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.
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.
What the absolute fuck do you think light is.
Not at all what’s being said.
Thanks for the random quote that doesn’t refute what I said, nor does it even pretend to defend your claim that God is a liar.
The thing Christ Himself explicitly said, you mean?
So you can’t answer and you admit that the Bible is not 100% literal; got it.
No response; you’ve conceded the argument. Thanks for admitting it’s on topic.
No response; you’ve conceded the argument. Thanks for admitting the old standards of measurement are lying to you.
“I’m totally okay with not even knowing God’s name!” ~ the insane
By destroying the other 5%. The erasure of all known laws of physics otherwise doesn’t save much.
Asymptotic because your own premise claims “inevitable collapse,” but we’re nitpicking here.
Apparently not, because we don’t actually see it.
What number is that?
Why.
“NOOOOOO OBSERVATIONAL REALITY IS ITSELF A FALLACY! MY EXISTENCE ISN’T PROOF OF MY EXISTENCE!” ~ the clinically insane
So you can’t answer the question? Got it.
So there’s no evidence for the 100 billion people who died in the past because “there are only 8 billion alive today.” Got it.
“Inability to sustain such a population with the resources available, and in the face of whites specifically ceasing to keep them alive, because they’re literally only alive today because of things being stolen to whites.”
That’d be a reason, irrespective of any external forces that make it impossible regardless of “good” intentions.
“I don’t want my people to be exterminated” is a moral justification.
Because “hang on” effects can’t exist, definitely.
Neat. Since you seem to be the one who thinks he gets to dictate when The Day will be, why don’t you run your cosmological model through a computer and tell us when the laws of physics have to break down due to the slowing of light, and therefore the day when Christ will return? After all, you can’t reduce the strength of radiation indefinitely, and you’re already demanding people accept your “range of measurements” for the speed of light across time. Why not extrapolate that timeframe forward (just like the redshifters have extrapolated the timeframe backward) so you can know The Day (and be instantly killed for it, because the Bible says no man will know the day)?
Now go ahead and pretend you “thought of that” eventuality in your model before reading the preceding paragraph.
You wouldn’t know about that, though.
Already linked directly to five of them. And those are just the big ones.
We’ve seen it happen.
[citation needed]
Otherwise known as “objective observable reality” and “the laws of physics, which are immutable, as per God’s own design.” Wow, such a stretch to think about.
Thanks for admitting you can’t refute the information presented, instead falling back to strawmen.
And made to look old, thereby rendering your god as a deceiver.
“God lies to me. This is a good theory because I invented it.” ~ the clinically insane
Thanks for admitting that galactic collisions prove the outgassing of material that then may go on to coalesce into its own independent galactic shapes, irregular, elliptical, spiral, or otherwise.
It’s what happens to every other idealized sphere of matter at every other scale when external motion is applied, so yes, it does.
You’ve provided zero evidence for this emotional statement, no matter how many times you repeat it. Stars keep being formed. We see them formed. Stars keep exploding. We see them exploding. Systems keep coalescing. We see them coalescing. Everything you believe has no observation anywhere in nature.
Regular novae exist. Nothing you say or do will ever change this.
Supernovae exist. Nothing you say or do will ever change this.
Thanks for admitting that you either accept objective reality or simply don’t comprehend how matter works.
We’ve seen it happen.
It’s irrelevant to the existence of God.
Okay, shoot yourself.
Implicit in the claim.
Exact opposite implication on my part.
And they just so happened to look like meteor craters, and not like any form of erosion ever recorded, but it’s totally erosion. Right?
Cool, so the Flood didn’t cause the meteor craters that observationally predate all of human history. OH! You’ve just reminded me of Gobekli Tepe, which was humans recording the end of the Younger Dryas Period at a time that aligned with a measurable cosmological event.
So… still not your timeframe.
And that’s how all the fossils were created, right? The ones separated by hundreds of meters of depth?
So… death existed before Adam.
It doesn’t. That’s the point.
…the laws of physics break down. You’re just playing buggers at this point by throwing out all physical observations that have never changed no matter when they were observed.
Light speed is constant. The proper motion of spacetime itself need not be.
Other than the physical impossibility of it while retaining the known laws of physics.
So… wrong math, since the error ranges were wrong.
We did. They’re better now. They’ll be even better in the future. The reason light speed isn’t a perfect 300,000,000 is that we guessed in the past and got better at measuring in the present. I’m honestly surprised you didn’t mention that as “evidence” for your claims. I guess it would have put a “soft” quantifier on the rate of speed reduction that would lead people to more easily calculate the day that the laws of physics break down–and therefore prove The Day by which Christ must return, and so you didn’t want to draw attention to that.
Plants. Animals. Things we know God created before Man.
Sin-death. Christ Himself repeatedly makes a distinction between the death of the body and the death of the soul. I’d ask which one you think is worse, but you think they’re the same.
The one you’re giving it? Nah, it’s not needed.
Defined everything I said. Why don’t you go ahead and define the date (ooh! It can be a range!) when physics breaks down under your system. Then we’ll just wait Two More Weeks™ and watch it happen!
So maybe don’t use strawmen in the future?
Couldn’t be. If physical death and sin death are the same (Bible says otherwise), no physical interactions took place between any matter before the first bite of the fruit. There’s your universal creation story! It wasn’t finite matter being compressed into an infinitesimal region of infinite heat and infinite density; it was a woman taking a bite of fruit! The Big Bite! Boy, talk about shekinah glory! Maybe those christkillers were on to something when they made their “culture” matrilineal! Definitely not just because their men are so pathetic they can’t win wars, and so they had to come up with an excuse for why their “culture” passed down through the war bounty–I mean–their women.
A couple of minutes, at least.
Holy shit, lead with this next time. This is fascinatingly stupid. You should have made your OP an explanation of this. It’s at least interesting and a genuinely new way of looking at things. You might lead someone sane to a lateral thought that solves a real problem if you expound on that.
Whoops, you just admitted death existed before the Big Bite. If entropy existed at all, that’s death.
And again, you admit death without sin is irrelevant in a pre-Fall world, because the laws of physics ensure no information loss despite mass-energy state changes.
Cool. Space is big, though. Lot of volume.
They do if you want to keep claiming the laws of physics haven’t completely changed.
Which are recorded to have happened, yeah.
Same isotopes. Same half-lives. Different amounts of the isotope left. Can’t happen if they were all created at once.
Yes... didn’t.
… what.
Ah, so they wouldn’t accept the Bible? But I’d still use it. God is required for the Universe to exist, after all, no matter the foundational theory thereof.
Thanks for admitting God doesn’t lie.
The tests from Galileo to Michelson relied on physical apparatus catching the light. In 1983 they switched to measurement of cesium radiation and then krypton. So people aren't doing mirror interferometry anymore. If they did, it might help "prove me wrong".
It's not my job to know Mrs. Noah's name (it was Emzara).
I didn't erase them. BBT shows them inapplicable in the Planck epoch, which as I said Hartle and Hawking fit another whole universe into. Because Christians believe in transfiguration, that's another inapplicability range, that will also prevail in the future. So it seems fitting for it to prevail in the Garden.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:E.coli-colony-growth.gif&oldid=671921067
Technically, one (full ELE), because you can't have more than one, and because the second law over billions of years would force one sooner or later, because it would extinguish rather than create life, unless you invoke WAP. Oh, you did. Well then, thanks, you just proved that something guides destiny beyond what scientists can explain and reifies this universe rather than any other in the MUH. The fact that all life hasn't been extinguished means more than evolutionary factors are at work, which means evolution as a mechanism is unnecessary and so are the billions.
By saying the Oxygen Holocaust corresponds with Day 3 I point out it doesn't look to me like an ELE but like a special creation of plant life in which animal life isn't considered.
False comparison, the living come from others in their species, but with no macroevolution you don't get the narrative that this species comes from a thousand others.
The fact that you propose with some seriousness the extinction of about 7 billion humans as some kind of necessity is clearly shill territory and I have no idea why you went there except your nihil narrative.
When you asked what limit I wanted you to source, I referred you to your limit of seven billion needing to be lost. I don't see any other question this refers to.
Malthus was an idiot. Greater population means greater labor resources, and fuel resources are nowhere near exhaustion.
Then stop implying loss of seven billion is inevitable.
That's what Revelation assures, yes.
Good falsifiability test! That one is asymptotic, but granularity suggests that even with quantum effects you could calculate out an eventual max date (just like scientists have already calculated a heat death date and not gotten smitten for it). I'll get a tab open to work on it in spare time. Anyway I think that would be the end of the millennium and not the beginning, but it would still be good eschatology either way.
I had thought of the application of Tipler Omega Point theory to VSL, but didn't apply the particular test you suggest, no. So I complimented you on it.
Which is why it's odd for the billions-trusters that life continues.
No, we have no photo of a supernova actively triggering a molecular cloud, we've seen snapshots of various stars in a molecular cloud and made a Just So story ("model") from it.
I forgot, they assumed our bete noire, dark matter halos, so that their spirals would hold up; without it spirals don't last. "The presence of dark matter (DM) in the halo is inferred from its gravitational effect on a spiral galaxy's rotation curve. Without large amounts of mass throughout the (roughly spherical) halo, the rotational velocity of the galaxy would decrease at large distances from the galactic center .... However, observations [show] rotational velocities do not decrease with distance from the galactic center."
Dated canard; Adam wasn't told he or the universe looked old, he was told exactly how old it was. Nowadays people deceive themselves.
Not for long without dark matter halos. They're young.
"Despite various proposed models aimed at elucidating the mechanisms behind the formation of spiral arms in galaxies, none of these models have garnered conclusive confirmation. As a result, there is presently no reliable method for describing the evolution of spiral patterns in galaxies."
I accept your story as a story of heavy metal expulsion. I also point out its irrelevance.
Wow!
It's not implicit that VSL would entail changing "material composition of the Universe" whatever you mean by that.
I excepted the LRDs, which nobody understands yet, and pointed out that the existence of spirals at high redshifts boggles astrophysicists because they are so well-developed so "early". Well, if spirals are rapidly coalesced by accretion then they keep a simple structure from their origin and the wonder is that they haven't lost that structure in the present day.
By different rocks I was referring to geologic layers. Apparently you were referring to different rocks in craters instead. I agree with eroded craters, but not with there being any evidence that erosion proves billions, as you haven't brought any.
If you mean they're in the range of tens of thousands, irrelevant.
Haven't heard that, and Graph would be interested, but it would still be in the thousands range.
I defined my timeframe five different ways, from ~5,800 to ~100,000. In the title I summarized this as thousands. I'm not here to defend my calculation, I simply show it for honesty and immediately admit others. You act like agreeing with thousands proves thousands wrong.
Yes, polystrate fossils demonstrate that hundreds of meters can be deposited within a year.
I don't believe so, but many YECs who go for the 100,000 range keep the special Creation and still put Adam on Day 6. What we don't have is a giant physical death epoch before Adam, which you proposed without defense.
If you stretch Gen. 1-11 you can get to 11,000, but I'm not arguing that intramural quibble.
Uniformitarian fallacy again. Next research note: find other standard-model physical observations that change with time. Falsifiable, they ought to exist.
Right now it's defined that way by circular reference to radioactivity. This definition changes the interpretation of many kinds of data.
I showed you the models. Maybe you wanted to get specific with your hand-waving.
Circular, you haven't established why nobody's corrected what the error range should have been and what faulty assumption led to your charge the math was wrong.
We did not correct the older measurements or demonstrate why they gave answers outside our defined rate now; we just threw them out without wondering why. Suppression of evidence, that's a conspiracy!
Not true, Asimov wrote an article on why the closeness relates to other coincidences of resonance with the decimal system.
Now you know why.
I said I'd love to draw attention to it. Funny how you don't rake the heat-death calculators over this way.
1-3 days before. Do you want to come out of the day-age closet maybe?
I don't think they're the same, they're both part of the curse, which is why the Hebrew says "die and die" (idiomatically, "surely die").
You still forget satan. But this doesn't follow. I don't say they're the same, I say they both began at a point. I don't see your mechanism for concluding physical interactions couldn't happen without physical death.
Okay, so you didn't forget satan, but your long digression implies you think him irrelevant to initiating either physical or spiritual curse.
I didn't think I'd need to lead with c having a higher value and a breakdown process being initiated just to get others to explain their belief in billions. I'm glad I could apprise you though.
No, the transference of abundant energy into heat doesn't mean life forms must die without a trigger.
In your view of pre-Fall world, death exists and is information loss. In my view, there is minimal information loss that does not necessitate death.
Except I do claim they've changed. So I'm free to assemble the snapshots differently. Since they have no answer for the stumpers about why clocks haven't run out like spiral arm degradation et al., they are forced to narrative assemblies that don't work.
Yeah, the formation of earth was a crisis, and the flood was a crisis, and both are recorded by plenty of evidence.
Uniformitarian fallacy. When I've seen discussion of this phenomenon, there are several explanations, including leaching of the isotope.
I did read it. The age is determined by radio dating, not erosion.
When you say "if not [dated in billions], they would have eroded by now", the literal implication is that younger craters eroded but craters dated in billions didn't. I assumed you meant something else. If you're saying a crater didn't erode, that indicates it's young. If you're saying it did, I asked how old you could prove it to be by that process. I gave a date in the myriads.
The Bible should be accepted, not by appeal to authority, but by recognition of it containing the best explanation when one has grown past relying on tutors. Now the Bible says nothing from which you could infer physical death before Adam, so I ask where you get it from.
Checkmate. You don't intend to prove OP title wrong, you're just having fun sharpening your theories without being pinned down. Having finished the OP game, I'm happy to go on playing another.
the Book of Ephesians is a good read!