Isn't Big Bang Bad Science?

No. That would mean plank's constant is not a connstant as well. The velocity of light = frequency x wave length and Energy = frequency x plank's constant. And other problems which would make this universe not to exist as it does.

 

So do you deny physics? If not, give the physics for the change in the speed of light and the change of plank value.

 

I reject uniformitarianism as it refers to geology (see 2 Peter 3:5-6).

So I am wondering if you accept or deny the existence of a global flood 4300 years ago? The 4300 years ago I reject. Correlated carbon 14 dating requires the flood to have been before that. Dating a post flood tree older than that.

Flood fossils common to both sides of the Atlantic. The graduated dating of igneous rock from the trench to the coast. At about 300 to 200 million years ago.

Then there is the one strata dated at 65 million years.

Who in the creation science field has provided what you would accept as good science?

As to the speed of light, what science is there for it to have changed? Remember the velocity of light is a constant where it is equal to frequency times wave length in a vacuum.

 

Do you know the difference between Igneous and sedimentary rock? Only the igneous rock can be directly dated, if at all. Sedimentary rock cannot be directly dated.
The reported dating of said rocks is what we got. How they are dated is often hidden for the average reader. And the science is more often then not, not understood.

So unless you got specific data, it is your word against a reported dating. If you want to argue the reported dating is not scientific, fine. But what then is the science you got?

(Dating of organics such as trees against counting the tree rings.) Carbon dating was discovered by Willard F. Libby in the 1950's. I have in my hand a copy of the second edition of his book, dated 1955, "Radiocarbon Dating." Today carbon dating is very accurate. They use mass spectrometers to identify and count atoms. Something Libby did not have when he wrote his book.

 

Here is a question: Is that 4300 years layers of sediment evenly distributed over the alleged graduated dated igneous rock from the trench to the coast? Yes or no? Then we need to ask as to why?

What do you understand regarding uranium trapped zircon crystals?

 

The speed of light cannot be proven to be the same rate in entire Universe, or the same rate since creation itself, correct?

 

Well, can ask God, or one of His angels!

 

Well, if the graduated dating of the igneous rock is evenly covered by 4300 years worth of sediment then what ever caused the radiological graduation to cause the rock to be able to be dated that way could not have been those millions of years as measured. Something else caused graduated radiological decay over some short period of time!

 

Not much of modern day dating theories will reconcile with the Flood event, correct?

 

I have no problem, if the flood took place millions of years ago or only thousands of years ago. While i would be inclined to think the Biblical flood to have been global, if the flood was in fact universal but local, that would be fine. The problem is it seems that OEC cannot identify the flood strata. The fact that here are common fossils on both sides of the Atlantic seems to suggest it was in fact global.

 

The truth is that both we and the ewvolutionists look at the same data , but their preconceived "truths" require to totally, and wrongly, interprete the scientific facts!

 

The Big Bang isn't science. It's philosophy. Theoretical physicists and astronomers aren't trying to understand their observations honestly (for the most part). they're attempting to explain their observations according to unguided, random naturalistic forces. That is a philosophical constraint, not a constraint based on observation.

When Hubble discovered that light from distant galaxies is equally red-shifted, it seemed to mean that the distant galaxies were moving away from the earth at an equal rate, and that seemed to suggest that the earth was located in the center of that phenomenon.

Well we can't have that, because that would mean the earth is in a special or favored location in the universe, and that would mean there is a mind and purpose behind our existence. So how do we explain it? All of 3d space is expanding! Like raisins in a muffin all move away from each other as the bread is baked because the dough is expanding, so we observe all other bodies moving away from us at equal rates because space is expanding.

We can't test that hypothesis. It's not even the simplest answer, but it's the favored answer, because those who govern the institutions of science prefer a naturalistic explanation.

…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs...such a favored position is intolerable….Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape . . .

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/paper.pdf (p.40)
​

So, it's philosophy, not science.