Jump to content


Cosmological Evidence For A Young Universe


  • Please log in to reply
269 replies to this topic

#181 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 December 2009 - 05:26 AM

The data they present assumes the climate is constant, but history shows us that it isn't.  These scientist are basing their research on only 21 years.  That simply is not enough time to confirm it. 
In the meantime I believe it would be best to make a new thread on Ice core sampling, unless one already exist.  I will dig it up if it does, and I will make one if it doen't exist.

View Post


The religio-evolutionists (that would be all who defend evolution as a fact, or defend evolution dogmatically, or continue to defend an evolutionary support mechanism [i.e. add millions of years to anything to promulgate its validity] despite the lack if said ‘solid’ scientific evidence) will always attempt to adapt uniformity across ‘great’ spans of time that they cannot empirically account for using the actual scientific method. Therefore, they will adjust the scientific method in order to make it verify their presuppositions.

#182 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 December 2009 - 08:53 AM

Not a topic covered by this thread; I distinctly said scientific evidence.
Also not a topic covered by this thread.  I'm not asking for evidence for how long it took for the universe to be created [not that your assertion would count as evidence anyways] -- I'm asking for evidence for how long ago everything was created.

View Post


The geneology of Adam all the way to Jesus. 6,000 years HINT HINT HINT HINT. Evidence evidence. I've said this over and over... it's recorded history. Recorded history doesn't go much past 6,000 years... hint hint hint.

Everything I stated is on topic with this thread, it is only YOU who is refusing to listen because you hate the actual answers.

1. This thread is useless because Scientist are speculating long ages.
2. This thread is useless because you expect someone else to magically come up with unverifiable answers.
3. You think that because you don't like the answers given, you therefore get to prod and make fun of creationist simply because you like twiddling your thumbs and calling everything off topic.
4. You like wasting time with completely changing the subject each and everytime something is presented.
5. The scientific method cannot be used for long age dating. Why? because it isn't verifiable and it can't be tested. Therefore this whole thread hangs on a false premise.

As I stated earlier, you still don't get it, well maybe you'll figure it out... maybe not.

#183 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 December 2009 - 08:58 AM

First off, those aren't ad hocs.  Regardless, using the quoted figure of being 60% off, that would reduce the lower limit on the age of the universe to be about 50000 years (if my calculations are correct), not 6000.  As a second regardless, the stated effect is only true for supernovas in the very early universe and so isn't relevant for the majority of supernovas that we see.

View Post



These long distances can't be verified. Your assuming variables, and stating them as solid fact. They in fact, are not solid facts, they have NEVER been tested by any human being on the face of this very planet. There are absolutely no points of reference except Earth to Star. Outside of this solar system, everthing hangs on the balance of you can't knowism.

Get on a spaceship, and be the very first human to verify your claims, and then maybe you can state your claims as solid fact, but until then, it's nothing but pure speculation.

This whole thread is based on a speculation game.

#184 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 December 2009 - 10:32 AM

These long distances can't be verified.  Your assuming variables, and stating them as solid fact.  They in fact, are not solid facts, they have NEVER been tested by any human being on the face of this very planet.  There are absolutely no points of reference except  Earth to Star.  Outside of this solar system, everthing hangs on the balance of you can't knowism. 

Get on a spaceship, and be the very first human to verify your claims, and then maybe you can state your claims as solid fact, but until then, it's nothing but pure speculation.

This whole thread is based on a speculation game.

View Post


And this is the basis of faith for the evolutionists Scott. Yet they'll deny it wiht all their strength :huh:

#185 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 December 2009 - 02:47 PM

Martemius, it was a good attempt. I doubt you'll get anything beyond the typical responses you've gotten so far which is to continue attacking modern cosmology instead of supporting their own claims.

#186 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 December 2009 - 04:49 PM

The geneology of Adam all the way to Jesus.  6,000 years HINT HINT HINT HINT. Evidence evidence.  I've said this over and over... it's recorded history.  Recorded history doesn't go much past 6,000 years... hint hint hint.

Sorry, but biblical claims don't count as scientific evidence. If you personally believe everything that the bible offers and believe all its claims, then I'm perfectly fine with that, but it's simply not scientific to say "it's in the bible so it's true."

Everything I stated is on topic with this thread, it is only YOU who is refusing to listen because you hate the actual answers.

1. This thread is useless because Scientist are speculating long ages.
2. This thread is useless because you expect someone else to magically come up with unverifiable answers.
3. You think that because you don't like the answers given, you therefore get to prod and make fun of creationist simply because you like twiddling your thumbs and calling everything off topic.
4. You like wasting time with completely changing the subject each and everytime something is presented.
5. The scientific method cannot be used for long age dating.  Why? because it isn't verifiable and it can't be tested.  Therefore this whole thread hangs on a false premise.

For the last time (not really, but I like to dream), this is a thread for you to scientifically defend your own beliefs. Make another thread if you want to talk about the various processes and assumptions that scientists make in approximating the age of the universe, by which they arrive at an age of about 13.7 billion years. But this thread is not about those processes and assumptions -- this thread is about YOUR processes and assumptions, the (non-biblical) processes and assumptions by which you arrive at an age of approximately 6000 years. Attacking my beliefs isn't fit for this thread -- scientifically defend your own beliefs or get out.

These long distances can't be verified. Your assuming variables, and stating them as solid fact. They in fact, are not solid facts, they have NEVER been tested by any human being on the face of this very planet. There are absolutely no points of reference except Earth to Star. Outside of this solar system, everthing hangs on the balance of you can't knowism.

Get on a spaceship, and be the very first human to verify your claims, and then maybe you can state your claims as solid fact, but until then, it's nothing but pure speculation.

...I didn't say anything about distances. :D

Martemius, it was a good attempt. I doubt you'll get anything beyond the typical responses you've gotten so far which is to continue attacking modern cosmology instead of supporting their own claims.

Let it never be said that I didn't give them a chance. :lol:

#187 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 December 2009 - 10:45 PM

Martemius, it was a good attempt.  I doubt you'll get anything beyond the typical responses you've gotten so far which is to continue attacking modern cosmology instead of supporting their own claims.

View Post


One cannot get past the initial (typical if you so wish) truths of the matter, until they are disproved or accepted. It doesn't matter if you don't like them, it just matters if you deal with them. And, thus far, you haven't dealt with them.

SO, if it is an "attack" to use facts and truth, then so be it.

#188 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 31 December 2009 - 11:16 PM

Sorry, but biblical claims don't count as scientific evidence. If you personally believe everything that the bible offers and believe all its claims, then I'm perfectly fine with that, but it's simply not scientific to say "it's in the bible so it's true."


Double standard?

"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

(Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species


Just because The Origin of Species says so does'nt make it true either.At least the bible does'nt have to be rewritten every week.LOL



Enjoy.

#189 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 January 2010 - 12:43 AM

One cannot get past the initial (typical if you so wish) truths of the matter, until they are disproved or accepted. It doesn't matter if you don't like them, it just matters if you deal with them. And, thus far, you haven't dealt with them.

SO, if it is an "attack" to use facts and truth, then so be it.

View Post

Even supposing that these 'attacks' were valid reasons not to believe in the standard models of cosmology that did contain truth and fact, they in no way defend a 6000 year old universe. Make another thread for them if you want me to "deal with them", but I'm not going into them here.

#190 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 January 2010 - 12:48 AM

Sorry, but biblical claims don't count as scientific evidence. If you personally believe everything that the bible offers and believe all its claims, then I'm perfectly fine with that, but it's simply not scientific to say "it's in the bible so it's true."


Double standard?

"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

(Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species
Just because The Origin of Species says so does'nt make it true either.At least the bible does'nt have to be rewritten every week.LOL
Enjoy.

View Post

Nobody (except for extreme fools) believe in evolution just because Charles Darwin wrote in a book that evolution is true. Just like anybody else, he was wrong about a number of things.

Besides, you're quote mining: Darwin went on to say in the very next sentence "The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." He was setting up what would seem to be a paradox only to answer it.

#191 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 January 2010 - 03:47 PM

Even supposing that these 'attacks' were valid reasons not to believe in the standard models of cosmology that did contain truth and fact, they in no way defend a 6000 year old universe.  Make another thread for them if you want me to "deal with them", but I'm not going into them here.

View Post


Actually, yes, they do, because they are a lot closer to actual historical data (unlike the presupposed, and non-empirical “millions or billions” of years) than what you promulgate because it is “direct evidence that suggests” far better than observations “millions” of years removed.

As an aside, you have yet to “deal” with empiricism. So it doesn’t much matter if you so there or here.

#192 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 January 2010 - 04:41 PM

Nobody (except for extreme fools) believe in evolution just because Charles Darwin wrote in a book that evolution is true.


I agree,most people in 1859 were fools,because they certainly fell for it.

It's also true that only extreme fools still believe in evolution after it's been proven wrong again and again for 150 years.

On what grounds can anybody say "The bible has been proven wrong" and which "Science" has to be corrected every year.Only stubbornly blind faith can say "Well,were wrong,but I still believe it's true anyway.We just need to rearrange the story again".

No scientific feild in the world deals with such uncertainties.Only philosophy does.






Thanks and have a happy and safe New Year.

#193 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 January 2010 - 06:55 PM

On what grounds can anybody say "The bible has been proven wrong" and which "Science" has to be corrected every year.Only stubbornly blind faith can say "Well,were wrong,but I still believe it's true anyway.We just need to rearrange the story again".

I didn't say that the bible has been proven wrong. I said that the bible isn't scientific evidence of a claim.

No scientific feild in the world deals with such uncertainties.Only philosophy does.

View Post

Now I have to imagine that you've never taken a science course. Every area of science deals with uncertainties, and if you'd ever taken even the most basic science class you'd have to know that.


This is all a cute way to drive attention away from the topic at hand, but I'm still looking for how you derive 6000 years with non-biblical evidence.

#194 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 January 2010 - 07:00 PM

I said that the bible isn't scientific evidence of a claim.

View Post


It's every bit as scientific as the assumptive and a priori laden cosmology. :D

#195 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 January 2010 - 07:01 PM

Actually, yes, they do, because they are a lot closer to actual historical data (unlike the presupposed, and non-empirical “millions or billions” of years) than what you promulgate because it is “direct evidence that suggests” far better than observations “millions” of years removed. 

As an aside, you have yet to “deal” with empiricism. So it doesn’t much matter if you so there or here.

View Post

Okay, so show me that evidence! Show me the data you use to arrive at a value of 6600 years [or whichever precise value you believe the data indicates], show me how the various assumptions you might be making in the process are reasonable assumptions, show me the math that you use to derive the value! I can hardly wait.

#196 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 January 2010 - 07:04 PM

It's every bit as scientific as the assumptive and a priori laden cosmology.  :o

View Post

If you want to discuss the standard models of modern cosmology, please make another thread for it. I don't want to drive this one off on a tangent.

#197 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 04 January 2010 - 07:25 PM

http://creation.com/...s-for-evolution

View Post

I was LOL, literally, when I read that one - with the evo's coming up with their "BOOM, Mercury was hit by something", "BAM, Uranus was struck by something", "SMASH, Venus was hit by something", "KAPLOW, Mars was hit by something" - it's like watching an old Batman episode.

:lol: :o :o

#198 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 January 2010 - 07:58 PM

Funny how NASA makes everything work by throwing a big rock at it.It's akin to squeezing squares into round holes.LOL

#199 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 January 2010 - 10:12 PM

lol, "evolutionary astronomy"'s a new one on me.

Anyways, Mercury is among the denser planets because it's closer to the sun. At least according to the standard models of astronomy, that's how it should work -- as a general rule, the denser a planet is the closer to the sun it'll be [this is because in the initial accretion disk that formed the planets the lighter elements that form the gaseous planets would have been flung out further than the heavier elements that form the rocky planets -- this is also why all the rocky planets are closer to the sun than all of the gaseous planets]. I fail to see the issue here -- argue with the standard model if you want, I guess, but the density measurement isn't a contradiction of it.

#200 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2010 - 07:44 PM

lol, "evolutionary astronomy"'s a new one on me.

Anyways, Mercury is among the denser planets because it's closer to the sun.  At least according to the standard models of astronomy, that's how it should work -- as a general rule, the denser a planet is the closer to the sun it'll be [this is because in the initial accretion disk that formed the planets the lighter elements that form the gaseous planets would have been flung out further than the heavier elements that form the rocky planets -- this is also why all the rocky planets are closer to the sun than all of the gaseous planets].  I fail to see the issue here -- argue with the standard model if you want, I guess, but the density measurement isn't a contradiction of it.

View Post


Dude you've been at this for 10 pages. The evidence for a young universe doesn't exist so just give up.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users