to my having an ahistorical Jesus
Which you do.
Why ask about the name and then get upset when someone tells you about it?
Accurate description of the person based on his statement, which is in direct violation of all linguistic definitions.
Maybe the mentally ill person should have used the textbook definition of “my people” instead of lying like a filthy, subhuman jew, right?
His conception of “Jesus” sits outside every written history thereof.
You'd need a physical lightspeed test not dependent on radiation
What the absolute fuck do you think light is.
Two known classes of error ranges disagree incompatibly.
Not at all what’s being said.
1 Peter 1:12
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.
Kinda like supersession.
The thing Christ Himself explicitly said, you mean?
I'll ask Jesus.
So you can’t answer and you admit that the Bible is not 100% literal; got it.
No, off topic.
No response; you’ve conceded the argument. Thanks for admitting it’s on topic.
No, false dilemma.
No response; you’ve conceded the argument. Thanks for admitting the old standards of measurement are lying to you.
I'm happy to be persecuted in the name of Yahweh, Jehovah, Yeshua, or Jesus.
“I’m totally okay with not even knowing God’s name!” ~ the insane
You imply you want to get rid of the 95%, I got rid of it for you.
By destroying the other 5%. The erasure of all known laws of physics otherwise doesn’t save much.
Not asymptotic, exponential.
Asymptotic because your own premise claims “inevitable collapse,” but we’re nitpicking here.
We see it wherever there is room and fuel to grow.
Apparently not, because we don’t actually see it.
the number of ELEs we'd expect from getting hit for billions of years.
What number is that?
such perfect equilibrium is absurd.
Why.
WAP then.
“NOOOOOO OBSERVATIONAL REALITY IS ITSELF A FALLACY! MY EXISTENCE ISN’T PROOF OF MY EXISTENCE!” ~ the clinically insane
Also called the Oxygen Holocaust? Around here we call it Day Three. Funny, life found a way against the odds, must be WAP again.
So you can’t answer the question? Got it.
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.
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.
(1) Your dismissing a known seven billion is sus.
- Fucking what.
- You still didn’t answer the question.
Pop growth has setbacks but there's no reason for such a severe global one
“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.
and no moral justification to countenance any such reason.
“I don’t want my people to be exterminated” is a moral justification.
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.
Because “hang on” effects can’t exist, definitely.
My club has superior power, Jesus and me and some others.
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.
When you stop listening to the cabal lies you'll be so happy!
You wouldn’t know about that, though.
But never a single global ELE in billions of years.
Already linked directly to five of them. And those are just the big ones.
It's a theory!
We’ve seen it happen.
Since today's spirals weren't created billions of years ago
[citation needed]
a Just So story
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.
So you do believe
Thanks for admitting you can’t refute the information presented, instead falling back to strawmen.
In a young universe they were all formed at the same time.
And made to look old, thereby rendering your god as a deceiver.
you invent a new bad theory.
“God lies to me. This is a good theory because I invented it.” ~ the clinically insane
Not really
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.
various snapshots of different collision moments don't require a narrative of spirals forming from elliptics.
It’s what happens to every other idealized sphere of matter at every other scale when external motion is applied, so yes, it does.
The population of spirals is an embarrassment for old-age.
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.
Then you can't have carbon without black holes
Regular novae exist. Nothing you say or do will ever change this.
Stellar fusion gets along very well without such a program.
Supernovae exist. Nothing you say or do will ever change this.
Cool story bro.
Thanks for admitting that you either accept objective reality or simply don’t comprehend how matter works.
And totally not a proof of billions of years or of this actually happening
We’ve seen it happen.
created to avoid reference to God.
It’s irrelevant to the existence of God.
Nobody's observed creation of a solar system.
Not said.
Implicit in the claim.
In fact you just implied that however far back in time are the galaxies we look at, the population is the same.
Exact opposite implication on my part.
Different tectonics and flows yield different rocks next door to each other
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?
Never said that
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.
Erosion seems not good for measuring craters beyond about 50,000 years
So… still not your timeframe.
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.
And that’s how all the fossils were created, right? The ones separated by hundreds of meters of depth?
(OP permitted hundreds of thousands)
So… death existed before Adam.
You mean that because the Bible implies Jericho is younger than 11,000 years
It doesn’t. That’s the point.
if the whole scale is wrong then…
…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.
the redshift must necessarily indicate constant lightspeed
Light speed is constant. The proper motion of spacetime itself need not be.
I see no problem with putting light at a faster speed in the past too.
Other than the physical impossibility of it while retaining the known laws of physics.
The past measurements were not about wrong math, but about known error ranges.
So… wrong math, since the error ranges were wrong.
If the math was wrong we'd correct the measurements
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.
Your story of years of death before Adam, with a new kind sin-death being introduced by the fall, might involve…
Plants. Animals. Things we know God created before Man.
"fruit brings death" being silly
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.
It's so silly it needs a whole new wonky explication
The one you’re giving it? Nah, it’s not needed.
if it's just Skil implying and never defining
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!
it's further silly by not being even a theory but just my guess of your theory.
So maybe don’t use strawmen in the future?
Laws were much the same.
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.
The moment that the devil fell, a little before Eve
A couple of minutes, at least.
This began light decay by a quantum jump
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.
increased entropy
Whoops, you just admitted death existed before the Big Bite. If entropy existed at all, that’s death.
Mass, energy, info retain nature.
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.
And the carborn formation phase is under 1,000 years.
Cool. Space is big, though. Lot of volume.
And none of these snapshots require assembly into the billions story.
They do if you want to keep claiming the laws of physics haven’t completely changed.
Correct, halos are formed from catastrophe.
Which are recorded to have happened, yeah.
You mean different half-lives?
Same isotopes. Same half-lives. Different amounts of the isotope left. Can’t happen if they were all created at once.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yarrabubba_impact_structure&oldid=1302313723
eroded remnant of an impact crater… With an age of 2.229 ± 0.005 billion years, as of 2025 it is the oldest known impact structure on Earth of confident age.
Yes... didn’t.
Facially that says that younger craters erode and older don't.
… what.
If a class asked you to teach why the billions, they wouldn't want appeal to authority and circular argument
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.
The heavens don't proclaim billions.
Thanks for admitting God doesn’t lie.
So you don't believe in the ten billion years? Or you do?
All you have to do is just not lie about what others say.
Either way your credibility remains shot.
[citation needed]
The point is that the horizon problem is no problem in a young universe, just as I implied.
And the universe isn’t young, as all observational reality shows.
OP is not about the idea that there were a few myriad more years, it's about the idea that there were billions of years.
Which you explain away by demanding a few myriad more years at best.
Checkmate in three ... two ….
You were checkmated before you posted, yes. There’s no need for a countdown.
The chart showed that, even given the tolerance rates of the older measurements
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.
it's enough to provoke inquiry.
“We had worse measuring equipment back then.”
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
WOW, A SINGLE, REPRODUCIBLE STANDARD FOR EXPERIMENTATION! We should come up with a word to describe that.
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 answer is that your god is a deceiver, yeah. The real one isn’t.
The short answer is that he always holds something in reserve to be revealed later
“I was just lying the whole time, lol.” ~ God; [no book]; [no year]
But I start from the Bible literally meaning what it said (having tested that hypothesis and found it best)
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?
When the other side proceeds with ridicule and illogic in part, that's further evidence they have nothing, as you know.
Phew, good to know you have no evidence.
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.
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?
Science is full of wrong observations
Cool, not 100% of them. That means they’re right observations.
Nope. My God is Yahweh
So Allah, got it. Actual people say God. They don’t couch their heresy in jewish pronunciation.
That's guilt by association
When you’re of the guilty people, it’s hard not to associate with them.
The chart is enough to show that the [historic tools for measurement were more imprecise]
Fixed that for you.
Seems like scientists smarter than me are proposing VSL without any concern about its effects on radiation or fine structure.
And when they have actual experimental evidence for it, let anyone know. They don’t.
Which is exactly why VSL does allow us to get rid of the extraneous invented 95%.
You’re purposely not replying to what’s being said. Keep it up and you’ll get nothing but mockery thereafter.
You should thank me.
For what, continuing to lie?
If the universe is younger, the whole reason for the 95% (to keep it held together over those billions) becomes irrelevant.
They’re unrelated statements.
On both sides it's called starting with a hypothesis. Eventually one hypothesis is disproven by preponderance.
You mean how every single measurement of the speed of light shows it isn’t changing?
Um, since macroevolution doesn't exist, I don't understand why you need those billions.
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.
growth toward complexity contradicts the second law.
Sapience is quite plainly localized negentropy. We’re here. Thus we don’t contradict the second law.
it's mathematically absurd for them to keep getting more ordered.
Here we are. Oops.
it's that they should have
They didn’t, therefore your theory is wrong.
The model of cyclical speciation doesn't explain this given its timescales.
The Oxygen Catastrophe isn’t an example of this?
The fact that we do have mass extinction events begs the question of why any species are still alive.
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like a Georgia Guidestones and Club of Rome guy. Now I see.
Clearly not. You’re the one who claimed “asymptotic growth must naturally collapse” (which is obvious), and so artificial asymptotic growth must artificially collapse.
Maybe you'd like to put forward some other source for this proposed limit
What limit?
than the same cabal who wants to carry out those deaths.
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.
As I said, unsustainable for billions of years
Hence why entire categories of the kingdoms of life rise and fall in prominence and prevalence.
Sooner or later some other environment adjustment changes the wave, and some of those changes are ELEs.
None of which existed, according to you, so why mention that?
Yeah, which is why galactic evolutionary theories that one came from another are sus.
So supernovae can’t create new stars?
They couldn't explain how the neat spiral structure persisted without change for billions of years
Why would it have to?
The spirals are evidence of youth.
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.
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 conditions are stellar fusion, released thereafter in supernovae.
The point is that the solar system isn't enough billions of years old so they…
…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.
a theory or continuing creation of solar systems
The thing we’ve proven observationally?
the theory doesn't match the evidence of the current populations of stars.
“The speed of light can change, but the material composition of the Universe can’t!”
What a theory.
Old trees stay in the thousands range
Older than your timeline.
The OP is requesting proof of billions.
By promoting “proof” of ~5,800.
You sound like you've got some idea that layers automatically prove billions
Did I say layers? I said different physical conditions of the same materials under the (claimed) same external stimuli.
If you have a specific problem with flood geology, prove the billions.
Literally irrelevant. Prove water can create meteor craters under any material conditions.
Great, and yet you accept the billions as if The Flood didn't cause most of the layering?
Literally irrelevant. Prove water can create compressed rock (and transmute the organic material trapped therein) under any material conditions.
Not really, I looked.
they don't show the billions
They show you’re wrong, even about your own source.
no basic reproducible observation in itself will prove it.
I showed that lightspeed constancy is not solidly proven
No, you didn’t.
due to recent measurements not reproducing phenomena from past measurements.
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's sufficient to withstand such dodges as "five seconds”.
It isn’t, though.
Plants die because Adam morally introduced into their environment a physical spiritual principle that cursed them.
lol
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
lol
It would be silly
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 rest died without having a morality system.
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.
any of the things you've postulated
lol
Population growth models are insufficient to explain continuation of species over hundreds of millions of years.
Already covered.
Clocks
Que.
You didn't show that any star has a billion-year history.
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.
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.
“Catastrophes can’t happen because… uh…” isn’t an argument.
Lightspeed: I showed the chart, which everyone agrees on
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.
the chart is objective.
An objective record of measurements made respective to their recording instruments’ sensitivity.
Epistemology: Nobody has observed billions of years.
Translation: “I have never gone out at night and looked up, therefore no one else has.”
Radiation: If you're done presenting your evidence from your question about radiation, I don't see that you've proved any assertion.
Your explanation for isotopes that are less radioactive than other samples of identical material is… what?
But attested tree trunks over 6,000 rings are very few and are easily miscounted.
They weren’t, though.
Erosion: And offered no proof that erosion requires billions.
Yep, it can and does.
I looked it up
Didn’t.
and these craters are not dated in billions because of erosion
And yet… are. Because if not, they would have eroded by now.
that would be no proof that the Bible teaches physical death before Adam
It doesn’t need to. The Bible is only truth; it is not all truths.
review and judge the rationales for the billions.
“Observational reality.” Yeah, I did. Next?
If you have a theological rationale for billions, say so
God doesn’t lie. This really, really seems to be difficult for you to understand, but that makes sense since you’re a jew.
What I asked for in title though was proof of your assertion that there were ten billion years.
What assertion, moishe? There weren’t just six thousand years is my assertion. You are proven wrong by observable reality. Just run along now.
LOL I AM GOD I AM RIGHT BECAUSE I SAY SO
Reply again, sock.
I neither know nor care what that means.
Imagine posting about voting and thinking anyone here gives a single flying fuck.
And WHEN all of your comments are gone, anyone reading the old threads will see every single user beating the shit out of you and think, “Wow, he really must have been completely wrong!”
I am mentally ill
Great; your input is ignored.
[strawman]
Zero effort. Switch back to your other sockpuppet and try again with that prompt.
The more you post, the more satisfying it will be when they’re wiped with a single click.
do not use their businesses
Already illegal in most US states.
do not employ them
Illegal for decades.
always refer to them as ‘immigrant’
And that’s illegal in the UK, where this list was made.
do not let them rent
Also illegal.
do not sell anything to them
Also illegal.
Stop trying to pretend that the laws written by people who will not rest until every last one of us is dead are something you should care about.
[link]
No wonder I didn’t see it. This is interesting and calls back to something you said before.
Given that in a universe with an increasing horizon more and more masses contribute to the above refractive index, Dicke considered a cosmology where c decreased in time, providing an alternative explanation to the cosmological redshift.
You claimed measurements changed over time, and then admitted it’s because we were shit at measuring in the past. Has there ever been a single experiment performed using a modern (or historical) measurement apparatus that
- shows this in any way?
- is even capable of measuring c at the precision needed to show a difference across time?
And as I’m typing this, I’m realizing that I’m contextualizing it my head within the framework of “the Universe is billions of years old” and not “the Universe is ~5,800 years old,” so you should have absolutely no trouble defending yourself in this way because the degree of change in the measured amount should easily be capturable through modern methods over a human timeframe.
Right?
Amazing projection
Neat, meta-projection! I see it occasionally. You’re definitely one to do it, though.
but not an advance of the discussion.
Maybe you should’ve defended your beliefs, then.
Funny what you imply those words mean to you.
The implication is that you will, again, post things only jews have ever said or just general insanity and then refuse to defend it in any capacity.
Except you don't even bother to show
THE. UNIVERSE. PHYSICALLY. EXISTS. The laws of physics operate. Things are real. There are interactions between things. They could not be otherwise without the observations every single person has ever made being correct.
God never said a billion years about this either.
Ah, so your god is Allah. Good to know.
Flatline isn’t the best fit
Why would you link to that article to defend your beliefs?
The concept of replication is fundamental to the logic and rhetoric of science… I argue that the definition of replication should not require underlying effects to be identical…
“Objective reality doesn’t exist; just do whatever you want and call it the same efforts looking for the same result.” You might as well proclaim the EM Drive is real, now.
If you pulled a gotcha, deliver the smoking gun. I don't think you did.
Your personal inability to understand it ≠ its nonexistence, sophist.
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.
I’ll preface this by reiterating that your hoax about me even so much as talking about “the standard model” has never been true, but I’d like to address this point specifically. No shit it’s incomplete. These retards have had to invent 95% of the mass-energy of the Universe in order to get real observations to conform to their mathematical expectations. They’re obviously wrong, either at scale or in general. However, THOSE OBSERVATIONS INCLUDE A SPEED OF LIGHT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE. You’ve invented observations to get the Universe to conform to your ontological expectations.
Ooh, now I know you're triggered by the Dictionary.com word of the year.
One more site I’ll forgo using, I guess.
Funny because I'm providing it
VSL cosmologies remain out of mainstream physics.
Run along now.
Good, we agree on something
Truth isn’t a matter of agreement, sophist.
So what do we need those billions
… for the evolution you literally just said–observationally–does not work quickly.
for that your god seemingly revealed to you?
Your god, perhaps. God, on the other hand, doesn’t lie. When we’ve seen microevolution within human lifespans, it’s obviously real, obviously happens, and was obviously created by Him.
"new" species (that usually turn out to be interfertile)
Not the definition and you damned well know it, but we can ignore that for the purpose of this discussion.
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 the geological/archeological/biological system which puts single-celled organisms first, growing toward complexity (and therefore fewer numbers)… that doesn’t conform to these expectations? And it’s definitely not what we see today, with orders of magnitude more bacteria on Earth than fish or birds or elephants or humans?
the trend has always been up over any long period.
Why don’t we see it in any other species, then. Particularly those of lesser complexity, where timescales should be observable more readily?
any butterfly effect can knock out that equilibrium easily.
Like… the late 20th century. Which is unsustainable. And will collapse. Thus returning things to equilibrium after about seven billion deaths.
I hope I live to see it.
I don't believe science has ever really dealt with that reality
It’s dealt with in 5th grade science textbooks, where you learn that the cycles of predator-prey populations rise and fall with respect to one another, as observed in nature.
without being extinguished by cataclysm.
What the absolute fuck are you talking about. Too few words.
We do know
Guess you’re god himself, then. You said it, therefore it’s true.
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).
But we see that. We see all the variations. Clearly they exist across time.
Such as?
If you don’t know what the elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are, there’s no point pretending you’re a real user.
Specifically, the idea that Population III stars have to explode for there to be any stars that we see today
How are the fused heavy elements going to get into planets, then.
instead of the Population III stars having the right reactivity to generate the heavy metals internally instead of by chaos.
How are… oh, you even doubled down on it.
Your link to quasistar says "a confirmed observation has not yet been made", so I don't know what you mean by observed.
No tree is a billion years old
They’re older than your claimed timeline.
You do believe in the deluge, yes?
I definitely believe that water will magically affect some rocks more than other, identical rocks right next door to it. That’s 100% something I believe. Can your mental illness parse sarcasm? I don’t think I ever asked that.
And you say this without numbers or evidence?
No, there’s physical proof that The Flood happened.
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).
We have written human history from before that; try the fuck again, shlomo.
Give the proof!
Your argument. Your timeframe. Your claim. YOUR proof, motherfucker. Anyone, anywhere, can take five seconds and see you’re lying using basic, reproducible research. It’s on you to show that every single thing we’ve observationally confirmed about the nature of reality is false.
Are you actually implying that the perfect Garden of Eden was full of death?
Are you actually implying that plants can sin?
Why don't you put forward your own theology?
“Dogs are moral agents” isn’t part of it.
I still suspect you really have one but you're just chicken to say it
“Bible says so.” There’s your sound bite. Get fucked.
Summary: (1) I showed that billion-year population models are flawed
Didn’t happen
(2) I showed that uniformitarian assumptions led to a mistaken theory about moon dust, as they do with many other clocks
Cool; doesn’t disprove the observed age of the Universe.
(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)
Already showed otherwise.
(4) You didn't answer radiohalos at all.
Because you didn’t defend them at all. I don’t have any obligation to reiterate things people already know.
(5) I showed initial evidence that lightspeed decay has evidence
You showed a guy who said that objective standards are icky fascism.
(6) You allude to God teaching billions of years but without any indication of how your allusion can be judged
The observable universe.
(7) You allude to radiation strength somehow implying a limit on lightspeed without any indication of your intent
Directly indicated it, yeah.
(8) You allude to dendrochronology (not proof of billions);
Don’t need to. Just proof that you’re lying.
(9) And to meteor craters (dated by uranium-lead, i.e. by lightspeed, not by erosion)
Nice strawman. Only talked about erosion. I don’t care about other dating methods. We know how water and stone behave.
(10) And to death before Adam without proof.
Thanks for admitting you have no proof of a lack of death before Adam, particularly since the Bible talks expressly about sin-death.
a few allusions so opaque that they require more searching
Cries out in pain, etc.
(and time consumption)
OH NOOOOOOOO HOW DARE I MAKE YOU PUT IN ACTUAL EFFORT TO DEFEND YOURSELF! SURELY I SHOULD JUST WORSHIP EVERYTHING YOU SAY SIGHT-UNSEEN, RIGHT?
than it takes you to deliver them.
Almost as though some conversations have prerequisite knowledge to justify admission to them, huh.
But I didn't ask for opacity
I didn’t ask for brain damaged psychosis that observational reality disproves, and yet here you are with this thread. Almost as though your personal opinion means fuck all when you post something on a public forum, right?
so if you want to deliver the smoking gun
Said the person whose ideological views have zero observational measurements in reality.
"You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.”
Darn. I should have known better than to think you’d give away actual evidence for any of your claims.
the horizon problem
I don’t understand why the example on the page is a “problem” in the first place.
A galaxy measured at ten billion light-years appears to us as it was ten billion years ago… If one were to look at a galaxy ten billion light-years away in one direction and another in the opposite direction, the total distance between them is twenty billion light-years. This means that the light from the first has not yet reached the second because the universe is only about 13.8 billion years old… Given the example above, the two galaxies in question cannot have shared any sort of information; they are not in causal contact. In the absence of common initial conditions, one would expect, then, that their physical properties would be different, and more generally, that the universe as a whole would have varying properties in causally disconnected regions… Contrary to this expectation, the observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and galaxy surveys show that the observable universe is nearly isotropic…
Why would this be contrary to expectations? THE UNIVERSE HAS EXPANDED. Ten billion years ago, THE GALAXIES WERE CLOSER TO EACH OTHER, and thus, if we’re seeing them in that way now, they would appear with greater homogeneity. Indeed, because the current assumption is that the Universe has, at least in the past, expanded physically faster than the speed of light, the “distance > time” “problem” doesn’t exist because… they were then either coterminous or at least causally linked.
Thank you for your slightly higher-effort other response, maybe I'll get to parts that pass Turing.
Or you can just kill yourself for being wrong about everything you say.
tell websites to pay for your protection, otherwise they’ll be liable to be DDoS’d
websites tell you to fuck off
DDoS the websites
they either cave or get shut down forever
you win
Good old CloudFlare.
Thing about radio-[word] dating is that it is, actually, unreliable for precise measurements. Thing about measuring EROSION is that it’s not.
Great logic fail to start with.
The jew cries out in pain as it strikes you.
If knowledge is incomplete, all theories contain unexplained (violative) physics.
Some unexplained physics ≠ all physics are unexplained.
Second, you ask for a cite when I already linked the VSL article.
Link it again, because none of your links show anything like that.
Third, you ignored my other link showing that the NASA measurements already know spacetime moves
Neat, and?
VSL is one proposed solution
Call me when it’s real.
That's three context fails in a row, my botdar is tingling
The jew.exe cries out in pain as it strikes you.
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.
No, you’re just a mentally defective paid jewish shill. “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. Not even worth treating as though you’re human.
But I'll go on.
Please, I haven’t laughed for a while.
If you'd like a separate article on a review of the evidence for young-earth creation, I could provide that later
You won’t, though.
(might take a bit of focusing rather than the off-the-cuff responses your cut-paste stimulus-response deserves)
Don’t worry; I’ll still be able to refute every sentence you write and mock you while doing so.
this article was merely intended to demonstrate there is no consistent proof of old-earth creation
It failed spectacularly, yeah. There’s universal proof of it and zero proof to the contrary.
which it is succeeding at marvelously.
“GOD IS A LIAR BECAUSE I SAY SOOOOOOOOO”
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.
And if you take apples and stew them like cranberries, they taste more like prunes than rhubarb does!
Obviously measurements are more precise lately
Thanks for admitting the speed of light hasn’t changed, then. Discussion over; your delusional psychosis is defeated.
Did you want to review the charts on that?
Given that the burden of proof is on you to defend your clinical insanity, yeah, that’d be what anyone who cares about this topic wants. You’re getting universal pushback because you refuse to defend yourself in any capacity.
It gets more powerful
Wow, thanks for destroying the other part of your claim.
I listed four classic young-earth demonstrations
None of which are valid, and?
Yes, to the degree that I have not yet begun to fight
And you act surprised when everyone’s dismissing your bullshit off-hand…
you've refused to explain
I don’t need to explain 2+2=4. You need to explain 2+2=literally anything else. Physical reality exists. It’s on you to prove it doesn’t.
How many thousands of years has the universe been observed then? If you mean "inferred" instead of observed, prove the validity of the inference.
OY VEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS HAVEN’T CHANGED SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME BUT THEY TOTALLY CHANGED BECAUSE I SAY SO
God’s not a deceiver, Moishe. Yours might be, but the real one isn’t.
I use the term
Yes, that’s what I said.
If someone wants to offer 6-7 arguments
Perhaps the second most disgusting thing about you is this, which was on purpose.
at a time it's appropriate to ask if they mean for them all to be addressed in the same forum
That’s what > is for. You have no excuse. This isn’t an oral debate. There is no time limit. “Gish gallop” does not exist. It’s called “the preponderance of evidence” or “objective fucking reality.”
ambush against debate code
“Bite me, coward. Actually defend your shit or don’t bother opining.” is the approved rebuttal to such a claim, I believe.
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. It’s immediately suspect (and can’t be used as a point in your favor) because…
the known limits on rate of alleged macroevolution.
…macroevolution doesn’t exist.
believes
lol
should have been
Why?
increasing in population exponentially
We didn’t do that until the 20th century. Your argument collapses under its own myopic hubris, having been based on false pretenses (today) and applying them retroactively to all eternity.
despite the earth's ability to accommodate it?
Which we also don’t know.
stable clocks like moon dust and sea mineralization
How deep, exactly, have we dug on the Moon?
Everyone knows spiral galaxies don't stay spiral for billions of years.
Why, then, should there be any elliptical galaxies?
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.
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.
and put forward a reasonable alternative inference
You don’t get to determine that.
nobody else has bothered to prove the establishment right on this omission.
The omission we’ve observed, you mean?
one is in either case hypothesizing something that has no proof
The math of fusion reactions is pretty well understood.
So there is again no proof of age.
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.
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.
Oh! Thanks for reminding me we have physical proof of trees that have lived longer than your claims of the age of the entire Universe. It’s only tangentially related (“preservation of radioactive inclusions” reminded me of “being able to measure past events by the scars they leave on the physical world”), and it also awoke my memory of the fact that we know how erosion operates and therefore 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.
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.
No, just the date of his birth.
the billions of years of death hypothesized before that
So all the things we know died before Adam… they just didn’t exist at all and the Bible is lying?
Then I realized Paul called them all out flat with "by one man death”.
And you fall prey to both saints exposing your abuses.
You mean your abuse of the use of “death” with respect to sin by applying it to death without respect to sin? Do better.
failure to address the horizon problem of homogeneity across the universe?
Is that the one where 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.
Cool; more things not related to anything anyone was talking about about.