So is it definitely gonna be project blue beam? Predictions here!
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (77)
sorted by:
Hey Graph, I've explained all of those here except the date of asteroids, which hasn't come up but is a straightforward application of the others. Plus I could pull out my references for literally a hundred other young-earth dating mechanisms. So it's not that simple. Until the late 19th century, all scientific consensus used a cosmic age under a million years, even though the Hindus were conducting initial market tests with random large numbers.
Your world view requires, for all intents and purposes, God to be a Liar. Why would God make it look like stars are clearly many millions of light years away? Why would God make it look like c was invariant? And make the CMB look like it’s 13.4 billion light years away? Why would God make the rock layers look like they got deposited slowly over millions of years of slow geologic processes, infrequently punctuated by catastrophic (and relatively rapid) layering events?
Your ideology reeks far too much of “Satan buried dinosaur bones to test our faith!”-esque cope. Especially so to so flippantly dismiss “the establishment perspective”. Grand claims require grand evidence. You’ve yet to overturn the consensus much less propose a coherent alternative. Imo atleast. To balance out your opinion above.
It's not that it has deceptive appearance, it's that age narratives are templated onto the data. Peter specifically answers that people deceive themselves by assuming uniformitarianism, that everything continues in the same way it has since creation, willfully forgetting (as you know) evidence of cataclysm that belies uniformitarian math.
(1) On standard math, the stars appear millions of lightyears away because they are, and because (as he said) the heavens were stretched out suddenly, millions of times faster than lightspeed, as BBT agrees. (2) Right now c invariance is by definition but it did not appear invariant before this definition; if it wobbles a little we wouldn't know it because we'd assume our dynamic seconds are a little off from the radioactive second. (3) Same as 1. (4) When polystrate trees appear in multiple layers across "millions of years" of invented geologic time, that's evidence of big catastrophe, not occasional punctuation. The rocks don't look like they were deposited over millions of years, and there is no geologic column anywhere on earth that contains all the eras; they are just mishmashed together into one narrative and given subepochs, rather like your many geologic catastrophes, without any real evidence that one theory is better than another.
Satan did bury stupid arguments in atheist brains to test our faith, yes, but dinosaurs are no threat to the young earth, only lying stories about them are. But lying stories about reptilians go back to the Garden of Eden, don't they?
Look, Graph, if a plant shoots up 3 feet from a seed in a couple days, and later you observe it growing only 1 inch a week, are you going to say the plant is 30-40 weeks old by uniformitarian assumption, or are you going to investigate whether plants have differences in growth spurts? It's the same for every single assumption of old earth. I've debunked the worst the establishment can offer, I offer myself to take on all comers, I'm not surprised by their feints anymore. I'm not trying to "prove" young earth as a whole because I find it better to deal with the specific argument that comes up any given day. The evidence is enough for me on the grand claim, and I'm happy to go into specifics with a willing audience, but I don't want to fall into a time-eating trap, so I seek to stick to a response that is not much more than the time the interlocutor put into it.
I don’t think you get to invoke BBT inflation when that’s something which explicitly occurs during the first few microseconds of existence, LONG before any stars form. And if the stretching out occurred after the stars formed, that would be observed as redshift (it isn’t, at least, not the type you describe, of a one-time stretching event)
And you don’t need to tell me about this stuff. I was posting about “fundamental constants” not necessarily being all that constant years ago. You would give those posts shit because you don’t like Rupert Sheldrake lmao. But you writing some sentence of bullshit on the internet doesn’t account for tens of thousands of professionals and experts who operate in these domains every day who would say your views are next to unfounded.
Anyway, my point is not to get into a debate about any given one of these subjects. My point is you need to deal with “the consensus” with a little more respect than the flippancy of the we wuzzers. Take some lessons from sheldrake:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sF03FN37i5w
You may be right because the Bible invokes a big difference between light and stars. In the plasma universe origin hypothesis, the light begins everywhere at once and coalesces into plasma strands that eventually accrete into stars; even if there were not lightspeed decay, it seems this would account for the microwave background. But then by the same token, ultraviolet radiation would have redshifted into visible light as well. When you're getting to the range of 10 billion lightyears, you've had a chain of several assumptions to come to that conclusion and I'm not an expert on the whole series; but I do know that the experts are arguing about them, and no single news article is interested in giving the whole chain of inferences but only in quoting the scientists who assume them. For the flat-earthers, there is no evidence of 10 billion lightyears, and this opinion can be joined on many other assumptions too, as is demonstrated in the range of opinions in the "consensus" literature.
Oh, I respect it enough to read it open-mindedly, but not enough to agree that it has right of appeal to authority. I'm pretty big on there being a conspiracy to cover up stochastic electrodynamics, so I hope that level of respect is understandable. But I am free to speak boldly due to the knowledge that truth will never deceive me and I have nothing to fear from myriads of contrary "experts": either my claims get backed up by the evidence, or I learn something new and admit it. So sometimes I am "very bold".