Something Is Wrong, and It’s Not the Universe

[james bond]

Ummm... God loves science. He created it.

Wrong. Humans created science. Where is your source for saying God created science?

I bet I won't get an answer.

Your definition of science, "Science has always been about knowledge and scientific argument based on best theory and the scientific method" doesn't describe what science is. It describes what science does.

Why didn't you just say that instead of asking me the same question I just answered? I bet I won't get an answer to this, too.

TBH, you're not the most credible person to me because you provide no sources. Thus, when you say something is based on:

"..."

I have no way of knowing what you are talking about. Thus, it's fair to ask for your sources.

We have Fort Fun Indiana and his explanations (he doesn't provide much of his sources either while explaining), and its based on some form of knowledge, but if you listen to him carefully, there are errors interspersed in-between. Any person who argues with him picks it up, but if you disagree, then he ends up calling you an "idiot". Thus, the smarter people just end up recognizing he's an idiot. You end up arguing with him over it, so it isn't that you are always wrong, but he's not always wrong either. Yet, his arguments "are" based on some source.

Well, what is your DEFINITION of science and also give a source where you are getting this from (!).

Science is about knowledge. Look it up under Merriam-Webster. It is also an argument based on this scientific knowledge. That is what was taught to me. and which argument is best, i.e. become theories, and are judged by other scientists or by one's peers in a review. One takes facts from what they observe and formulates a thesis for how it happened.

Thus, the knowledge doesn't necessarily have to be true; it is best one that one can come up under the circumstances and is accepted by others. A definition of real science is based on the scientific method. What isn't fair is creation science has been systematically eliminated from science. Creationists cannot participate in peer reviews nor present papers to Nature and Science anymore. They were able to before.

 

[james bond]

Well, now that the voodoo ritual has run its course...

The accelerated expansion of space is due to an unknown reason. One idea is dark energy. Here is a great article about it:

The Counterintuitive Reason Why Dark Energy Makes The Universe Accelerate

First, I told ya so. The Hubble variable. It's not a constant. And with the new model, does it fit that the universe is flat in one area and then curves towards the edges "like a scroll.?" Dark energy = God?

What about where it is a closed universe (partial due to local effects)? Is that what happens towards a black hole? Siegal doesn't mention it. Are black holes, your specialty, accelerating away with our galaxy?

There is more to this gravitational pull, too. I read that some of the galaxies are close to each other, so they are affected by gravity to be pulled towards each other while they expand. Thus, they end up colliding. You were right about that. The Milky Way and Andromeda will collide in billions of years. We are doomed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Hubble variable. It's not a constant.

Neat, but you're a dumbass, because that is not what is meant by the term, "constant", really. Variables become constants, when certain things are fixed. Such as, a constraint on time. Such as, gravity becoming a constant, when constrained to the surface of the Earth. Sure, gravity varies, depending on the environment. Yet we will call earth gravity a "constant", for physics problems. Even though it, too, varies with your distance from its center of gravity, or depending on the density of mass between you and its center of gravity.

No, you are not going to puzzle out your idiotic biblical myth from your semantic parlor trick. Everything you say about the age of everything is demonstrably wrong, and nobody with any credibility takes any of that shit seriously. So stop spamming the science section with your magical hirseshit. It's annoying, childish, and trollish. Thanks.

 

[james bond]

The Hubble variable. It's not a constant.

Neat, but you're a dumbass, because that is not what is meant by the term, "constant", really. Variables become constants, when certain things are fixed. Such as, a constraint on time. Such as, gravity becoming a constant, when constrained to the surface of the Earth. Sure, gravity varies, depending on the environment. Yet we will call earth gravity a "constant", for physics problems. Even though it, too, varies with your distance from its center of gravity, or depending on the density of mass between you and its center of gravity.

No, you are not going to puzzle out your idiotic biblical myth from your semantic parlor trick. Everything you say about the age of everything is demonstrably wrong, and nobody with any credibility takes any of that shit seriously. So stop spamming the science section with your magical hirseshit. It's annoying, childish, and trollish. Thanks.

Basically, you just parroted what I said about the Hubble "constant" changing, but in an erroneous manner such as saying, "Variable become constants, when certain things are fixed. Such as, a constraint on time." That is just stupid. Now, I would agree that the gravitational "constant" can change.

What about the black hole? That uses a gravitational constant to calculate its force.

 

[ding]

Where is your source for saying God created science?

Humans didn’t create science, mathematics or music.

Humans discovered science, mathematics and music.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Basically, you just parroted what I said about the Hubble "constant" changing

Nonsense. Ylur claim, without evidence or merit, is that the hu blecontant has changed so much that it fools us into thinking the universe is not 6000 years old. Which is demomstrably false. Stop with your pathetic lies, bond. Congrats, you spammed another science thread to death with your idiotic, iron aged myths.

 

[james bond]

Basically, you just parroted what I said about the Hubble "constant" changing

Nonsense. Ylur claim, without evidence or merit, is that the hu blecontant has changed so much that it fools us into thinking the universe is not 6000 years old. Which is demomstrably false. Stop with your pathetic lies, bond. Congrats, you spammed another science thread to death with your idiotic, iron aged myths.

Oh, you're still hung up about what I posted about the Hubble constant. We have Hubble and then Freedman [sic] of Friedmann equation fame. Over the past 60 years, the calculated values of the Hubble "constant" shown in the table have varied far more than the measurements of the speed of light have over the past 240 years.

I assume you know astronomers use the Hubble constant to calculate the distance to the farthest stars and they use the distance to determine the age of the universe and that's why you're accusing me of something I didn't say. At least, I don't think I would have said something like that when I don't fully understand the calculations involved.

Creation science states the universe is not expanding like secular/atheist scientists think, i.e. big bang theorists, but I don't know how to explain it so I do not use it. I have no idea how they tie it to a 6000 yr-old universe.

Instead, I use radiocarbon dating of remaining C-14 to come up with a young Earth and how assumptions are wrong with radiometric dating of space rocks.

Here's one by icr -- Hubble's Law - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science.

Another by creation.com -- Is there evidence for expanding universe - creation.com.

The Bible states it is expanding and I've posted a few of the verses.

 

[james bond]

Where is your source for saying God created science?

Humans didn’t create science, mathematics or music.

Humans discovered science, mathematics and music.

And what do you base this on?

 

[Hollie]

Basically, you just parroted what I said about the Hubble "constant" changing

Nonsense. Ylur claim, without evidence or merit, is that the hu blecontant has changed so much that it fools us into thinking the universe is not 6000 years old. Which is demomstrably false. Stop with your pathetic lies, bond. Congrats, you spammed another science thread to death with your idiotic, iron aged myths.

View attachment 286449

Oh, you're still hung up about what I posted about the Hubble constant. We have Hubble and then Freedman [sic] of Friedmann equation fame. Over the past 60 years, the calculated values of the Hubble "constant" shown in the table have varied far more than the measurements of the speed of light have over the past 240 years.

I assume you know astronomers use the Hubble constant to calculate the distance to the farthest stars and they use the distance to determine the age of the universe and that's why you're accusing me of something I didn't say. At least, I don't think I would have said something like that when I don't fully understand the calculations involved.

Creation science states the universe is not expanding like secular/atheist scientists think, i.e. big bang theorists, but I don't know how to explain it so I do not use it. I have no idea how they tie it to a 6000 yr-old universe.

Instead, I use radiocarbon dating of remaining C-14 to come up with a young Earth and how assumptions are wrong with radiometric dating of space rocks.

Here's one by icr -- Hubble's Law - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science.

Another by creation.com -- Is there evidence for expanding universe - creation.com.

The Bible states it is expanding and I've posted a few of the verses.

It’s nonsensical to link to fundie ID’iot creationist websites for science data. Their position is not derived from data. Their position requires an answer consistent with prescribed religious dogma.

About Us - creation.com

• Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
• Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
• Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history

 

[james bond]

Never mind. I think I found the links .

Weird stuff in China
10 Bizarre Aspects of Chinese Culture - Listverse

10 Facts That Prove China Can Get Shockingly Weird!

 

[james bond]

Basically, you just parroted what I said about the Hubble "constant" changing

Nonsense. Ylur claim, without evidence or merit, is that the hu blecontant has changed so much that it fools us into thinking the universe is not 6000 years old. Which is demomstrably false. Stop with your pathetic lies, bond. Congrats, you spammed another science thread to death with your idiotic, iron aged myths.

View attachment 286449

Oh, you're still hung up about what I posted about the Hubble constant. We have Hubble and then Freedman [sic] of Friedmann equation fame. Over the past 60 years, the calculated values of the Hubble "constant" shown in the table have varied far more than the measurements of the speed of light have over the past 240 years.

I assume you know astronomers use the Hubble constant to calculate the distance to the farthest stars and they use the distance to determine the age of the universe and that's why you're accusing me of something I didn't say. At least, I don't think I would have said something like that when I don't fully understand the calculations involved.

Creation science states the universe is not expanding like secular/atheist scientists think, i.e. big bang theorists, but I don't know how to explain it so I do not use it. I have no idea how they tie it to a 6000 yr-old universe.

Instead, I use radiocarbon dating of remaining C-14 to come up with a young Earth and how assumptions are wrong with radiometric dating of space rocks.

Here's one by icr -- Hubble's Law - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science.

Another by creation.com -- Is there evidence for expanding universe - creation.com.

The Bible states it is expanding and I've posted a few of the verses.

It’s nonsensical to link to fundie ID’iot creationist websites for science data. Their position is not derived from data. Their position requires an answer consistent with prescribed religious dogma.

About Us - creation.com

• Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
• Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
• Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history

False. Both side use the same facts. Different conclusions based on faith in no God existing or faith in the Biblical God existing. Unless one uses the scientific method, then it's still theory. You should have gotten that from Judaism website I pointed you to. The Jews are a culture that prizes and understands science as well as religion.

Why don't you go bother @dingbat? He just said science, math, and music were all discovered and created by God. I think the Chinese mostly use science in order to make money.

 

[Hollie]

Basically, you just parroted what I said about the Hubble "constant" changing

Nonsense. Ylur claim, without evidence or merit, is that the hu blecontant has changed so much that it fools us into thinking the universe is not 6000 years old. Which is demomstrably false. Stop with your pathetic lies, bond. Congrats, you spammed another science thread to death with your idiotic, iron aged myths.

View attachment 286449

Oh, you're still hung up about what I posted about the Hubble constant. We have Hubble and then Freedman [sic] of Friedmann equation fame. Over the past 60 years, the calculated values of the Hubble "constant" shown in the table have varied far more than the measurements of the speed of light have over the past 240 years.

I assume you know astronomers use the Hubble constant to calculate the distance to the farthest stars and they use the distance to determine the age of the universe and that's why you're accusing me of something I didn't say. At least, I don't think I would have said something like that when I don't fully understand the calculations involved.

Creation science states the universe is not expanding like secular/atheist scientists think, i.e. big bang theorists, but I don't know how to explain it so I do not use it. I have no idea how they tie it to a 6000 yr-old universe.

Instead, I use radiocarbon dating of remaining C-14 to come up with a young Earth and how assumptions are wrong with radiometric dating of space rocks.

Here's one by icr -- Hubble's Law - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science.

Another by creation.com -- Is there evidence for expanding universe - creation.com.

The Bible states it is expanding and I've posted a few of the verses.

It’s nonsensical to link to fundie ID’iot creationist websites for science data. Their position is not derived from data. Their position requires an answer consistent with prescribed religious dogma.

About Us - creation.com

• Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
• Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
• Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history

False. Both side use the same facts. Different conclusions based on faith in no God existing or faith in the Biblical God existing. Unless one uses the scientific method, then it's still theory. You should have gotten that from Judaism website I pointed you to. The Jews are a culture that prizes and understands science as well as religion.

Why don't you go bother @dingbat? He just said science, math, and music were all discovered and created by God. I think the Chinese mostly use science in order to make money.

Charlatans at your creation ministries do not use facts. They use predefined conclusions.

What we believe
DOCTRINES AND BELIEFS
(See also “Good News”)
(A) PRIORITIES

1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

As you know, the above is from creation.com

There’s lots more of their nonsense but everyone gets the point, well, everyone but you.

 

[ding]

Where is your source for saying God created science?

Humans didn’t create science, mathematics or music.

Humans discovered science, mathematics and music.

And what do you base this on?

Because those things exist as realities unto themselves which are incorporeal. Man didn’t invent those things like he would invent a widget.

“The Prussian mathematician and logician, Leopold Kronecker, famously declared “God made the integers; all else is the work of man.” He believed that math is a language and a tool but it's one that we discovered. We did not invent arithmetic; adding two and two will always give you four, say realists.”

https://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=cas-lehighreview-vol-24

Transcript of "Is math discovered or invented?"

 

[ding]

Boyle didn’t invent P1V1=P2V2

Boyle discovered it.

 

[ding]

Einstein didn’t invent E=MC^2

Einstein discovered it.

 

[james bond]

Basically, you just parroted what I said about the Hubble "constant" changing

Nonsense. Ylur claim, without evidence or merit, is that the hu blecontant has changed so much that it fools us into thinking the universe is not 6000 years old. Which is demomstrably false. Stop with your pathetic lies, bond. Congrats, you spammed another science thread to death with your idiotic, iron aged myths.

View attachment 286449

Oh, you're still hung up about what I posted about the Hubble constant. We have Hubble and then Freedman [sic] of Friedmann equation fame. Over the past 60 years, the calculated values of the Hubble "constant" shown in the table have varied far more than the measurements of the speed of light have over the past 240 years.

I assume you know astronomers use the Hubble constant to calculate the distance to the farthest stars and they use the distance to determine the age of the universe and that's why you're accusing me of something I didn't say. At least, I don't think I would have said something like that when I don't fully understand the calculations involved.

Creation science states the universe is not expanding like secular/atheist scientists think, i.e. big bang theorists, but I don't know how to explain it so I do not use it. I have no idea how they tie it to a 6000 yr-old universe.

Instead, I use radiocarbon dating of remaining C-14 to come up with a young Earth and how assumptions are wrong with radiometric dating of space rocks.

Here's one by icr -- Hubble's Law - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science.

Another by creation.com -- Is there evidence for expanding universe - creation.com.

The Bible states it is expanding and I've posted a few of the verses.

It’s nonsensical to link to fundie ID’iot creationist websites for science data. Their position is not derived from data. Their position requires an answer consistent with prescribed religious dogma.

About Us - creation.com

• Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
• Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
• Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history

False. Both side use the same facts. Different conclusions based on faith in no God existing or faith in the Biblical God existing. Unless one uses the scientific method, then it's still theory. You should have gotten that from Judaism website I pointed you to. The Jews are a culture that prizes and understands science as well as religion.

Why don't you go bother @dingbat? He just said science, math, and music were all discovered and created by God. I think the Chinese mostly use science in order to make money.

Charlatans at your creation ministries do not use facts. They use predefined conclusions.

What we believe
DOCTRINES AND BELIEFS
(See also “Good News”)
(A) PRIORITIES

1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

As you know, the above is from creation.com

There’s lots more of their nonsense but everyone gets the point, well, everyone but you.

You posted this many times and it's why people think you're a ranting and raving maniac. And I keep telling you I use creation.com to needle FFI. He's the one who claimed I used it, so I'm using it now against him. It's not a bad US site for creation science.

 

[james bond]

Where is your source for saying God created science?

Humans didn’t create science, mathematics or music.

Humans discovered science, mathematics and music.

And what do you base this on?

Because those things exist as realities unto themselves which are incorporeal. Man didn’t invent those things like he would invent a widget.

“The Prussian mathematician and logician, Leopold Kronecker, famously declared “God made the integers; all else is the work of man.” He believed that math is a language and a tool but it's one that we discovered. We did not invent arithmetic; adding two and two will always give you four, say realists.”

https://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=cas-lehighreview-vol-24

Transcript of "Is math discovered or invented?"

Basic math and geometry started with the Egyptians and made its way to the Greeks. Formal geometry was created by Euclid who also developed the math. While I suspect the Egyptians also found math in nature, but the credit for creation of geometry and subsequent discovery in nature goes to Euclid. The development was continued by Pythagoras and Archimedes. Other cultures added to the study of mathematics. What you mention is also true, but mathematics is knowledge created by humans. It was soon discovered in nature after it caught on and through its application.

I would think similar things happened with science and music.

Euclid | Biography, Contributions, & Facts

History of mathematics - Wikipedia

 

[ding]

Where is your source for saying God created science?

Humans didn’t create science, mathematics or music.

Humans discovered science, mathematics and music.

And what do you base this on?

Because those things exist as realities unto themselves which are incorporeal. Man didn’t invent those things like he would invent a widget.

“The Prussian mathematician and logician, Leopold Kronecker, famously declared “God made the integers; all else is the work of man.” He believed that math is a language and a tool but it's one that we discovered. We did not invent arithmetic; adding two and two will always give you four, say realists.”

https://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=cas-lehighreview-vol-24

Transcript of "Is math discovered or invented?"

Basic math and geometry started with the Egyptians and made its way to the Greeks. Formal geometry was created by Euclid who also developed the math. While I suspect the Egyptians also found math in nature, but the credit for creation of geometry and subsequent discovery in nature goes to Euclid. The development was continued by Pythagoras and Archimedes. Other cultures added to the study of mathematics. What you mention is also true, but mathematics is knowledge created by humans. It was soon discovered in nature after it caught on and through its application.

I would think similar things happened with science and music.

Euclid | Biography, Contributions, & Facts

History of mathematics - Wikipedia

Gotcha. You believe man created math, science and music.

 

[james bond]

Where is your source for saying God created science?

Humans didn’t create science, mathematics or music.

Humans discovered science, mathematics and music.

And what do you base this on?

Because those things exist as realities unto themselves which are incorporeal. Man didn’t invent those things like he would invent a widget.

“The Prussian mathematician and logician, Leopold Kronecker, famously declared “God made the integers; all else is the work of man.” He believed that math is a language and a tool but it's one that we discovered. We did not invent arithmetic; adding two and two will always give you four, say realists.”

https://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=cas-lehighreview-vol-24

Transcript of "Is math discovered or invented?"

Basic math and geometry started with the Egyptians and made its way to the Greeks. Formal geometry was created by Euclid who also developed the math. While I suspect the Egyptians also found math in nature, but the credit for creation of geometry and subsequent discovery in nature goes to Euclid. The development was continued by Pythagoras and Archimedes. Other cultures added to the study of mathematics. What you mention is also true, but mathematics is knowledge created by humans. It was soon discovered in nature after it caught on and through its application.

I would think similar things happened with science and music.

Euclid | Biography, Contributions, & Facts

History of mathematics - Wikipedia

Gotcha. You believe man created math, science and music.

What you should be thinking is hm.. a lot of this stuff originated in the Middle East and then spread from there. Remember we were a supercontinent then, and according to the Bible, people were more physically and mentally developed than we are now. They lived much longer that we do now. Our generations are far removed from these ancient peoples. The cave people from prehistoric times came after the flood, but you don't believe any of the good Bible stuff and think its allegory..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Aaaaand....back to ignore for the voodoo priest, Bond. I.E., the same place the global scientific community keeps him and the blog he plagiarizes.