Since this field gets little traction here, I anticipate very little interest in this challenge.
-
Two billion Christians are committed to a record (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) indicating we are now in the 6,018th year of the cosmos (James Ussher: 6,029th).
-
Two billion other theists (mostly Muslims and Jews) are committed to the same record. Jews make this 5786 AM, recognizing that the Seder Olam Rabbah deliberately skipped about a dozen Persian kings, which I reckon as gaps totalling 232 years. Muslims, generally agreeing, also invented the kalam cosmology that teaches a finite beginning in historic times.
-
For the rest of mankind, all written history testifies the universe and earth are thousands of years old; even the Sumerian King List doesn't exaggerate beyond human lifespans of 43,200 years (Enmenluana), and the legendary Buddhists stop with lifespans of 100,000 years, still within the range of thousands and not billions. 200 creation traditions demonstrate the origin of the universe as designed and humanity as a rapid development, as a universal testimony.
-
All written science for 5,000 years [with the exception of a trend begun by Huxley, Darwin, and Wallace about 200 years ago] assumed a similar timeframe of thousands of years and an orderly creation by an external power.
-
Therefore the only exception to this testimony is a demonstrable cabal of antitheists that have invented and declared a "war" on theism and commandeered control of a scientific establishment that censors all other opinions and is sustained by leeched tax money (Stein, Expelled). These follow a pattern of other previous occasional pockets of people (not "scientists" like this time but always religionists) who claim vast age for the universe but who never could catch on due to their inconsistency and infighting (e.g. gnosticism).
-
This cabal relies on an ever-spinning series of cave shadows that are abandoned when they become useless, but during their lifetimes are upheld as "settled science" (finch beaks, Lamarckianism, Peking Man, steady state, hopeful monsters, panspermia, and nowadays dark matter, dark energy, anthropic principle, math universe hypothesis). They rely on parroting of pictographic narratives rather than on deliberative knowledge, such as the new "tree of life", Haeckel's embryos, Miller's tubes, the "march of progress" apes and men, etc. (Wells, Icons of Evolution).
-
One demonstration of the bankruptcy of this position is NASA's admission that neither of two theories, one dating the universe at 9 billion years rounded, and one dating it at 11-18 billion years, can be taken as settled science. If an official repository of old-earth evidence admits that all old-earth theories are suspect because they disagree and the error has not yet been discerned, then there is no proof of old earth.
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARKEWLOa0/the-universe-and-earth-are-thous/c/4eXueGWIjbS
Amazing projection, but not an advance of the discussion.
I appreciate your dare, I'll base it on interest level. Let's start with the four lines you dismissed with a stimulus response first.
Funny what you imply those words mean to you.
Except you don't even bother to show why you take the recent cabal's word for it that the devil is a billion years old.
God never said a billion years about this either.
Flatline isn't the best fit. More detailed charts agree. Discussion's over until you prove otherwise.
That's because I thought people would take "prove me wrong" literally. They didn't, I accept that.
If you pulled a gotcha, deliver the smoking gun. I don't think you did.
Yes, and no physical reality observation implies billions of years, it's all recently templated onto the evidence. There are many such templates, it's a pity nobody wanted to elephant-hurl them.
The laws of physics don't require inference to a billion years over thousands of years of observation. Also, BBT says they don't apply during the Planck epoch, which allows all kinds of exotic theories. VSL is very tame compared to how some people justify themselves epicyclically.
Ooh, now I know you're triggered by the Dictionary.com word of the year.
Funny because I'm providing it and I don't see you providing it for the most part. Your last comment had a little that I handled in place, this one had none so far.
Good, we agree on something. (Namely, its actual limit is impossibility regardless of the arguments to the contrary I was alluding to; my point was, those who argue evolution does exist recognize that it doesn't replace species very fast.) So what do we need those billions for that your god seemingly revealed to you?
I'll need to say hundreds of millions because I was thinking first of trilobites, but they are rated at 270 million overall. Secondly of bacteria (cyanobacteria), which can be said to rate unchanged for 2-3 billion years. Sponges, jellyfish, and a host of Cambrian species (more than usually appreciated) are over 500 million. Now, the evolutionists say that billions of new species are constantly forming themselves without any design, replacing species that they say have an average lifespan of 1-10 million years, but even if my statement is modified to include what they allege to be "new" species (that usually turn out to be interfertile) they still think that more are appearing (being "created") than are being extinguished, which is ridiculous. If you have billions of years and the second law, things fall apart and you have fewer species (especially seeing as there's no macroevolution). So this is an "evolution stumper", meaning something they don't think about that's mostly directed to them, but it's also a consequence of old age in any system. Do you believe in billions of years, with or without death, but with extinction still leaving the millions of species (or myriads of kinds) extant today?
Populations should have increased exponentially because there is no perfect equilibrium that applies over billions of years. Cycles will either trend upward or downward, with a mild exponent (not a hockey stick, logarithmically). The human exponent increased in the 20th century but the trend has always been up over any long period. Even if we assume all the species on the planet are ultimately in equilibrium via predator-prey cycles and other limits on resources, any butterfly effect can knock out that equilibrium easily. I don't believe science has ever really dealt with that reality, which is why I ask for proof for the unfounded statement that life has sat here 5 billion years without being extinguished by cataclysm.
This is exactly the fallacy OP points about about uniformitarians. However, I didn't say today's rate applied retroactively; averaging just above replacement rate (e.g. 2.2) will give slower but exponential growth.
We do know that the earth can accommodate many more billion people, and many more trillion (sometimes octillion) of other species. But they haven't reached those numbers, probably because they haven't had enough time.
Neil said the loose dust is about an eighth-inch thick. You saw the footprint. Then you get solid pack, which we drilled (not dug) to 292 cm depth. Scott Hubbard recalls the depth of the moon's loose dust was still debated in the range of ten feet by the time of Apollo 13 even after unmanned landers, which is why the shoes were oversized.
Why not? It's the old-earth folks who say a random aggregation of stars without a consensus alignment can't form out of coalescing plasma, so ask for their proof that that's the only way. Seems to me the ellipse indicates less effort to organize and the spiral indicates more (but eventually would get so flat as to become homogenous disks).
And?
Such as?
Specifically, the idea that Population III stars have to explode for there to be any stars that we see today, instead of the Population III stars having the right reactivity to generate the heavy metals internally instead of by chaos.
Your link to quasistar says "a confirmed observation has not yet been made", so I don't know what you mean by observed. I don't see that a quasistar's existence would prove old age, as that line of proof is supposedly the need for Pop III to create the other stars without reference to black holes.
No tree is a billion years old, which is the question. When I say thousands but give my personal preference within that range, I'm focusing on the "not billions" aspect, not the exact number.
You do believe in the deluge, yes? And you say this without numbers or evidence?
Then you dispute the genealogies from Adam to us. But you're not coming down on any particular date, and I did (3993 BC, just before the fall).
Give the proof!
Are you actually implying that the perfect Garden of Eden was full of death? But Adam who came from that milieu wasn't subject to death himself until he ate? Why don't you put forward your own theology? I still suspect you really have one but you're just chicken to say it in other than sound-bite insult-the-opponent format.
Summary: (1) I showed that billion-year population models are flawed; (2) I showed that uniformitarian assumptions led to a mistaken theory about moon dust, as they do with many other clocks; (3) I showed that spiral galaxies are incongruous in a billion-year world and require special chaotic pleading for their sustenance (you didn't show otherwise); (4) You didn't answer radiohalos at all. (5) I showed initial evidence that lightspeed decay has evidence and would solve problems not solved by standard inflation; (6) You allude to God teaching billions of years but without any indication of how your allusion can be judged; (7) You allude to radiation strength somehow implying a limit on lightspeed without any indication of your intent; (8) You allude to dendrochronology (not proof of billions); (9) And to meteor craters (dated by uranium-lead, i.e. by lightspeed, not by erosion); (10) And to death before Adam without proof.
So I appreciate that your most human side here is to give a few allusions so opaque that they require more searching (and time consumption) than it takes you to deliver them. But I didn't ask for opacity, so if you want to deliver the smoking gun the scene is all set for you. If not, we parry ....
"You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work."
No wonder I didn’t see it. This is interesting and calls back to something you said before.
You claimed measurements changed over time, and then admitted it’s because we were shit at measuring in the past. Has there ever been a single experiment performed using a modern (or historical) measurement apparatus that
And as I’m typing this, I’m realizing that I’m contextualizing it my head within the framework of “the Universe is billions of years old” and not “the Universe is ~5,800 years old,” so you should have absolutely no trouble defending yourself in this way because the degree of change in the measured amount should easily be capturable through modern methods over a human timeframe.
Right?
Neat, meta-projection! I see it occasionally. You’re definitely one to do it, though.
Maybe you should’ve defended your beliefs, then.
The implication is that you will, again, post things only jews have ever said or just general insanity and then refuse to defend it in any capacity.
THE. UNIVERSE. PHYSICALLY. EXISTS. The laws of physics operate. Things are real. There are interactions between things. They could not be otherwise without the observations every single person has ever made being correct.
Ah, so your god is Allah. Good to know.
Why would you link to that article to defend your beliefs?
“Objective reality doesn’t exist; just do whatever you want and call it the same efforts looking for the same result.” You might as well proclaim the EM Drive is real, now.
Your personal inability to understand it ≠ its nonexistence, sophist.
I’ll preface this by reiterating that your hoax about me even so much as talking about “the standard model” has never been true, but I’d like to address this point specifically. No shit it’s incomplete. These retards have had to invent 95% of the mass-energy of the Universe in order to get real observations to conform to their mathematical expectations. They’re obviously wrong, either at scale or in general. However, THOSE OBSERVATIONS INCLUDE A SPEED OF LIGHT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE. You’ve invented observations to get the Universe to conform to your ontological expectations.
One more site I’ll forgo using, I guess.
Run along now.
Truth isn’t a matter of agreement, sophist.
… for the evolution you literally just said–observationally–does not work quickly.
Your god, perhaps. God, on the other hand, doesn’t lie. When we’ve seen microevolution within human lifespans, it’s obviously real, obviously happens, and was obviously created by Him.
Not the definition and you damned well know it, but we can ignore that for the purpose of this discussion.
So the geological/archeological/biological system which puts single-celled organisms first, growing toward complexity (and therefore fewer numbers)… that doesn’t conform to these expectations? And it’s definitely not what we see today, with orders of magnitude more bacteria on Earth than fish or birds or elephants or humans?
Why don’t we see it in any other species, then. Particularly those of lesser complexity, where timescales should be observable more readily?
Like… the late 20th century. Which is unsustainable. And will collapse. Thus returning things to equilibrium after about seven billion deaths.
I hope I live to see it.
It’s dealt with in 5th grade science textbooks, where you learn that the cycles of predator-prey populations rise and fall with respect to one another, as observed in nature.
What the absolute fuck are you talking about. Too few words.
Guess you’re god himself, then. You said it, therefore it’s true.
But we see that. We see all the variations. Clearly they exist across time.
If you don’t know what the elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are, there’s no point pretending you’re a real user.
How are the fused heavy elements going to get into planets, then.
How are… oh, you even doubled down on it.
This.
They’re older than your claimed timeline.
I definitely believe that water will magically affect some rocks more than other, identical rocks right next door to it. That’s 100% something I believe. Can your mental illness parse sarcasm? I don’t think I ever asked that.
No, there’s physical proof that The Flood happened.
We have written human history from before that; try the fuck again, shlomo.
Your argument. Your timeframe. Your claim. YOUR proof, motherfucker. Anyone, anywhere, can take five seconds and see you’re lying using basic, reproducible research. It’s on you to show that every single thing we’ve observationally confirmed about the nature of reality is false.
Are you actually implying that plants can sin?
“Dogs are moral agents” isn’t part of it.
“Bible says so.” There’s your sound bite. Get fucked.
Didn’t happen
Cool; doesn’t disprove the observed age of the Universe.
Already showed otherwise.
Because you didn’t defend them at all. I don’t have any obligation to reiterate things people already know.
You showed a guy who said that objective standards are icky fascism.
The observable universe.
Directly indicated it, yeah.
Don’t need to. Just proof that you’re lying.
Nice strawman. Only talked about erosion. I don’t care about other dating methods. We know how water and stone behave.
Thanks for admitting you have no proof of a lack of death before Adam, particularly since the Bible talks expressly about sin-death.
Cries out in pain, etc.
OH NOOOOOOOO HOW DARE I MAKE YOU PUT IN ACTUAL EFFORT TO DEFEND YOURSELF! SURELY I SHOULD JUST WORSHIP EVERYTHING YOU SAY SIGHT-UNSEEN, RIGHT?
Almost as though some conversations have prerequisite knowledge to justify admission to them, huh.
I didn’t ask for brain damaged psychosis that observational reality disproves, and yet here you are with this thread. Almost as though your personal opinion means fuck all when you post something on a public forum, right?
Said the person whose ideological views have zero observational measurements in reality.
Darn. I should have known better than to think you’d give away actual evidence for any of your claims.
The chart showed that, even given the tolerance rates of the older measurements, there is a downward trend that is not best fit to a flatline. The phenomenon is not the highest statistical significance, but it's enough to provoke inquiry. Further, it's my understanding that everybody measuring lightspeed lately is using atomic measurement that will give the same dimensionless rate regardless of whether its rate compared to physical process is changing, so the chart needs adjustment by comparing different methods of measurement too.
Now we could well ask why God set up lightspeed to have this character of seeming close to constant over a short term of measurement, as if he were baiting the uniformitarians into their false assumptions. The short answer is that he always holds something in reserve to be revealed later, so our disagreement is a healthy part of the revelation of the reality to humanity. But I start from the Bible literally meaning what it said (having tested that hypothesis and found it best), because it's a package deal and what it says about everything else is so solid that if there's a quibble about earth age and there's evidence on both sides I'm still comfortable with the evidence that aligns with the historic testimony of the Bible. When the other side proceeds with ridicule and illogic in part, that's further evidence they have nothing, as you know.
All the Christian theologians of the 15th to 18th centuries upheld the scale of thousands of years, Ussher and Lightfoot and Whiston being the most notable.
Not really. Science is full of wrong observations and theories that are constantly being corrected, including whole classes of observations at once. It's true that the establishment has built a web of interdisciplinary connections on the age point, but whenever I wave my hand through this web it disappears every time.
Nope. My God is Yahweh in Jesus Christ. That's guilt by association, Patrick.
That was the first copy of the accurate unadorned data that came up. I didn't cite it for the article's conclusion and am not sure what that conclusion was. The chart is enough to show that the flatline isn't the best fit.
Seems like scientists smarter than me are proposing VSL without any concern about its effects on radiation or fine structure. So if you have such a concern you should lay it out. Perhaps you have none.
Great, I'm glad we've worked out something we solidly agree on.
Which is exactly why VSL does allow us to get rid of the extraneous invented 95%. You should thank me. If the universe is younger, the whole reason for the 95% (to keep it held together over those billions) becomes irrelevant.
That's what the evolutionists are doing. On both sides it's called starting with a hypothesis. Eventually one hypothesis is disproven by preponderance. The question is whether someone will adjust their ontology based on preponderance. I will, which is why I accept things like CMB and inflation after having initially been ontologically opposed to them.
Um, since macroevolution doesn't exist, I don't understand why you need those billions.
Yes, microevolution is adaptation within kinds, as proven by DNA barcodes and Klee diagrams.
Of all the "species" claimed by evolution, the vast majority remain interfertile with "prior" species, which is microevolution. Perhaps myriads (out of the claims of billions of species) are indeed independent (as proven by barcodes), which indicates myriads of special creations, which should not be opposed because they are mathematically just as absurd as a single abiogenesis.
Correct, growth toward complexity contradicts the second law. Highly ordered things mathematically self-destruct in billions of years and it's mathematically absurd for them to keep getting more ordered. In a closed system. The higher population totals of smaller creatures are not the point, it's that they should have continued growing exponentially until a limit crisis occurred and they crashed and burned. That hasn't happened for millions of "species". The model of cyclical speciation doesn't explain this given its timescales. The fact that we do have mass extinction events begs the question of why any species are still alive. (WAP?)
We do see a general upward trend of growth (due to the existing order in DNA) in all species in fitting environments. What we don't see is either the catastrophic hitting of a growth limit followed by extinction, or a wasting extinction at a grand rate. The theory that natural population cycles plus macroevolution is enough to explain the sustenance of the diversity of life for billions of years is facile and uncriticized.
Sounds like a Georgia Guidestones and Club of Rome guy. Now I see. Maybe you'd like to put forward some other source for this proposed limit than the same cabal who wants to carry out those deaths.
As I said, unsustainable for billions of years, that 5th-grade sinewave was what got me doubting. "Too neat." Sooner or later some other environment adjustment changes the wave, and some of those changes are ELEs.
Yeah, which is why galactic evolutionary theories that one came from another are sus. They couldn't explain how the neat spiral structure persisted without change for billions of years, so they invented theories that new spirals are always forming (detritus left over from horror-film Hoyle theory). The spirals are evidence of youth.
I wasn't asking what they were, I was asking what the proposed "minimum timeline" was.
Heavy metal creation requires exacting conditions and I haven't memorized all of them. It seems to me that accretion of the sun and system together permits the heavy metals to be formed en masse when the conditions are reached and then to be accreted at different compositions in all the bodies in the system. The point is that the solar system isn't enough billions of years old so they had to have a theory or continuing creation of solar systems (Hoyle detritus). I presume that the young-earth scientists have put forward models of getting the formation criteria together, but if I have to be the groundbreaking YEC on that sobeit.
I saw little red dots, interesting, and totally unsettled as to working hypotheses. Even if quasistars exist, they aren't required to exist for the stars that exist to be formed. But in stellar evolution they are required because they can't figure out how these stars stuck around for the billions of years. So the point again is that the theory doesn't match the evidence of the current populations of stars. It's duct tape and baling wire all the way down with them.
Old trees stay in the thousands range (and I separately remarked that dendrochronology has some slipperiness). The OP is requesting proof of billions. The fact that I have a specific fun chronology was not stated as the baseline but only as an example; I see that people didn't understand that, so I'll work on clear comms in the future.
You sound like you've got some idea that layers automatically prove billions rather than rapid sedimentation in rapidly changing conditions. That's question-begging. If you have a specific problem with flood geology, prove the billions.
Great, and yet you accept the billions as if The Flood didn't cause most of the layering?
Not really, I looked. We have Sumer and Egypt primarily, and they obviously exaggerated. There are a couple things in history arguably older that 6,018 years (see, having fun again), but they don't show the billions and their resolution, while interesting, is unimportant to OP.
Not really. To prove billions you need a theory because no basic reproducible observation in itself will prove it. Your best one was lightspeed but I showed that lightspeed constancy is not solidly proven due to recent measurements not reproducing phenomena from past measurements. So your exaggeration lands on no actual test, which is why I asked proof. I'm only stating my case with enough precision to show it's sufficient to withstand such dodges as "five seconds".
Plants die because Adam morally introduced into their environment a physical spiritual principle that cursed them. There is no necessary reason why animals or plants should die except the second law's ultimacy. But the second law doesn't apply in the Planck epoch, and so I say it didn't apply for a number of days after that either: the Garden was deathless. It would be silly for God to say, Adam, since you're the first sentient creature, you won't die like these billions of years of other creatures, you'll only die due to moral fault, but the rest died without having a morality system. No, they were cursed because of Adam and weren't cursed before that. That's a theological question, but I'm honestly unaware of some idea that we can respect the Bible's data on the introduction of death while holding billions of years of death. Teilhard de Chardin came the closest I believe, but he dissed the Bible and mysticized it.
It doesn't say billions, it doesn't say death before Adam, it doesn't say pyramids before Adam, it doesn't say any of the things you've postulated that I contended.
Population: If you didn't see it happen, that's not on me. Population growth models are insufficient to explain continuation of species over hundreds of millions of years.
Clocks: A single clock would disprove observed age unless an origin theory of the clock is given, which is why the uniformitarians work so hard to invent origin theories like dark matter-energy. But we have hundreds of such clocks, of which I've alluded to a couple, and uniformitarians flee even though it's just an application of their own principle.
Stellar formation: What you showed is that there are a couple observed phenomena (little red dots, elliptical galaxies). You didn't show that any star has a billion-year history.
Radiohalos: I showed that radiohalos (particularly of polonium with 3-minute half-life) testify of catastrophism and have no explanation in gradualist composition of the earth. Just an example of a clock that I find probative. You don't have to answer, it's just that in the presence of so many clocks I find hand-waving dismissal of all of them as less probative.
Lightspeed: I showed the chart, which everyone agrees on, I wasn't linking it for the connected argument. I also didn't bother to try to take an extra minute to link the chart without its attachment, because the chart is objective.
Epistemology: Nobody has observed billions of years.
Radiation: If you're done presenting your evidence from your question about radiation, I don't see that you've proved any assertion.
Dendro: It's not lying to say I believe a specific age but I'm making the post to defend the general range (thousands). But attested tree trunks over 6,000 rings are very few and are easily miscounted.
Erosion: And offered no proof that erosion requires billions. I looked it up and these craters are not dated in billions because of erosion but because of radioactivity.
Bible: If it were proven that the passage was not about physical death at all, that would be no proof that the Bible teaches physical death before Adam. All evidence supplied on that point is extrabiblical.
Not at all, just calmly take time similar to what you invested in dilatoriness and review and judge the rationales for the billions. About the only one you really reviewed, rather than just alluded to sight-unseen, was lightspeed. If you have a theological rationale for billions, say so (you apparently mean "God spoke through nature but only as interpreted for me by the recent cabal").
If we both decline to produce evidence, then you haven't proven me wrong.
Neat, except “you don’t know what you don’t know” is the name of the game here. Why not try running those old experiments using old equipment again… today? Because I don’t give a shit about your arbitrary “tolerances” rated against modern standards.
“We had worse measuring equipment back then.”
WOW, A SINGLE, REPRODUCIBLE STANDARD FOR EXPERIMENTATION! We should come up with a word to describe that.
The answer is that your god is a deceiver, yeah. The real one isn’t.
“I was just lying the whole time, lol.” ~ God; [no book]; [no year]
Except where Jesus’s parables are concerned, right? Definitely have a separate standard for that. By the way, where did the wise man build his house upon the rock? What rock? What shoreline?
Phew, good to know you have no evidence.
They also damned jews to hell for all eternity, which is what the Bible says and which you expressly ignore. So which is it. Is the Bible lying to you? Or are the old standards of measurement–which produce incorrect calculations even in their own time–lying to you?
Cool, not 100% of them. That means they’re right observations.
So Allah, got it. Actual people say God. They don’t couch their heresy in jewish pronunciation.
When you’re of the guilty people, it’s hard not to associate with them.
Fixed that for you.
And when they have actual experimental evidence for it, let anyone know. They don’t.
You’re purposely not replying to what’s being said. Keep it up and you’ll get nothing but mockery thereafter.
For what, continuing to lie?
They’re unrelated statements.
You mean how every single measurement of the speed of light shows it isn’t changing?
Already explained. Your implication is asymptotic rise in population. We don’t see that except in artificial circumstances. Actual evolution doesn’t “replace quickly,” and so current populations are what they are because it wasn’t quick.
Sapience is quite plainly localized negentropy. We’re here. Thus we don’t contradict the second law.
Here we are. Oops.
They didn’t, therefore your theory is wrong.
The Oxygen Catastrophe isn’t an example of this?
As human history shows, it’s pretty damned difficult to kill every member of a group, even if there’s a conscious effort in doing so–never mind random physical laws. I don’t see any question that needs to be begged.
Translation: “All of the criticisms were defeated and that hurts my feelings.” You can’t mean anything else, because no fucking shit it was criticized when first presented, and for decades afterward.
Clearly not. You’re the one who claimed “asymptotic growth must naturally collapse” (which is obvious), and so artificial asymptotic growth must artificially collapse.
What limit?
Nah, I think I’m fine citing THE PEOPLE WHO ACTIVELY WANT TO KILL BILLIONS OF PEOPLE AND WHO HAVE THE PHYSICAL CAPABILITY OF KILLING BILLIONS OF PEOPLE as my source for the expectation that billions of people will be killed to serve their interests. Because we’re discussing consciousness, I don’t need any other source.
Hence why entire categories of the kingdoms of life rise and fall in prominence and prevalence.
None of which existed, according to you, so why mention that?
So supernovae can’t create new stars?
Why would it have to?
And yet we see them from billions of years ago, as well as today. So they’re clearly forming at various times. Galactic collisions prove this.
The conditions are stellar fusion, released thereafter in supernovae.
…were clearly part of the protostellar cloud, put there by a previous supernova–the positional remnants of which we can map by recording the matter density of the local stellar neighborhood. And just like there was still hydrogen and helium left over when that star exploded, there were eventually increasing amounts of heavier metals expelled by it and previous events.
The thing we’ve proven observationally?
“The speed of light can change, but the material composition of the Universe can’t!”
What a theory.
Older than your timeline.
By promoting “proof” of ~5,800.
Did I say layers? I said different physical conditions of the same materials under the (claimed) same external stimuli.
Literally irrelevant. Prove water can create meteor craters under any material conditions.
Literally irrelevant. Prove water can create compressed rock (and transmute the organic material trapped therein) under any material conditions.
Apparently not hard enough.
They show you’re wrong, even about your own source.
lol
No, you didn’t.
Translation: “I refuse to accept that we're better at measuring things now, therefore all of physical reality has changed and all measurements in history were correct because it would hurt their feelings if they were wrong.”
I suppose the Earth has also physically changed in size (up and down) multiple times in human memory because someone did some math wrong, right?
It isn’t, though.
lol
lol
Why. Your answer will have to include an explanation for why none of the physical laws of the universe existed until the moment Eve ate the fruit, and why everything that existed up to that point managed to keep existing across the boundary.
The answer above will have to continue here, now explaining how mass-energy transmutation isn’t equivalent to death in a physical sense. You can also talk about information preservation here.
lol
Already covered.
Que.
Already covered. The physical properties of the timeframes of nuclear fusion fuel use are well known. The behavior of masses of fused material is relatively well known. Look at the Sun (directly, with binoculars, or with a spectroscope) and you can determine its composition. Measure its behavior and you can get its mass. Whoopsie doodles; we know how stars operate. And how they live and die. And how long that takes, based on the composition. And that it’s not just distant ones with old light.
“Catastrophes can’t happen because… uh…” isn’t an argument.
Everyone agrees that measurements were worse in the past, yes. We have better tools now. You’re claiming the equivalent of “It was physically impossible for humans to ever move faster than 30 MPH when the first train was invented simply because that’s as fast as the first train could move.” No one agrees on that.
An objective record of measurements made respective to their recording instruments’ sensitivity.
Translation: “I have never gone out at night and looked up, therefore no one else has.”
Your explanation for isotopes that are less radioactive than other samples of identical material is… what?
They weren’t, though.
Yep, it can and does.
Didn’t.
And yet… are. Because if not, they would have eroded by now.
It doesn’t need to. The Bible is only truth; it is not all truths.
“Observational reality.” Yeah, I did. Next?
God doesn’t lie. This really, really seems to be difficult for you to understand, but that makes sense since you’re a jew.
With CDK it wouldn't be effective. You'd need a physical lightspeed test not dependent on radiation that has necessary precision. I'd love deferring the argument to such an experiment.
Two known classes of error ranges disagree incompatibly. We must infer the best explanation. You don't seem to get that narrowing the error range is not the problem. If at noon I measure the sun at 155-215 degrees (it's actually 180), and at 3 p.m. I measure it at 269-271, the imprecise measurement doesn't mean it was at 269-271 degrees at noon. You also don't seem to understand that if the measurement method gives a dimensionless result then it doesn't tell us if the result is actually changing relative to m/s^2.
1 Peter 1:12. Kinda like supersession.
I'll ask Jesus.
No, off topic.
No, false dilemma.
I say God too. Some misuse "God", so I'm happy to be persecuted in the name of Yahweh, Jehovah, Yeshua, or Jesus.
You imply you want to get rid of the 95%, I got rid of it for you.
Not asymptotic, exponential.
We see it wherever there is room and fuel to grow. Those set natural limits, but the natural limits of the whole of the earth haven't led to the number of ELEs we'd expect from getting hit for billions of years.
Correct; if evolution were true it wouldn't replace species on the scale proposed in the millions range, they'd go extinct sooner. So their species must last much longer than millions of years to have today's populations without extinction. But such perfect equilibrium is absurd. You're the extinction master, you should follow.
WAP then.
Since they didn't extinguish, something preserves them in perfect equilibrium (God or WAP). Theistic evolution, that's buying the cabal sight-unseen, throwing out the Bible when it disagrees. That other evolution, WAP becomes the god. Either way lynx-hare populations don't remain stable for many millions of years. So it's more than likely they didn't exist that long; in recorded history populations go extinct frequently.
Also called the Oxygen Holocaust? Around here we call it Day Three. Funny, life found a way against the odds, must be WAP again.
Thanks for being a beacon of hope for the white race! But evolutionists believe in extinction of billions of species, even though we only have a few million today, because they keep getting "replaced" so fast. No evidence for those billions either; only for separately barcoded stable kinds.
Macroevolution was. The argument from population hasn't to my knowledge been pressed or rebutted with force.
(1) Your dismissing a known seven billion is sus. (2) Pop growth has setbacks but there's no reason for such a severe global one and no moral justification to countenance any such reason. (3) Revelation gives natural limits of two waves of mass global extinction being a quarter and a third, which together might be taken as a half; so that implies by fiat there's no going back to one billion.
So the Guidestones and Club after all. My club has superior power, Jesus and me and some others. When you stop listening to the cabal lies you'll be so happy! No weapon formed against you will prosper, bookmark that.
But never a single global ELE in billions of years.
Because it's a contradiction in their model, which 2 Peter 3 called out as ignorant.
It's a theory! But it's also unnecessary to know.
Since today's spirals weren't created billions of years ago so they need a Just So story for them to keep being created.
So you do believe in billions again. In a young universe they were all formed at the same time. In an old, you need an epicycle to form new ones, so you invent a new bad theory.
Not really, various snapshots of different collision moments don't require a narrative of spirals forming from elliptics. The point was, a theory about spiral formation patched onto the original says that both are sus. The population of spirals is an embarrassment for old-age.
Then you can't have carbon without black holes, how poetic of the devil. Stellar fusion gets along very well without such a program. The initial accretion of the early inflation era appears sufficient to leave carbon in the planets that form from the initial plasma chains of the star. However, I'll look into it further, because that one piques me to ensure I have the timing accurate.
Cool story bro. And totally not a proof of billions of years or of this actually happening, just a theory about how it could happen, created to avoid reference to God.
Nobody's observed creation of a solar system.
Not said. In fact you just implied that however far back in time are the galaxies we look at, the population is the same. Except LRDs, which are new to me as well as everyone else.
You said "some rocks more than other, identical rocks right next door". Different tectonics and flows yield different rocks next door to each other, and in catastrophe this is observed rapidly, as at Mt. St. Helens.
Never said that; meteors cause meteor craters. Erosion seems not good for measuring craters beyond about 50,000 years (Barringer and Xiuyan), which agrees with the thousands range in title. Perhaps you know some erosion model in the billions range.
Floods redeposit sediment that is compressed by gravity and that traps organic remains all the time, we call them mudslides when they're small enough. What billion-year theory am I competing with, the Geologic Column? Every site has a different Geologic Column though, so I ask.
I said "not really". Adding 5,000 for Jericho is still in the thousands range (OP permitted hundreds of thousands). This is silly when the OP is that it's not billions of years old.
You mean that because the Bible implies Jericho is younger than 11,000 years that I should ignore the Bible and take the cabal's word for it? You don't, you just backdate Adam, right?
So the 2dF Survey looked for redshift up to 0.2. This observation was then interpreted via lightspeed theory and a host of assumptions to correspond to an age of 2.5 billion. But if the whole scale is wrong then the actual age can go back onto the thousands scale. I ask for the reason the redshift must necessarily indicate constant lightspeed and thus great age. If the mainstream BBT puts inflation at a former rate millions of times that of light, I see no problem with putting light at a faster speed in the past too. (You then repeat tropes about measurement addressed at the top of this comment.)
The past measurements were not about wrong math, but about known error ranges. If the math was wrong we'd correct the measurements, but since the math was right we can't. So evolutionists just hide the evidence and hope you don't notice. Now that's conspiracy!
Your story of years of death before Adam, with a new kind sin-death being introduced by the fall, might involve (1) pre-Adamite Homo sapiens that birthed Adam but don't count as human because they didn't get that divine spark, thus human classism, (2) the charge "fruit brings death" being silly because they would already be subject to death, (3) redemption not being related to resurrection but only to sin-death, despite millennia of belief in resurrection culminated by Jesus's proof. It's so silly it needs a whole new wonky explication because you don't get there from the Bible. But if it's just Skil implying and never defining, it's further silly by not being even a theory but just my guess of your theory.
Laws were much the same. The moment that the devil fell, a little before Eve, a physical curse began upon him, spread through Adam. This began light decay by a quantum jump, and cursed nature; it manifested as increased entropy. Mass, energy, info retain nature.
And the carborn formation phase is under 1,000 years.
And none of these snapshots require assembly into the billions story.
Correct, halos are formed from catastrophe.
You mean different half-lives? Their relationship remains unchanged with VSL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yarrabubba_impact_structure&oldid=1302313723
Facially that says that younger craters erode and older don't. Maybe you mean older craters are hidden, yet they're attested and dated by radioactivity.
You didn't review evidence here; what you did I answered in place. If a class asked you to teach why the billions, they wouldn't want appeal to authority and circular argument, they'd want evidence that yields billions as best inference. On this page it hasn't been posted.
The heavens don't proclaim billions. That's a very recent con.