. The particles would maintain the same speed and direction forever, with no way for them to begin circling each other as gas clouds. Linear motion would not change to angular momentum.
8. Neither hydrogen or helium in outer space would clump together, because gases on earth push apart, but never clump together. Gas clouds in space expand, and don’t contract to form anything.
9. Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.
10. If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of evenly mixed stars and galaxies, there would only be an outer rim of fast moving matter.
11. There is not enough matter in the universe to explain the origin of matter and stars. The universe is 100 times less dense than the Big Bang theory requires. Where is this “missing mass”? This too little matter could not form stars.
12. The Big Bang would only produce hydrogen and helium, not the other 90 elements.
13. The nuclear gaps at atomic mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen and helium to produce any heavier elements, because neither a proton or neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. If it were not for this important “helium mass 4 gap”, the sun would radiate uranium towards earth. There is
no stable atom of atomic mass 5 or 8. So a hydrogen fusion reaction (bomb) combines hydrogen to form deuterium, which doubles to form Helium 4 and stops there. Hence a hydrogen explosion (even in a star), does not cross mass 5 gap (E.g. H=1.008; Deuterium=2.016; He=4.006; Lithium=6.939; Berylium=9.012; Boron=10.811, etc.).
14. There are no first-generation stars (containing only hydrogen and helium) in the sky, which supposedly exploded to give second-generation stars, as the Big Bang theory requires.
15. Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits of suns, binary stars, galaxies, star clusters, planets and moons.
16. There are not enough supernova explosions to produce the heavier elements. We can see stars up to 15 billion light years away, but why are we not seeing many stellar explosions far out in space? Because the Big Bang theory is wrong. The stars are doing fine.
17. The most distant stars, which evolutionists date to the time of the Big Bang, are not exploding, and yet contain heavier elements.
18. According to the Big Bang theory, older stars should have more heavy elements because they are continually making them. But all stars, from ‘young’ to ‘old’, have similar amounts of heavy elements
19. Why do some stars spin backward to other stars? The Big Bang theory can’t explain this.

20. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could super fast straight line motion from a Big Bang change to rotating and orbiting motion with angular momentum?
21. Why is the universe so “lumpy” with galaxies grouped into galaxy clusters, which are grouped into larger super clusters?
22. Evolutionists claim that background radiation in space is the best evidence that the Big Bang occurred as the last remnant of a Big Bang explosion. This is wrong because:

a) It comes from all directions except one direction being the Big Bang source.
b) The radiation is too weak to fit the theory. (Fred Hoyle).
c) It lacks the required 2.7K black body spectrum required for the Big Bang theory.
d) The spectrum should be a much hotter 100oK black body spectrum than its 2.73K spectrum.
e) It is too smooth.

Instead, this background radiation is what we’d expect from the billions of stars in the universe.

23. According to Big Bang theory, the further we look out into space, the further back into time we see. This means that the furthest stars and galaxies should be the youngest.
Yet research shows that furthest away stars are just like those nearby.
24. If Big Bang theory were true, all stars would be moving in the same direction, but stars, clusters and galaxies are moving in various directions opposite to one another.
25. Every star is redshifted to some extent. The further a star or galaxy is from us, the more its light is shifted. Big Bang theory concludes that this proves that the universe is expanding outward from the source of the Big Bang. They base this on the hypothesis that the “speed theory” of redshift is the only cause of the redshift. (If light is travelling towards us, the wavelength is compressed or blueshifted. If it is moving away from us, the wavelength is stretched out or redshifted.).

Other explanations for this redshift are:

a) Gravitational redshift. In 1915, Einstein predicted that gravity could bend light and thus cause a redshift. This was later proven correct. As light travels towards us from distant stars, it passes other stars, which slightly slows the beam, causing its spectrum to be shifted towards the red.

b) Second-order Doppler shift: A light source moving at right angles to an observer will always be redshifted. This would be explained by the universe moving slowly in a vast circle around a centre.

c) Energy loss redshift: Light waves may lose energy as they travel across long distances. Big Bang theory maintains that the speed redshift is the only cause of the redshift, so they can say that the universe is expanding outwards as a result of the Big Bang. Speed redshift is not the only cause of redshift because:
   a) Nearly all stars and galaxies are redshifted. If Big Bang theory really occurred, the universe would be rushing out from where the explosion occurred, not away from earth. If there was a Big Bang we could locate its origin by measuring redshifts.
   b) The closest stars and galaxies are the least redshifted. The further away a star is, the more would gravitational and energy loss redshifts slow it.
   c) Quasars strongly disprove the speed theory of redshift. Some quasars have redshifts of 300% which equals speeds over 90% of the speed of light. Some quasars have redshifts of 400%.

Three quasars, according to the speed theory are moving faster than the speed of light.

One quasar appears to be moving 8 times faster than light, which is impossible.

26. Most binary stars circling one another are of different composition. Big Bang theory can’t explain this.
27. Stars within globular clusters ought to be all crashing into one another if any nonthinking force brought them together, but they are not.
28. Stars never get closer than 3.5 light years apart. Would randomness produce this? No.
29. Stellar evolution is non-observable. Stars are not evolving in space. Plants and animals are not evolving on earth.
30. The sun would have to spin extremely fast to hurl off planets and moons, yet it rotates very slowly.
31. Big Bang theory cannot explain where stars, planets and moons originated, nor how they arrived at their present precise, intricate orbits. How could every moon be located at the precise distance to keep it from flying into or away from its planet, from a Big Bang explosion?
32. Uranus and Venus rotate backward compared to all the other planets. The other 7 rotate forward.
33. One third of the 60 moons rotate opposite to the rotational direction of their planets.

Why?

34. Our planets and moons are so strikingly different that they could not have originated from the same Big Bang source. “If you look at all the planets and the 60 or so satellites (moons), it’s very hard to find two that are the same.” (Ross Taylor of ANU Canberra, in “The Solar Systems New Diversity”, Richard Kerr, Science 265, 2 Sep 1994, p.1360).
35. The chemical makeup of Earth’s moon and Earth are distinctly different, implying that the moon formed under different conditions.
36. Nearly all of Saturn’s 17 moons are extremely different. It has 3 sets of moons sharing the same orbit. Some moons travel clockwise, others travel anti-clockwise. The surface
of Iapetus is 5 times darker on one side than the other. Hyperion is potato shaped.
Enceladus has an extremely smooth surface, whereas other moons are much rougher.
Why? Titan’s atmosphere is thicker than earth’s.
How could all these moons originate by chance?
Elemental Forces of the Universe.
37. Gravity Force is perfectly balanced.
a) If gravity were stronger, smaller stars could not form.
b) If gravity were weaker, bigger stars could not form, no heavy elements could exist,
only dwarf stars would exist, which would radiate light too feebly to support life.
38. Proton/Neutron mass ratio
The neutron mass can only exceed the proton mass by twice the electron’s mass (About 1
part per 1000).
a) If the proton to neutron mass ratio were less, atoms would fly apart.
b) If the proton to neutron mass ratio were greater, atoms would crush together, quickly
decaying into a neutron, positron and neutrino, thus destroying hydrogen, the main
element in the universe.
The Master Designer planned that the proton’s mass would be slightly smaller than a
neutron’s mass, otherwise the universe would collapse. If protons decayed, the universe
would collapse.
39. Photon mass to Baryon mass ratio.
If this ratio were higher, stars and galaxies could not hold together by gravitational
attraction.
40. Nuclear force holds an atom together.
a) If it were smaller, there would only be hydrogen and no heavier elements.

b) If it were larger, there would be no hydrogen but only heavier elements. With no
hydrogen there would be no stable stars, and no life.
c) If it were 1% weaker or stronger, carbon could not exist, nor could life exist.
d) If it were 2% stronger, protons could not exist.
41. Electromagnetic Force in an atom binds negative charged electrons to a positively charged
nucleus
a) If it were smaller or larger, no chemical bonds could form.
b) If the electron charge were 3 times larger, no element could exist other than
hydrogen.
c) If the electron charge were one-third as large, all neutral atoms would be destroyed
by the lowest heat-such as is found in outer space.
Conclusion: It would be impossible for evolution to produce the correct balance of these
forces. They were planned. These 4 basic forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and
strong nuclear forces) differ so greatly in strength, that the strongest is 1040 times stronger
than the weakest of them. Yet Big Bang theory mathematics requires that all basic forces
had to be the same strength before and just after the Big Bang Explosion occurred.
Evolutionists cannot claim that these precise, delicate balances of forces occurred by
“natural selection”, or “mutations”, for we are here dealing with the basic properties of
matter. There is no room for gradual “evolving”. The proton-neutron mass ratio has always
been the same. It will not change. It began just right. There was no second chance. This
applies to all the other forces and balances in elemental matter and the laws of physics
governing them.
If you open a typical science book on astronomy, you will find theories about the origin of
the universe and stars stated with great certainty to the public.
By 1970, so much scientific data had repudiated the basic aspects of various cosmologies,
that in April 1972, the top minds in stellar physics, chemistry and astronomy gathered at the
Nice Symposium to resolve: a) How did the first cloud break apart and change into stars?
b) How did the gas clouds whirl to form stellar objects to solve the angular momentum
problem?
c) How did the gas push itself into solids?
d) How did the planets, with their present properties and solar distances form?
If you attend such a closed-door conference, you will find worried men, desperate theories,
scientific facts condemning these theories, a lack of alternative explanations, an atmosphere of hopeless despair in the face of unproven ideas, and no solutions or scientific experiments to alleviate the situation.

Key: The problem is that evolutionists do not want the public to know that scientists cannot figure out how galaxies, stars and planets originated.

[KiwiChristian]

19 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Isn't all of it authority of the bible? Let there be light and day night and this convo stems from creation story and pertinent to the thread. 

I see your point.

 

But, at the same time, i see this also as a SCIENTIFIC issue since you dont believe in the Bible anyhow. There is zero scientific evidence for an old earth

 

Also, The Bible is not a book. It is a COLLECTION of 66 books, written over a span of 1600 years, across three continents by over 40 writers inspired by God in three languages.

[Guest shiloh357]

10 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Yep I'm still not getting it's more rational to believe things you can't demonstrate or investigate. How does the universe act intelligently? Can you demonstrate that? We observe a universe so we should see the intelligence... please eloborate

It's not that we cannot investigate God and the claims of the Bible.  The problem is that you have already shown that you are not willing to accept, as evidence, any evidence I can provide.  You are asking for a type of evidence that neither I, nor anyone else can provide, and I think you are well aware of that.   I think you know that you are asking for the impossible and that insulates you from having to do any serious consideration of the evidence that could be be presented to you.

There is an intelligence, an order to the universe, right down to the smallest details, like how DNA strings contain information that is unique to each person as to what each person will look like.  The DNA strings are far too complex to leave to Evolution.

Humanity is intelligent and that intelligence isn't the product of evolution.  Evolution cannot explain our ability to conceive and operate in the realm of the abstract, or in the area of morality.   The ability to understand self evident truths like freedom, equality, liberty are not the product of evolution.

The order and uniformity of the universe is not only evidence of an intelligent Creator, but is needed to do  science.   Scientists must be able to make predictions and that is true in the field of astronomy.   The creation model provides evidence for why the stars and the planets move the way they do. 

Newton said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but does not explain who put the planets in motion."

 

5 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

That's a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity btw.

How is what I said a logical fallacy? 

[siegi91]

2 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

And the conservation of angular momentum alone DISPROVES the "big bang theory"

Alright. How could we miss something so obvious?

Could you explain how?

 

[Kevinb]

2 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

Either God created everything, or NOTHING exploded and became SOMETHING.

Why do you say nothing exploded..science doesn't say that. We're only able to investigate a split second afterwards and since.

Nice copy and paste btw. There's a lot that's not supported here and fallacious. I'll deal with a couple..

2 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

32. Uranus and Venus rotate backward compared to all the other planets. The other 7 rotate forward.

The "backwards" planets and moons are in no way contrary to the nebular hypothesis. Part of the hypothesis is that the nebula of gas and dust would accrete into planetessimals. Catastrophic collisions between these would be part of planet building. Such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons. 

The only moons that orbit retrograde are small asteroid-sized distant satellites of giant planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, plus Triton (Neptune's large moon) and Charon (Pluto's satellite). The small retrograde satellites of Jupiter and Saturn were probably asteroids captured by the giant planets long after formation of the solar system. It is actually easier to be captured into a retrograde orbit. The Neptune system also contains one moon, Nereid, with a highly eccentric orbit. It appears that some sort of violent capture event may have taken place. The Pluto-Charon system is orbiting approximately "on its side," technically retrograde, with tidally locked rotation. As these are small bodies in the outer solar system, and binaries are likely to have been formed through collisions or gravitational capture, this does not violate the nebular hypothesis. 

Uranus is rotating more or less perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. This may be the result of an off-center collision between two protoplanets during formation. Venus is rotating retrograde but extremely slowly, with its axis almost exactly perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. The rotation of this planet may well have started out prograde, but solar and planetary tides acting on its dense atmosphere have been shown to be a likely cause of the present state of affairs. It is probably not a coincidence that at every inferior conjunction, Venus turns the same side toward Earth, as Earth is the planet that contributes most to tidal forces on Venus. 
 

Orbital motions account for 99.9% of the angular momentum of the solar system. A real evidential problem would be presented if some of the planets orbited the sun in the opposite direction to others, or in very different planes. However, all the planets orbit in the same direction, confirming the nebular hypothesis, and nearly in the same plane. 

2 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

Enceladus has an extremely smooth surface, whereas other moons are much rougher.

The moon's surface is ice and newer and more readily resurfaced than rock. Any impacts generate heat and would reform and refreeze.  Anyways here's one of many links. 

http://hagablog.co.uk/demos/enceladus/

There are answers and debunks all over the net go look. I'll not fill pages here. In any case if there are things we don't know... then we don't yet know... look how much has been learnt last 400 years. To say if there is something we don't yet  know therefore God did it is an argument from ignorance fallacy. 

2 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

How did the gas push itself into solids?

The sun?  You do understand the sun is a nuclear fusion pressure reactor essentially.. bigger stars forming heavier elements? I'll pay you the respect it's not a flat magic disk however some here do extrapolation from the bible indicting flat earth to think this

 

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Kevinb

[Kevinb]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

2 hours ago, Kevinb said:

Yep I'm still not getting it's more rational to believe things you can't demonstrate or investigate. How does the universe act intelligently? Can you demonstrate that? We observe a universe so we should see the intelligence... please eloborate

It's not that we cannot investigate God and the claims of the Bible.  The problem is that you have already shown that you are not willing to accept, as evidence, any evidence I can provide.  You are asking for a type of evidence that neither I, nor anyone else can provide, and I think you are well aware of that.   I think you know that you are asking for the impossible and that insulates you from having to do any serious consideration of the evidence that could be be presented to you.

There is an intelligence, an order to the universe, right down to the smallest details, like how DNA strings contain information that is unique to each person as to what each person will look like.  The DNA strings are far too complex to leave to Evolution.

Humanity is intelligent and that intelligence isn't the product of evolution.  Evolution cannot explain our ability to conceive and operate in the realm of the abstract, or in the area of morality.   The ability to understand self evident truths like freedom, equality, liberty are not the product of evolution.

The order and uniformity of the universe is not only evidence of an intelligent Creator, but is needed to do  science.   Scientists must be able to make predictions and that is true in the field of astronomy.   The creation model provides evidence for why the stars and the planets move the way they do. 

Newton said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but does not explain who put the planets in motion."

 

2 hours ago, Kevinb said:

That's a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity btw.

How is what I said a logical fallacy

An arguement from incredulity:The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen. Can overlap with an argument from ignorance fallacy too.

There have been attempts to investigate scientifically...such as religious foundations funding research into prayer for the sick. Their own research showing its no better than chance or if there had been no prayer. 

I'm honestly not being deliberately awkward here. You say we can investigate..i agree like the prayer study. I actually want to believe but I need good reasons to do it. You see design because you recognise a perception of order and complexity. Maybe like a car or computer program. However all I see is just analogy because of it. Course we've evidence of cars buildings being intelligently designed and made..factories..blueprints.. tooling marks..maybe we work in manufacture ourselves. Cars don't occur naturally as we can demonstrate... they don't reproduce etc. You think I'm not open to believe. However to acquire a good picture of reality we start with okay I don't know anything let's look at the evidence objectively based on solid reasoning and see where it goes.  I see religious people already asserting God or gods based on a book then go looking at reality and evidence. This leads to analogy ..bias and all sorts of things. We can't start our investigation with asserting God... which one... and for what reason? You dismiss the rest.. thousands that are now mythology same as I do..i just go one more until something demonstrable and credible has been put forward. 

You say the kind of evidence is impossible yes very largely indeed it is...we agree the supernatural God claims can't be investigated so I'd need faith to some degree at least... the belief in the proposition in the absence of evidence.. This isn't how our understanding progresses. We can't go into a lab asserting faith into experiments or we'd be open to incorrect conclusions.

Despite this you keep saying the creation model provides evidence..last being that's why planets move the way they do. Again with a sigh what evidence of a God involvement? Assertion.. faith and anology as an answer?

On Newton. He had a big God bias of course.. great in his day for sure..a valuable contribution. However his motion of planets wasn't complete.. Google Einstein's general relativity to predict the positions of mercury that Newton couldn't explain.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Kevinb said:

An arguement from incredulity:The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen. Can overlap with an argument from ignorance fallacy too.

But I didn't make that kind of argument.   I said that believing that an all-knowing, all-powerful, everywhere-present Creator is easier to believe in terms of an explanation for the origins of the universe than believing that everything simply came into existence by chance or happenstance.

Nor, did I make an argument from ignorance.  I am not denying anything happened.  So you really need to read a little closer before accusing me argumentative fallacies.

Quote

There have been attempts to investigate scientifically...such as religious foundations funding research into prayer for the sick. Their own research showing its no better than chance or if there had been no prayer. 

I don't' really know anything about that research and don't really care.

Quote

I'm honestly not being deliberately awkward here. You say we can investigate..i agree like the prayer study. I actually want to believe but I need good reasons to do it.

No, not like the prayer study, at all.

 

Quote

You see design because you recognise a perception of order and complexity.

No, it's not a perception.  Biological systems really are very, very complex and yet very ordered.  And science depends on that.

 

Quote

Maybe like a car or computer program. However all I see is just analogy because of it.

No, far more complex than a car or computer program.  The complexity of our world required an intelligence far, far, far greater than the intelligence needed to build cars or computers.

 

Quote

You say the kind of evidence is impossible yes very largely indeed it is...we agree the supernatural God claims can't be investigated so I'd need faith to some degree at least... the belief in the proposition in the absence of evidence.. This isn't how our understanding progresses. We can't go into a lab asserting faith into experiments or we'd be open to incorrect conclusions.

And we cannot reproduce Evolution in a laboratory and we cannot observe it currently in nature.  Evolution has never been empirically proven.   Yet, you have no problem with faith when it comes to accepting Evolution

Quote

Despite this you keep saying the creation model provides evidence..last being that's why planets move the way they do. Again with a sigh what evidence of a God involvement? Assertion.. faith and anology as an answer?

But you have not provided one satisfactory reason to reject the God of the Bible as the best explanation for the universe's existence and its ongoing processes that continue to pretty much work in order and overall uniformity. 

Quote

On Newton. He had a big God bias of course.. great in his day for sure..a valuable contribution. However his motion of planets wasn't complete.. Google Einstein's general relativity to predict the positions of mercury that Newton couldn't explain.

Doesn't matter.  The point is that Newton and other scientists of his day many of whom formed the foundation of modern science and founded the Royal Society, had no problem accepting that God was the author of the wonders they were discovering.

[Kevinb]

5 hours ago, Kevinb said:

It's a more rational explanation than anyone else can present.   The universe acts intelligently, and that is because there is an intelligence behind it that designed it and sustains it.   It is easier to believe that than to believe that it all happens by chance or happenstance.

This statement culminating in the last sentence is a text book description of an argument from incredulity fallacy I'm afraid and this is where I cited it. Google the definition although I did provide it. Basically you don't see how the universe can be the way it is if it wasn't acting intelligently you will just dump in it is acting intelligently by means you admit can't be demonstrated or investigated to.. making it even worse. 

Also that is an argument from ignorance fallacy...if you think science doesn't know more yet ...therefore God. Sorry you don't see that.  

Edited September 11, 2017 by Kevinb

[Kevinb]

21 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Quote

You see design because you recognise a perception of order and complexity.

No, it's not a perception.  Biological systems really are very, very complex and yet very ordered.  And science depends on that.

It's not your perception yet you offer nothing but analogy. You think complexity proves God?  Still gotta demonstrate that. 

23 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Quote

On Newton. He had a big God bias of course.. great in his day for sure..a valuable contribution. However his motion of planets wasn't complete.. Google Einstein's general relativity to predict the positions of mercury that Newton couldn't explain.

Doesn't matter.  The point is that Newton and other scientists of his day many of whom formed the foundation of modern science and founded the Royal Society, had no problem accepting that God was the author of the wonders they were discovering.

You mean presuppositions prior to darwin and further cosmological understanding. That doesn't help your case it harms it. Before we knew better people presupposed the earth was flat and was the centre of the universe to which everything went around. Let's not forget too what people were subjected to by religion back then when they had evidence which conflicted with doctrine 

[Guest shiloh357]

7 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

This statement culminating in the last sentence is a text book description of an argument from incredulity fallacy I'm afraid and this is where I cited it. Google the definition although I did provide it. Basically you don't see how the universe can be the way it is if it wasn't acting intelligently you will just dump in it is acting intelligently by means you admit can't be demonstrated or investigated to.. making it even worse. 

Also that is an argument from ignorance fallacy...if you think science doesn't know more yet ...therefore God. Sorry you don't see that.  

I realize that you really want what I said be an argumentative fallacy, but it's not.

Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/196/Argument-from-Incredulity

If anyone is making the argument from incredulity is it you, not me.