Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 265 of 273 (474942)
07-12-2008 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Agobot
07-10-2008 4:51 PM


Re: Discovery or Ignorance?
Because it seems during 99% of earth's life existence, there have been no humans, hence we have no ground to claim the existence of some divine guidance and direction(at least for those 99% of the period that life existed).
If the elements that make up the earth formed in space (big bang) then no evidence the earth itself is not 6,000-13,000 years of age.
Like how are planets formed is it not from the energies generated from nothing increasing from the point in time when nothing mathematically was the size of a pea.
If you take gold and put it into space does it not vaporize and escape to become a part of the fabric of space.
If the fabric of space contains all the elements that make up the earth then due to collisions either in the center of the milkey way part of the fabric of space meaning all we know how long it takes to decay within the earth but not how long it takes to wind up the nucleur clocks by a big bang senerio meaning how wound up the elements are has nothing to do with the age of the earth.
P.S. If you look at how the elements formed before the earth itself was created and how no new elements are formed within the earth due elements only shown to decay from these element then you have no evidence the earth is an old earth.
C-14 gets wound up in the upper atmosphere (happens instantly due collisions) but it will take over 35,000 years for it to decay. The fossils are all dating young but the reason they are dating old is the problems of commercial labs prodical not that the fossils themselves are old, etc...
Baumgardener? one of those reputable creationists has shown how up to 50,000 years of C-14 is buffered out of the carbon fossils dated by the commercial labs.
Basically fossils ages are being fudged to support circular reasoning dates, indicator fossils, but the evolutionists never actually date these fossil, because if they did the lab test correctly it would support the young earthers.
So due since the big bang you should have the elements giving the illusion the earth is an old earth but realize that has no bearing on the true age when the earth itself was created from the energies created from perhaps nothings expansion since the big bang.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Agobot, posted 07-10-2008 4:51 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2008 5:49 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 268 by Agobot, posted 07-12-2008 7:10 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 271 by Coyote, posted 07-13-2008 12:18 AM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 269 of 273 (475018)
07-12-2008 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Straggler
07-12-2008 5:49 PM


Re: Discovery or Ignorance?
Planets are formed when the various heavier elements gravitationally attract to form more massive bodies. Your description is nonsensical.
It appears we agree that the age of the elements is not the age of the earth. In fact given how fast C-14 can be created when it is bombarded by cosmic radiation your stardust age could be quite young meaning a great radioactive decay ages does not mean elements are billions of years old, etc...
What process are you talking about here? I am unaware that lumps of gold will spontaneaously vaporise in space...... What are you talking about?
Water in the upper atmosphere even though cold vaporizes which is the reason I was told gold is not used for seals in the space shuttle in that in a vaccum it vaporizes.
If we know the half life of a substance and can measure the amount of the substance as compared to the amount of the post decay isotope we can determine the age of an object.
C-14 dating I agree has gotten better proving its a young earth. You might want to check out some reputable scientists on the subject like kent hovind, walt brown, andrew snelling, john baumgardener, etc...
I'm not saying your ignorant on the subject even though I suspect your moving the pea under the cup, etc...
________________________________________________________________
Measurable 14C in pre-Flood organic materials fossilized in Flood strata therefore appears to represent a powerful and testable confirmation of the young earth Creation-Flood model.
http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html
________________________________________________________________
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the chemical elemenets A) Make up the fabric of spacetime and B) Were directly created in the BB. Neither is true.
No seems I believe nothing is a part of the fabric of spacetime and its through these dimensions that the past present and future exists. Einstein believed nothing is not true nothing for when space expands energy is being created from the expansion of nothing.
Some string theory people say that elements are strings not points. I take it you believe elements are points created in stars however if we have time going forward and back from the present the elements can not be pointlike.
Since the entire universe is said to be still expanding is the big bang still happening? (Were we all created within the current big bang expansion?)Is nothing not still expanding from within because nothing is really nothing thus different dimensions of nothing expanding? Is energy not being created as time expands forward expanding nothing and is the present held together by the past and the future? How would the universe look if you could see the past present and the future in one view? Would it still be a flat universe as all part of what we call the currently observable universe is said to be? ? Do you believe that the past present and future are part of the big bang senerio? Its like t=p t is time and p is the present and the past is always less than p and the future always greater than p yet the mass of the earth stretches (exists) from the past to the future and not only just a point within the present yet in spite of this its still only a flat universe because of how nothing is being used as a dimension expanding within the atom and not outside the atom so its still only a flat universe?
I suspect this can only be if the atom is not pointlike but its existence is like a string of energy going both backward and forward in time meaning the past affects the future but the future does not affect the past(other than God) is this not because of the momentum of the big bang? Does not some string theory people believe too that the atoms not pointlike that gravity is just related to time moving from the present phasing into the past and phasing into the future yet existing in the present instead those that believe the atom is pointlike meaning the past not existing which likely is what an atheist might believe, but it just appears that time is moving and exists in the past and the future though all we can see is the present, etc...
__________________________________________________________________
So when we say "WMAP provides strong evidence that the universe is flat", we really mean "WMAP provides strong evidence that the observable universe is flat".
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=171
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2008 5:49 PM Straggler has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 270 of 273 (475019)
07-12-2008 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Agobot
07-12-2008 7:10 PM


Re: Discovery or Ignorance?
You mean the dinosaur fossils that we keep discovering are 6-7000 years old?
yep, to believe otherwise is not science, etc...
It's so ridiculous that it's not even funny.
Nope
Education is going down the world over these days.
If you get a chance watch expelled by Ben Stein. I can only agree education is not about science these days but political correctness or lose tenure, etc...
If you want to learn science you might do well to learn outside the box. Like answers in Genesis, Kent Hovind, or better yet learn from ex evolutionists like Walt Brown, Humphreys, Gentry, etc...
Forbidden

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Agobot, posted 07-12-2008 7:10 PM Agobot has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 272 of 273 (475026)
07-13-2008 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Coyote
07-13-2008 12:18 AM


Re: Discovery or Ignorance?
Second, fossils are not dated using C14 dating!
If that's the best science the creationists can do they should just give up. (And don't even bother bringing up the RATE Project! What a joke!)
Ok how are the fossils dated surely not by the sediment that buried them. what a joke, etc... Surely you see its a young earth bud!
You should do some research, and not on those silly creationist websites. You have swallowed a lot of falsehoods
If they don't date the fossil directly then they did not date the fossil. Hovind one of the great scientific minds of our day said its circular dating when your not actually dating the fossil yet ascribe an age to the fossil, etc...
If your saying the fossil is old because of indicator fossils you swallowed a whale, etc...
P.S. No scientific evidence the earth is not only 6,000 to 13,000 years old. The sediments will all date old because their atomic clocks were wound up before the earth was created. Even if a moon rock dates a billion years old it means nothing as to when the moon itself was created the age of the rock too has no meaning as to the age of the rock though they will say its billions of years of age, etc...
I mean really you wind your watch takes 10 seconds and it takes two days for it to unwind does not mean the watch is two days old 10 seconds after you wound the watch, etc...
If you had evidence of cold fusion happening within the earth but sadly for the evolutionist no evidence the elements were created within the earth only elements unwinding (decaying).
Is the big bang responsible for the creation of more complex elements, stars or cosmic rays however once the elements came together to form the earth they can only decay. The sediment particle prevents cold fusion within the earth from happening. So a young earth since the big bang just fits the facts. Why swallow a whale when its just not possible to date a fossil directly from the sediments unless your trying to spread falsehoods, etc...
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Coyote, posted 07-13-2008 12:18 AM Coyote has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024