I appreciate your hard thoughts; I'll try to work this out but I don't want to sound dogmatic because I think it'll hold water but I'm open to any neglected aspect. First, us being one vine doesn't seem to contradict the creed. I don't have a "branch theory", I just have John 17 and Romans 11. I also have quite a few texts that Christ's body has "parts" (members), such that Paul even calls them head, eye, hands, feet (1 Cor. 12). I'd be happy to agree to any Chalcedonian canon, I don't recall what I might lead people to think I'd be transgressing. But I've observed before there's a bit of language barrier between Orthodoxy and others (as others share as well).
Yeah, the original Nestorian problem was a creed disagreement and a real apostasy (which I define as standoffishness). What's interesting to me is that the group has survived to the present and has moderated its view sufficiently to have doctrinal dialogue again with potential for reunification; that is, if it began in error, God refined it, and the current Church of the East considers itself compatible with Chalcedon via acceptance of differing definitions and emphases with an isomorphic core theology.
But when a split happens, I guess I do have a theory or philosophy or observation. One side or both believes conscientiously that fellowship with the other cannot be maintained (as happened to Paul and Barnabas). One side or both may purport to formally excommunicate members of the other; and standoff always entails informal excommunication. But as long as both sides continue laying their own consciences before God, it is not yet revealed to either what the resolution is, why the apparent dogmatic difference occurred, or how to heal the breach. IMHO it is certainly not revealed to either side that the other side is surely wrong (and I think this is the point of "we don't know where he isn't"). To their own masters they stand or fall. And if one side falls (such as by dwindling and dying), that's evidence they really were apostates. But if two sides continue a long time there should be opportunities for dialogue, growth, progress, and joint work toward resolutions.
So the person who says he's starting his own church and only people he approves are in it, it seems I needn't call him a heretic if his work isn't hurting anyone. I'll seek to reason with him, I'll demonstrate that without vital relationship with the body (including the past relationship reflected by whatever call he has to "start" a church) he is not a member of the body and will die. But if he does have a vital relationship (which I can't know for sure), God will bless his work. If there's a creedal error, that can objectively be ruled heresy, but most denominations aren't formed over creedal errors (and a couple that were arguably formed that way, like Nestorians, God has seen fit to reshape into what look like active works of his body).
Didn't you say people make themselves their own popes? Because they do, and they also make themselves their own councils and synods and economies. And if they really take on the responsibility of these things they must also deign to recognize and deal with others who call themselves Christians just as the Orthodox must deign to recognize and deal with them. The Catholics say "separated brethren", which seems neutral enough to me.
I can't stop you from saying e.g. the non-Orthodox aren't Christians and don't commune with Christ. By doing so, you stand aside from me (apostasize with respect to me). It turns out I still accept your Christianity and communion, but if I didn't it would be parallel and you wouldn't be in a position to stop me either. If either of us are right about the other being out of the body, the Lord will manifest it such as by uprooting a candlestick or breaking off a branch. But if either of us are wrong then we're missing out on another part of the body of Christ. So I don't separate from others lightly.
All that shows me that just because I think I'm in a "good" group of professing Christians (even if that group is Orthodoxy) it doesn't prove that others aren't "good" groups either. Maybe they're not, but maybe the split was a reparable misunderstanding. The person who can set up new norms for himself can also merge those norms back into another group's. And that happens often enough in denominations that it's more than just divisiveness going on. Since God allows it in history, I must understand it. And my understanding doesn't seem to me to offend the creeds or the uniquenesses of Orthodoxy.
I wasn't going to respond, but I see that you're taking a strong personal interest in this thread. First, there are no generic rules, and I laid a ground rule that anyone could give their reasons. I couldn't find a rule against influencing voters (and you're certainly influencing voters).
More important, I've known you sometimes to respond to logic despite your odd content fixation. You also seem to be adapting to the community's nonverbal consensus and votes in terms of your post volume and selection. Those might be good. I still think you seem to have an idea that the sidebar rules don't apply to you. It is Content Policy that the community "treats others in the way that they would want to be treated." Maybe you want others to diss and insult you the way you do them, to spam and pester, and to badger with illogic and so on. But it seems there's a simpler solution, which is just a little flexibility and further adaptation. If you actually communicate and show that you want to be respectful, honest, nonviolent, nonabusive, then you might not need to adopt all the tactics that push boundaries and get you threatened with discipline, like bullying, attacking, and disruption.
In short I'm trying to recall when I've seen that human side in you where you're here to create a better future, to respect even your enemies, and to convince people with truth rather than with force. You can show that anytime. The NatSoc who dehumanizes others dehumanizes himself.
So that's a no vote. Since someone asked, I downvoted you for obscenity, as is typical for me.
I have no clue what you're trying to say
If a person makes and breaks a commitment, what goes around comes around. If they act human, there's a path of redemption; if they are shilling, they'll get in trouble on their own accord without my help. So if we ask people to agree to an honor code personally, even if they don't mean what they say an alert mod will be able to prevent disruption. So it's not that important to determine which is which, just to be alert to both possibilities. I frame it as "(God in) the universal order" because even if one doesn't believe in God the law of sowing and reaping still comes around, and I try to be considerate to atheists such as by hinting that ultimately order points to God.
Now, you make an excellent case that analysis of a votelike discussion can go many different ways. I gave a quick summary because I wanted to at least see what you were getting at and share what I saw. I merely counted those agreeing with OP. The vast majority (14/16) didn't agree with the proposal (i.e. "rejected" the OP proposal). So maybe 10 of them didn't accept the proposal either, and the 4 that did state rejection included a newcomer and two ambivalences. And maybe many of the 30 do agree with the OP (though that's not explicit and I usually upvote things I don't agree with if I do agree it was appropriate to bring up). But that kind of vote expression appears on every post and comment and isn't very probative unless someone's title is "<-- this many pedes agree" or something.
Now maybe you're asking how I'd interpret such a vote if I modded a community with that many contributors. When someone says "please ban" for spam and nonsense, two people formally agree, and there are 27 other upvotes, well, that's a movement in the community; when 14 people say either don't ban or focus on other things, that's a bit more of the movement of the active part of the community. The downvotes also seem to have a greater reason to explain themselves than the upvotes, which is normal. But upvotes don't represent the most active part of the community. So my hypothetical response would probably be to state the question for a more formal vote to put people on the record, referring to the prior discussion; and then to see if the formal vote total also aligns with the atmosphere (including arrow votes) and the weight I'd assign to who are more stable contributors and who are less.
But all that's because you wanted my detailed analysis on something I thought I could answer more briefly. Obviously it's not easy, and the community has changed a lot since the mods didn't act on that post. More generically, I ban people when I've warned them repeatedly about an objective rule and they keep violating with no evidence they wish to stop. If a community subset argues a rule has been broken, I hear that view and weigh it against the other side before acting. Didn't I say I had deleted Will about a dozen times and interacted with him such that he tapered off acceptably to the forum's taste? I didn't need to ban him then. If he had shown unwillingness to consider the community's standard on spam (and this one's is different), then a ban would ensue in time.
That's all theory of course. It's not too important to me who mods here or what rules they use as long as they're consistent and we can get the tech parts moved along. I like to go long on explaining theory but people use it how they will.
I appreciate your thoughts. Censorship is removal of content for its own sake, not for the sake of behavior. My own practice when dealing with a violator who also provides usable content is to preserve the content while still disciplining the violation. A long analytical comment being removed over one obscenity would be censorship; if the community prefers no obscenities, it's better to ask the contributor to self-edit, letting him know that loss of content associated with violation would become unavoidable if he doesn't end the violation.
The motive to delete content solely because it's close to a violation is not inclusionist. When I say "we hate" that kind of censorship it's because I read a strong consensus here that tools are for violations, not content. You might see different evidence of consensus.
If AI content is not clear then we don't discipline based on a suspicion only without some corroboration. If AI content is supportive, then good, but if people believe it's spamming (which it could easily be even if it's supportive to a positive, civil presentation) then an objective line can be set.
I could see dedicated AI producing most of what Will produces, possibly even in his first appearances here (but sometimes he drops the botlike character for a bit). He does "choose" to express good etymologies mixed with puns, take them or leave them; this "inspires" other users to rethink, especially as to the use of authority in Christianity, which I find a good challenge to keep abreast of.
Now, I'm not trying to convince you of an approach, just seeking to explain. The general principles would probably need working out by the mod (team) in realtime given your and the rest of the community's views. So perhaps nothing need be pinned down; but let me look at your other comment. Also, I just started a fresh vote on the subject.
Link it again
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARKEWLOa0/the-universe-and-earth-are-thous/c/4eXueGWIjbS
“My opponent’s claims are (what I say they are, because I say so, despite him never saying that’s what they are and also they're) incomplete, therefore it is impossible for anyone, anywhere, to ever refute my own claims in any form!” Delusional psychosis.
Amazing projection, but not an advance of the discussion.
a review of the evidence for young-earth creation, I could provide that later
You won’t, though.
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.
I’ll still be able to refute every sentence you write and mock you while doing so.
Funny what you imply those words mean to you.
There’s universal proof
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 IS A LIAR BECAUSE I SAY SOOOOOOOOO”
God’s not a deceiver
God never said a billion years about this either.
Thanks for admitting the speed of light hasn’t changed, then.
Flatline isn't the best fit. More detailed charts agree. Discussion's over until you prove otherwise.
You’re getting universal pushback because you refuse to defend yourself in any capacity.
That's because I thought people would take "prove me wrong" literally. They didn't, I accept that.
Wow, thanks for destroying the other part of your claim.
If you pulled a gotcha, deliver the smoking gun. I don't think you did.
Physical reality exists. It’s on you to prove it doesn’t.
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.
OY VEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS HAVEN’T CHANGED SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME BUT THEY TOTALLY CHANGED BECAUSE I SAY SO
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.
Perhaps the second most disgusting thing about you is this, which was on purpose.
Ooh, now I know you're triggered by the Dictionary.com word of the year.
It’s called “the preponderance of evidence”
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.
macroevolution doesn’t exist.
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?
evolutionists teach many species have existed for billions of years in perfect population cycle without ever having had extinction-level events
Never heard that said by anyone.
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?
Why?
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.
Your argument collapses under its own myopic hubris, having been based on false pretenses (today) and applying them retroactively to all eternity.
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.
Which we also don’t know.
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.
How deep, exactly, have we dug on the Moon?
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, then, should there be any elliptical galaxies?
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).
The math of fusion reactions is pretty well understood.
And?
Observations of various fusion reactions put a minimum timeline on the creation of the heavy metals required to form higher order structures in the Universe.
Such as?
The omission we’ve observed, you mean?
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.
trees that have lived longer than your claims of the age of the entire Universe.
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.
the meteor craters around the world couldn’t possibly have been made in less time than the ranges they’re expected to have happened, but it’s still relevant.
You do believe in the deluge, yes? And you say this without numbers or evidence?
No, just the date of his birth.
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).
So all the things we know died before Adam
Give the proof!
You mean your abuse of the use of “death” with respect to sin by applying it to death without respect to sin?
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."
people thought the Universe was physically infinite and therefore should have no darkness in the night sky? Because it’s not, and therefore it does.
Correct.
But no, "the horizon problem (also known as the homogeneity problem) is a cosmological fine-tuning problem within the Big Bang model of the universe. It arises due to the difficulty in explaining the observed homogeneity of causally disconnected regions of space in the absence of a mechanism that sets the same initial conditions everywhere. It was first pointed out by Wolfgang Rindler in 1956. The most commonly accepted solution is cosmic inflation. Different solutions propose a cyclic universe or a variable speed of light."
Thank you for your slightly higher-effort other response, maybe I'll get to parts that pass Turing.
As to "occult Nazis", did you want me to continue my inquiry into the Thule Society and related movements?
u/iamneedforspeed has been suspended.
Thanks, so you're still a conditional yes.
YES. c/Conspiracies has significant contribution and no active moderation. New moderation would allow featured content (stickies), access to building the wiki including its roundtable history, better ability to facilitate roundtables and other meta discussion, and enforcement of the sidebar rules. Since there is evidence the community favors new moderation generally, we can agree on a single name and present that to Meta and have a likelier response window than individual query might yield, even if it's known that we will take time to determine who the moderator should be. IMHO if we select the most qualified moderator first it will become easier for those in favor of a moderator team to obtain the first mod's help in crystallizing consensus about the nature of the team. If we do not select moderators the community will be unlikely to trace back the path to its former glory and will be easily slid into disreputable and closed-minded tracks. I encourage everyone to speak their minds, and also if possible to comment YES.
Stuff They Don't Want You to Know by Ben Bowlin et al. gives several theories that do meet this test, namely the government admitted them later, including Bernays, HAARP, Tuskegee experiment, early cloud seeding, off the top of my head. Naturally they take a safe path by picking on the relatively boring ones and describing the more sensational ones without credence (such as the first man to report being contacted by MIB). They have a podcast and are wide open to discussion.
And now apparently Amelia Earhart ran a spy plane, she was kidnapped into the East with her copilot, and the government now admits it couldn't admit it and allow that conclusion for 80 years.
Lol, let us know when you have a model with a better fit for the data.
Uh, Brownian motion. There's no Law that says the earth must be destroyed on Aquarius's schedule, which is what OP amounts to.
OP is proposing a correlation between two sets of data points and not even proposing any explanatory causation. But the correlation itself is math abuse. Ordinarily in science there would be no necessity of correlation of any heavenly events to be synched with the remote stars, that's what astrology teaches. But we do have correlations that objects are more likely to strike the earth during meteor showers, which are mathematically predictable and thus not a conspiracy at all.
Now I'll take just another moment to glance at the actual geologic events proposed, using Carlson's dates and idiosyncratic spelling:
-
144000 BP Salian climate shift
-
120000 BP Alika 2 megaslide & tsunami Hawaii
-
117000 BP terminal substage SE climate shift
-
~104000 BP Greenland blitz
-
~84000 BP Odderade event & Osis 21
-
72000 BP Toba super eruption near extinction of humans
-
65000 BP Heinreich event 6
-
52000 BP Heinreich event 5 Osis 14, 15
-
40000 BP 1st phase Australian megafauna extinction
-
39000 BP Heinrich event 4
-
26000 BP final extinction of Australian megafauna
-
26000 BP onset of late Wisconsin ice age
-
23000 BP Heinrich event 2
-
12900 BP onset of Younger Dryas climate catastrophe
-
10000 BP end of Wisconsin ice age
-
~4320 BP Burkle crater event & tsunami? (Noah's flood?)
For lurkers, we've already noted that the 4.6kya event is well-correlated with Noah's flood and the other events tied to #16. I dispute #1-#15 being significant.
Oh look, Gerald Bond proposed seriously that Heinrich events happened on a 7,000-year cycle, which again is apophenia on a different scale than Carlson, and nobody believes him either. (Apophenia is seeing faces on the moon.)
As I anticipated, Heinrich events are determined by correlation with the random glaciation phases upheld by the geologists, which are determined by processing of ice cores, which are themselves subject to the same apophenia but one shared by more mainstream scientists. Unlike tree rings (which themselves have a little slippability), many ice cores have no clear annual markers to determine how many years have passed, unless you have a record of a volcanic eruption. Just estimating from this chart, we have H1 16-18, H2 24-28, H3 29-31, H4 38-40, H5 47-48, H6 60-64. So Carlson is fudging to ignore H1 and H3 and to accept H6 when it is less well-attested than the others. He says H2 23, H4 39, H5 52, H6 65, which literally contradicts the chart for all but H4. So there are three events that Carlson says happened perfectly on schedule for his needs that the first chart I find says didn't happen at those times. He is capable of specifying ranges or specifying centuries or decades but he didn't, and so he got #7, #8, and #13 flat wrong, and there's no reason for him to ignore H1 and H3. But then the Heinrich event is not a mass collapse event anyway, it's basically just a big iceberg release, but I see no model that explains that that must necessarily remove all traces of civilization and technology.
But the punchline is the faultiness of ice cores. Here is a quick overview of why the data are unreliable, especially with a flood creating rapid ice accumulation at the poles: "Glaciologists estimate that uncertainties in identification of layers will probably limit the number of countable layers to less than about 8,500 (Hammer, et al., 1978)." Here is Bill Nye causally estimating that ash in an ice core proves a volcanic eruption continuously produced ash for 15-17 years despite this never having been documented as happening, thus showing the likelihood of overcounting from a hostile witness. Other flaws in mainstream ice-core theory include the generic inability to group band differences into years with any objectivity, the consistent stretching the lower half of the core out temporally to represent 5 times as many years as the upper half (despite an equal prevalence of volcanic ash), and the inability to explain the lack of a billion years of predicted erosion in the Antarctic Gamburtsev Mountains. The smoking gun is when mainstream scientists Meese and Gow published that a 2800m core was 85,000 years old and were told by another scientist that his model said the ice at that depth should have been 110,000 years old; so Meese reran the data using resolution of 1 mm instead of 8 mm and, lo and behold, he imagined another 25,000 layers just by changing the resolution! (I heard this report directly from Jake Hebert, the link author; the link gives two other cases of circular reasoning regularly employed by the cabal.) As someone said, since fully half the dates proposed are thrown out, it's a wonder that the other half are yet accepted.
So there's no evidence the Heinrich events happened when they are guesstimated to have happened based on biased analysis of a very small number of ice cores.
It's true enough that Christians have used the power of censorship as well as the modern scientific establishment. In an ideal inquiry the truth would be arrived at in time, and perhaps this world does ultimately host an ideal inquiry on any point. If I were writing to constitute positive proof, though, or wanted to act to facilitate others immediately in believing this, I'd be much more thorough (and might still, but it's not a priority); instead I conceived of writing here to seek the best proofs stated of the alternative, and I'm coming to the conclusion the community has very little. (If I wanted to pass as an evolutionist I could fake a pretty good argument myself and at least give the OP a run for its money.)
But it's clear that the community is not that interested in "prove me wrong" framing: as a group, they prefer the stock-exchange version where everyone screams at the top of their lungs and somehow business gets done in spite of it. So I'll keep that in mind.
I reported c/IncelPride.
So you have a link to a log or comment, or a quote from a PM, about the official statement to you of why you were banned?
For some reason, you have a pattern of fixating on specific teachers, here Randall Carlson, and attributing no wrong to them instead of reviewing them critically. I've constantly said Jesus is the only person you can do that with.
My comment on chronology of this dryas view showed statistically that Carlson's trying to force 16 arbitrarily dated events into a range of the precession map under the idea of "one-third on two-thirds off", plus (literal quote) "of course 26,000 you consider a figure plus or minus a few centuries" is, well, astrology. Statistically insignificant special pleading. It's also literally astrology because he's saying his four favorite zodiac signs (granted, Biblically significant ones) happen to govern all cyclical cataclysms, except when they don't. The stated reason: (refuses to elaborate).
Without having looked at most of the 16 events, what I've looked at has shown that geologists stretch the past just like all tall tale tellers. Some of these rely on ice cone data, which is exceptionally easy to manipulate. If you want to pick specifics to focus on so as to narrow it down to most salient cases, we can review that. But he just brings these in with uncritically accepted mainstream dates without even attempting to test whether they fit his imagined schedule because he just assumes they do. "The delivery of cosmic material and energy energy pulses that would be affecting earth are non random": no explanation how, just an assumption that these epochs are "high-risk intersections", supported only by innumeracy.
Did the ancients have supernatural help? We believe so. Is there no artifact evidence of their presence for these half-million or more years? We agree there isn't. But to create the compromise with the old-earth cabal by admitting their dates and theology of death, but then to reject their uniformitarianism, falls between both stools. It's not necessary to assume cyclic catastrophe to explain the amount of evidence if the amount testifies to young earth. It's only necessary to assume it if you already bought the cabal lie of old earth.
If there were 16 civilization-wiping events that destroyed everything except the megaliths, the odds are that they would also make humanity extinct. The odds would be that even the scope of Noah's one deluge in 100-200 tellings would be an ELE. One wouldn't believe anyone had survived if there weren't credible testimony of how, which incidentally also agrees with model shipbuilding and scientific practices.
The evidence of OP is mathematically inconclusive, geologically suspect, methodologically bereft, epistemologically credulous, and predictively impotent. Carlson literally wedded the genii of Aquarian Age and Geologic Column and midwifed the cockatrice spawn of this bastard dyad of heaven and earth.
Skimmed it but found it too simplified. Seems like we agree on the history, and for the norms the Orthodox only have the plus that they weren't the ones who split. The problem is that in theory any individual or group can set new norms and they have done this, even in the first millennium among those who are still professing Christian churches today, because they believed it was conscientiously incumbent to split. Both sides are acting out of good conscience, and in such cases God seems to say the division is from him.
Consider the history of denominations and see whether the whole argument over who is the root isn't best resolved by Jesus's statement that he is the root and we are (all) the branches.
More important, I'd ask if in turn you could skim R. C. Sproul and see if my summary of him has some error.
All known theories violate the laws of physics in one place or another
Nope.
All scientists admit incomplete knowledge
Thanks for asserting something no one questioned. They know this. Get over it.
Great logic fail to start with. If knowledge is incomplete, all theories contain unexplained (violative) physics.
Second, you ask for a cite when I already linked the VSL article. I sourced my claims sufficiently, nobody is answering the source.
Third, you ignored my other link showing that the NASA measurements already know spacetime moves and yet they still call the contradictory measurement an "age crisis?" recognizing the answer hasn't been found yet, but surely in two more weeks they'll find the error. VSL is one proposed solution to this age crisis. That's three context fails in a row, my botdar is tingling, but I'll go on.
Since you admit your model is (like all) incomplete, that could be held as totally answering OP by showing that I cannot be proven wrong. But I'll go on.
If you'd like a separate article on a review of the evidence for young-earth creation, I could provide that later (might take a bit of focusing rather than the off-the-cuff responses your cut-paste stimulus-response deserves); but this article was merely intended to demonstrate there is no consistent proof of old-earth creation, which it is succeeding at marvelously.
I see that you regard one who charges a strawman as proving that one has no case, and you regard one who charges no proof as proving that one has hurt feelings; I'll keep that in mind when you charge strawman or no proof, but I'm not sure that you rein in the bots long enough to notice. But maybe I shouldn't be unsure, you suddenly start addressing the merits:
Provide evidence that the fidelity of measurements has not changed, then.
Obviously measurements are more precise lately; that doesn't argue against the fact that measurement history indicates other possible best fits besides flatlines, depending on selection rules. Did you want to review the charts on that?
What happens to radiation when it moves faster.
It gets more powerful, balancing against the power of the electrons in the atoms that are also moving faster. That's an answer to the direction I think you're taking it.
Would that number be zero?
I listed four classic young-earth demonstrations off the top of my head, I've seen hundreds.
Enjoy never being accepted by “the scientific community,” for whom you have nothing but contempt.
Broadly speaking, I thank you!
More adequately than the thing you refuse to defend?
Yes, to the degree that I have not yet begun to fight; you've refused to explain with even that adequacy.
younger than it is observed as being.
How many thousands of years has the universe been observed then? If you mean "inferred" instead of observed, prove the validity of the inference.
Only paid shills ever use that term.
I use the term because I like Gish and his comments are relevant but I also like to preclude those atheists that invented the term because they actually did have no answer. If someone wants to offer 6-7 arguments at a time it's appropriate to ask if they mean for them all to be addressed in the same forum or if they are using a debate management tactic, and in the worst case to simply say what can be said despite a possible ambush against debate code. Online we have more liberty, and I've been willing to field large attacks (the largest was 4 whole books thrown at me at once, and since I was interested I read and published analysis of them all, said in Pooh-Bah voice). So I do ask people to handle a little bit of evidence lists. But you get credit, you tried to:
the cabal believes overpopulation and underpopulation never occur in billions of years
Random claim not backed by any evidence and disproven after five seconds on any search engine.
Perhaps hastily said, evolutionists teach many species have existed for billions of years in perfect population cycle without ever having had extinction-level events, which is highly improbable given the known extinct and extant species and the known limits on rate of alleged macroevolution. You're an expert on population growth that believes one subset of Homo sapiens is essentially critically endangered; do you believe man has been here a million years, over which it should have been increasing in population exponentially, and yet never succumbed to catastrophic extinction but also never reached populations of trillions or more despite the earth's ability to accommodate it?
Second point, stable clocks like moon dust and sea mineralization, the uniformitarians should love and yet they know so many of them testify of young earth.
the solar system never disassembled and the galaxies never lost their spiral forms despite the warping of billions of years of time
Yes, and?
Everyone knows spiral galaxies don't stay spiral for billions of years. All observed stars are population I (e.g. spiral arms) or II (e.g. bulge) but science couldn't find a way for these to arise so they invented the LCDM model and "population III" stars that are essentially only H-He from which the heavier-metal stars might have been formed later. So both the galaxy structures and the stars are hypothesized to have evolved from things that don't exist now because that's necessary due to the assumption of age. But a young universe is capable of maintaining heavy-metal stars, system structures, and spiral structures for the requisite timeframes. If you want to argue that I don't have a sufficiently robust model of heavy-metal star formation (while I'm actively working on it), that takes the debate back to the same point as it stands on my other evidence: I've proven the establishment faulty and put forward a reasonable alternative inference to the best explanation, and nobody else has bothered to prove the establishment right on this omission.
What, like at the dawn of the Universe?
Yes, whether one adopts one of the extant models where Population III stars still exist, or whether one holds they must've all disappeared, one is in either case hypothesizing something that has no proof and only competing theories; but the theory that carbon could only be generated en masse by exploding H-He stars, and the theory that extant energy conditions permit mass carbon generation in the earliest stars, both stand on the same footing. So there is again no proof of age.
How does rapid formation contradict extended age? What have they to do with each other?
Because uniformitarian assumptions have never explained how pleochroic halos from radioactive inclusions in magma, from isotopes with half-lives of minutes or days which therefore dissipate rapidly, are preserved in solid minerals without an assumption of catastrophism equal to special creation or deluge.
Why.
Because Adam lived in the thousands of years range, and if you dispute the record that says he did then you dispute his existence by the same token. If you want to propose a half-Bible Adam who did bring death into the world but who didn't live in recent memory, you still don't have the billions of years of death hypothesized before that. In my youth I thought the theistic evolutionists were (as you imply you believe) making a reasonable case for a death-filled universe in which there is an emergent-consciousness Adam with some liberal evangel. Then I realized Paul called them all out flat with "by one man death". I also realized Peter called out all uniformitarians with an extended passage (2 Peter 3:3-8) that describes them precisely as assuming everything today is like everything forever and willfully forgetting watery creation and watery deluge. And you fall prey to both saints exposing your abuses.
Since this cascade has now for awhile not been about proving OP wrong, I'm responding at your related thread.
Thanks Brain! You provide good questions, and yet the issue I asked about is whether the range is thousands or billions. So I'm not focusing on the Sumerians being wrong because even if they're right they're still evidence on the thousands side. The issue is that all humanity had a vast consensus on the thousands side until some cabal members instituted a cleaver takeover with Darwin as frontman until they coopted a scientific establishment on the subject so that censorship could be enforced.
I recognize that a couple Hindu passages can be read as finding ancient dates, but this becomes cherry-picking from what are obviously mathematical conceptual epochs that have no reference to history. So that minority testimony shouldn't affect the overall argument: if the cherry-picking happens to be right that can't be determined by its context but only by other evidence.
So your first link does exactly that, picks a date and then supports it from science. But it rapidly descends into just the kind of rarefied numerology that others do. Real numerology is accurate and supportive, fake is often inaccurate and usually an appeal to authority. In this case your source admits our universe's "total life span is 311.04 trillion human years" (after pulling an epoch of 13 billion out of that as if it's significant because a close match). Immediately after this "hit", the article gives a "miss" by claiming "the perimeter of the (Vedic) universe ... =~ 14 trillion miles" and then bypassing the fact that this is not the universe's estimated perimeter of sextillions to septillions of miles. It deflects by comparing roughly to the light-day, except that would be a radius and not a perimeter (and I'm not checking the original language on that). It says "navagarha" (which can mean "nine planets"), referring in its context to sun, moon, classical five, north, and south, actually refers to the nine planets recognized in a very narrow era (1930-2006) even though now we have 8 planets and several dwarf planets. So the two links contain a few interesting hits but that doesn't tell us how much has been missed. Detailed review would likely show further cherry-picking. But at least I can say, for conspiracy purposes, that the cabal is obviously inspired by Hinduism, as they acknowledge at CERN!
Yes, adaptation of knowledge is good, and that's the spirit of OP. VSL shows that science still hasn't adapted to the contradictions inherent in old-earth theory, and so I am contributing to that dialogue. You dissuade me from an old book series but also refer me to another old book series as your primary argument. My approach, after questioning all the book series in my youth, was to fit knowledge together that I was certain of until I could be confident I had a sufficiently consistent whole. In that whole, VSL (or some other variability) is important because no theory successfully explains all the data; and I find it to be the inference to the best explanation available. I find it established that no consistent proof exists of billions of years past.
I thought I'd experiment with the "prove me wrong" concept that is so popular on this site. I'm learning one thing about the experiment, namely what idiots do with such an offer. Anyway, I don't see evidence that I fail to understand reality, that my request is problematic, or that I moved any goalposts.
Are you not familiar with how the Big Bang Theory cannot follow the known laws of physics during the initial Planck epoch, which is a loophole so big that Hartle recently fit a second universe into it to explain this first universe? All scientists admit incomplete knowledge, and if they didn't they'd be proven wrong immediately. The standard model has always been incomplete and Godel implies it will stay that way.
The speed of light is an intimate part of the standard model. However, the assumption of constant lightspeed is not a proven necessity, and because of the breakdown in other calculations several VSL (CDK) models have been proposed as solving the problem better than the standard model. I'm being generous to you by inferring that your argument is the universe is billions of years old because the light from the stars is billions of years old, but I already linked you to proof that NASA doesn't know how old, since the light is measured at 11-18 billion and the stars at 9 billion. Therefore it's not proven that either number is accurate.
Logistically, we could end it here by agreeing that neither side can be "proven" since all theories are incomplete; or we could agree that one side can be sufficiently "proven wrong" by superior argument on the other side. The framing of the debate is to invite those who want to shoulder the burden of proof to come forward. Now I'm willing to shoulder the burden of proof to the same extent others are, but I grant that I should have been more prepared for people who refuse to shoulder the burden alongside, as my basic options of answer or ignore don't deal conclusively with disruption. But we'll muddle along anyway, since I'm pretty confident you don't want to agree to anything or attempt to prove anything.
Prove light speed isn’t light speed.
Strawman, illogical.
Prove it has ever changed or can ever change within a single medium.
I told you that the measurement history of the speed of light gives rise to the possibility. I also linked the point that a change in lightspeed, and in related "constants", does not change optical effects but it does get the light moving faster and it does get radiation moving faster. I told you that it also explains the horizon problem of homogeneity better than the standard model. That constitutes proof that the theory is competitive with or better than the standard model. When taken with a number of other proofs of young age of the universe, the data imply young earth as the best inference, and that's how proof is handled in the scientific community.
You have to prove yourself right.
I am under no such duty. I asked for people who want to improve my understanding and explain things to me more adequately, and if they show up I'll listen. You don't demonstrate that desire, and I don't have the desire to prove myself right to you. It's sufficient for me to answer your illogic for third parties.
"I could just go on with the things I have" means that, without you supplying alternate proof, the evidence I supplied is sufficient no matter what I add. To add more would invite accusations of Gish gallop. But to just throw a few out there for illustration, I find it instructive that: the cabal believes overpopulation and underpopulation never occur in billions of years but populations stay amazingly stable without catastrophe or extinction contrary to the exponential nature of growth; the solar system is filled with clocks such as the accumulation of moon dust and the leaching of minerals in the ocean that set maximal ranges unless conditions change; the solar system never disassembled and the galaxies never lost their spiral forms despite the warping of billions of years of time (there are no grandfather-class H-He galaxies that the stellar evolution model predicts); and embedded radiohalos evidence rapid formation and cooling of sediment contrary to extended age.
Lying about the nature of reality
You show you're so indoctrinated that you don't even quote evidence or attempt to question the mainstream. I thought you were independent but on this you're being a monolith with the cabal.
"If humanity is millions of years old, death didn't come into the world by one man Adam" because in that model there would have been billions of years of death before Adam. If death came into the world by Adam, then there were no billions of years before him full of death. Very potent Biblical argument for Bible believers. Now I didn't intend a strawman as if I were implying you do believe humanity is millions of years old, but since you haven't put out any theory or proof I suppose I should go back to saying you don't believe anything and don't prove anything.
That's a self-fulfilling prediction that accommodates all outliers. It's easy to come up with such rationalizations.
The 16 data points are 144 120 117 104 84 72 65 52 40 39 26 26 23 12.9 10 4.32. A quick spreadsheet best-fit based on cycles of 6.5 gives a least-square best fit to numbers from 142.514 to 6.014 (using whole years), where the sum of least squares is 41.729376. Comparing it to other nearby cycles, 6.638 gives a much better fit with a sum of only 21.1655 and with years from 144.580 to 5.182. All that's to say, if the phenomenon is real, then 6,638 should be a better match to the precession than 6,500. That's natural because the paradigm calls for 21 such periods in ~140,000 years so they should be quite higher than 6,500. But the actual precession period is 25,772 with "quarters" of 6,443, which would then have an even worse fit than 6,500. So the appearance of correlation with the arbitrarily chosen 6,500 is a meaningless artifact not better than chance. As I said before, it was pulled out of a hat, in particular to impose order or a random sequence, but the imposition is not statistically significant and has zero predictive power. "of course 26,000 you consider a figure plus or minus a few centuries", actually over 20 centuries because he considers a complete third of each quarter to be an active zone, which is plenty of wiggle room to make an apparent fit at 6,500 (he also says 6,480). This is bad math and bad science and, since we brought up flat earth, is the seeing of faces on the moon.
Now I like you so I gave you some time proving your math is wrong. That's much more fun for me than proving your pyramid video is wrong, although I'm fine with criticism of my priorities. But perhaps I shouldn't be indulging you when it's not on OP. The fact of OP is that there is no record of billions of years of earth in any of these rocks or geologies or in any history.
You're not proving me wrong either Weedle, no surprises there.
I believe God is in control of it all and deferred justice is sweet.
Not at all, they outlasted them. The question is the community's sense of self-preservation, and it decides that deliberatively.
In your analysis I defined "didn't agree with" as "rejected". Only 2 agreed, the rest didn't. I granted that 10 of them "didn't vote against" it either, with is your statement that 2 verbally agreed and 4 verbally rejected. My phrasing was hasty, but it's a quibble not worth arguing over.
No, I don't agree that a mod should base a ban on upvotes on an informal question, because that's not what the upvotes mean, nor on what the community would support if they would also support other things. The purpose of blocking and ignoring is to leave enforcement to the clearest cases. A mod should ban (as I've said) based on objective criteria. A spammer should be warned twice at least, and then might be banned for crossing a clear published boundary line. (An egregious disruptor might get immediate action, but a sincere-presenting spammer need not.)
And assuming others don't follow my example is just as wrong, which is why I don't assume an upvote on an informal discussion is a ban vote. The same applies to assumptions about downvotes.
I spoke of active voters. Up and down are passive votes. The active voters clearly thought the username was more of an issue than the spamming, via their action. Since the passive votes are about content and not a request for mod activity, it's not about my misreading stats, it's about my general reticence to assume something on a community rather than to ask them to spell out their active concerns.
I didn't define "stable contributor" and you're making a strawman of it. Declining to post is not in itself a mark of insincerity. But stable would at least include dependable commitment to community goals, which Will has stated are collective and don't "inspire" him. So offhand his view would get less weight, but then of course he didn't comment or vote. Ultimately stability judgment gives the mod the option to invoke gut feeling in borderline cases by referring to secondary objective judgment if the primary ones don't give a clear resolution between two plural sides.
TLDR (for myself): The community now isn't the one that held this vote and you're trying to relitigate something the community got over long ago. You're free to host a more formal vote and advocate for your position but what you're doing instead is to revisit my comments of last week and analyze in great detail to try to win some debate of Great Truths. I'm happy to explain myself when I think it's worth my time, but I don't care if I win debate on very tangential hypotheticals. You don't have to agree with me. So if you keep pressing with this I might feel comfortable relying on what I've already said.