Isn't Big Bang Bad Science?

[37818]

So you agree that the speed of light might not have always been at the present rate?

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.

 

[church mouse guy]

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.

See, you are now postulating uniformitarianism.

 

[37818]

See, you are now postulating uniformitarianism.

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

 

[church mouse guy]

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

No, of course not. What I am saying is that you cannot prove that the speed of light has been the same since the beginning of the universe, can you? But, nevertheless, you insist that it is unchanged. That is uniformitarianism. It was in recent days formulated by James Hutton of Scotland in the late eighteenth century and popularized by lawyer and geologist Charles Lyell in the nineteenth century. Lyell was read by Darwin.

So I am wondering if you accept or deny the existence of a global flood 4300 years ago?

It will be the fire next time.

2 Peter 3:3-7 (KJV) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

 

[37818]

No, of course not. What I am saying is that you cannot prove that the speed of light has been the same since the beginning of the universe, can you? But, nevertheless, you insist that it is unchanged. That is uniformitarianism. It was in recent days formulated by James Hutton of Scotland in the late eighteenth century and popularized by lawyer and geologist Charles Lyell in the nineteenth century. Lyell was read by Darwin.

So I am wondering if you accept or deny the existence of a global flood 4300 years ago?

It will be the fire next time.

2 Peter 3:3-7 (KJV) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

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.

 

[church mouse guy]

Your dating methods are flawed because you have no proof that they are uniform. The bottoms of the oceans are new and do not contain enough sediment to support your statements scientifically.

 

[37818]

Your dating methods are flawed because you have no proof that they are uniform. The bottoms of the oceans are new and do not contain enough sediment to support your statements scientifically.

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.

 

[church mouse guy]

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.

The sediment at the bottom of the ocean is measured by depth. So much is deposited per year. At the current rate of deposit, the sediment layer suggests 4300 years not the 300 million years that you suggest.

Here is an article about helium that is just one of many problems associated scientifically with your dating methods, which you cannot confirm have always been at current rates since you have no evidence beyond recent history--you probably admit that.

Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay

 

[37818]

The sediment at the bottom of the ocean is measured by depth. So much is deposited per year. At the current rate of deposit, the sediment layer suggests 4300 years not the 300 million years that you suggest.

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?

Here is an article about helium that is just one of many problems associated scientifically with your dating methods, which you cannot confirm have always been at current rates since you have no evidence beyond recent history--you probably admit that.

Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay

What do you understand regarding uranium trapped zircon crystals?

 

[church mouse guy]

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?

What do you mean by that?

 

[Yeshua1]

No, of course not. What I am saying is that you cannot prove that the speed of light has been the same since the beginning of the universe, can you? But, nevertheless, you insist that it is unchanged. That is uniformitarianism. It was in recent days formulated by James Hutton of Scotland in the late eighteenth century and popularized by lawyer and geologist Charles Lyell in the nineteenth century. Lyell was read by Darwin.

So I am wondering if you accept or deny the existence of a global flood 4300 years ago?

It will be the fire next time.

2 Peter 3:3-7 (KJV) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

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

 

[church mouse guy]

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

Most of the eye witnesses from 300,000,000 years ago have passed away.

 

[Yeshua1]

Most of the eye witnesses from 300,000,000 years ago have passed away.

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

 

[37818]

What do you mean by that?

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!

 

[church mouse guy]

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!

Well, I think that you are on the right track. The global flood was catastrophic with many tectonic plates breaking open and floating around at forty miles an hour or more until the current continent distribution occurred. Also, there were thousands of volcanic eruptions and innumerable huge tsunamis. Then the land was lifted as high mountains formed and the water left on the land formed the landscape as we see it today. The seams at the bottom of the ocean are new and the water that broke free from beneath the crust of the earth ran off the land into the oceans which came into being at that time. We know from Mt. St. Helens that thin layers can be laid down every few seconds. So what we see today is the graveyard of all the animals--all of which were destroyed by the flood. So we have no information about radioactive decay before the flood, during the Genesis Flood, or after the flood until modern times. Also, an Ice Age lasting seven hundred years happened right after the flood, and we have no information about the rate of radioactive decay during the Ice Age.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, I think that you are on the right track. The global flood was catastrophic with many tectonic plates breaking open and floating around at forty miles an hour or more until the current continent distribution occurred. Also, there were thousands of volcanic eruptions and innumerable huge tsunamis. Then the land was lifted as high mountains formed and the water left on the land formed the landscape as we see it today. The seams at the bottom of the ocean are new and the water that broke free from beneath the crust of the earth ran off the land into the oceans which came into being at that time. We know from Mt. St. Helens that thin layers can be laid down every few seconds. So what we see today is the graveyard of all the animals--all of which were destroyed by the flood. So we have no information about radioactive decay before the flood, during the Genesis Flood, or after the flood until modern times. Also, an Ice Age lasting seven hundred years happened right after the flood, and we have no information about the rate of radioactive decay during the Ice Age.

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

 

[37818]

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.

 

[church mouse guy]

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

No, their dating methods are not scientific. Many deny a catastrophic global flood. They have about sixty theories of the ice age and none of them fit the facts. Modern science is unscientific in part because it is tied to federal grants, which makes it political. They believe the Grand Canyon was formed by a little water and a lot of time but science suggests a lot of water and a little bit of time. Science has passed evolution by and deep time has too many scientific problems. Recently it was discovered that the moon has a lot of water. Deep time does not know how the moon could have water.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, their dating methods are not scientific. Many deny a catastrophic global flood. They have about sixty theories of the ice age and none of them fit the facts. Modern science is unscientific in part because it is tied to federal grants, which makes it political. They believe the Grand Canyon was formed by a little water and a lot of time but science suggests a lot of water and a little bit of time. Science has passed evolution by and deep time has too many scientific problems. Recently it was discovered that the moon has a lot of water. Deep time does not know how the moon could have water.

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!

 

[Aaron]

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.