Something Is Wrong, and It’s Not the Universe

[Hollie]

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.

Actually, I think you’re getting rather frantic with your “ranting and raving maniac”, claim.

When you “religiously” cut and paste from a religious extremist site, it suggests you share the biases and extremism.

The charlatans at creation.com actually are “that bad” because “creation science” is a fraud.

Why are you a willing accomplice to fraud?

 

[james bond]

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.

So you think humans discovered math, science, and music like your bud ding ?

 

[james bond]

Why are you a willing accomplice to fraud?

You're just looney tunes because you cannot prove fraud. Instead, we have the Bible theory. Unless it has been demonstrated by the scientific method, then rest is theory. We have evolution theory vs the Bible theory. There are no religious parts except for God as creator = creation science..

 

[james bond]

Boyle didn’t invent P1V1=P2V2

Boyle discovered it.

Einstein didn’t invent E=MC^2

Einstein discovered it.

You're just arguing semantics which is boring af and you are wrong about what was created. Here is the lowdown:

"creation (n.)
late 14c., creacioun, "action of creating or causing to exist," also "a created thing, that which is created," from Old French creacion "creation, a coming into being" (14c., Modern French création), from Latin creationem (nominative creatio) "a creating, a producing," in classical use "an electing, appointment, choice," noun of action from past-participle stem of creare "to make, bring forth, produce, beget," from PIE root *ker- (2) "to grow."

Meaning "that which God has created, the universe, the world and all in it" is from 1610s. The native word in the Biblical sense was Old English frum-sceaft. Of fashion costumes, desserts, etc., "that which has been produced by human art or skill," by 1870s, from French."

creation | Origin and meaning of creation by Online Etymology Dictionary.

The part about "that which God has created, the universe, the world and all in it" is the main point. No need to post the chart again. Evolutionists are usually wrong.

As for the rest, instead of looking at the equations, look at their entire subject matter like chemistry or cosmology and astrophysics. Under the subjects, one became a law and the other is theory and we are able to use it as such.

"discover (v.)

c. 1300, discoveren, "divulge, reveal, disclose, expose, lay open to view, betray (someone's secrets)," senses now obsolete, from stem of Old French descovrir "uncover, unroof, unveil, reveal, betray," from Medieval Latin discooperire, from Latin dis- "opposite of" (see dis-) + cooperire "to cover up, cover over, overwhelm, bury" (see cover (v.)).

At first with a sense of betrayal or malicious exposure (discoverer originally meant "informant"). Also in Middle English used in lteral senses, such as "to remove" (one's hat, the roof from a building). The meaning "to obtain the first knowledge or sight of what was before not known," the main modern sense, is by 1550s.

Discover, Invent, agree in signifying to find out; but we discover what already exists, though to us unknown; we invent what did not before exist: as, to discover the applicability of steam to the purposes of locomotion, and to invent the machinery necessary to use steam for these ends. ... Some things are of so mixed a character that either word may be applied to them. [Century Dictionary]
Sense of "make famous or fashionable" is by 1908. Related: Discovered; discovering.

That man is not the discoverer of any art who first says the thing; but he who says it so long, and so loud, and so clearly, that he compels mankind to hear him--the man who is so deeply impressed with the importance of the discovery that he will take no denial, but at the risk of fortune and fame, pushes through all opposition, and is determined that what he thinks he has discovered shall not perish for want of a fair trial. [Sydney Smith, in Edinburgh Review, 1826]"

discover | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

No one but a pinhead makes a big deal and argues about what you end up arguing. You seem to be an argumentative person and this appears to be your point. What you end up doing is monopolize a forum and hijack it. How else can you explain multiple posts for the same thought?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Navigating the voodoo priest's attempt to destroy the thread....

Our working hypothesis is that dark matter slowed the expansion, then dark energy sped it back up.

We are currently still trying to detect dark matter at CERN.

 

[ding]

Boyle didn’t invent P1V1=P2V2

Boyle discovered it.

Einstein didn’t invent E=MC^2

Einstein discovered it.

You're just arguing semantics which is boring af and you are wrong about what was created. Here is the lowdown:

"creation (n.)
late 14c., creacioun, "action of creating or causing to exist," also "a created thing, that which is created," from Old French creacion "creation, a coming into being" (14c., Modern French création), from Latin creationem (nominative creatio) "a creating, a producing," in classical use "an electing, appointment, choice," noun of action from past-participle stem of creare "to make, bring forth, produce, beget," from PIE root *ker- (2) "to grow."

Meaning "that which God has created, the universe, the world and all in it" is from 1610s. The native word in the Biblical sense was Old English frum-sceaft. Of fashion costumes, desserts, etc., "that which has been produced by human art or skill," by 1870s, from French."

creation | Origin and meaning of creation by Online Etymology Dictionary.

The part about "that which God has created, the universe, the world and all in it" is the main point. No need to post the chart again. Evolutionists are usually wrong.

As for the rest, instead of looking at the equations, look at their entire subject matter like chemistry or cosmology and astrophysics. Under the subjects, one became a law and the other is theory and we are able to use it as such.

"discover (v.)

c. 1300, discoveren, "divulge, reveal, disclose, expose, lay open to view, betray (someone's secrets)," senses now obsolete, from stem of Old French descovrir "uncover, unroof, unveil, reveal, betray," from Medieval Latin discooperire, from Latin dis- "opposite of" (see dis-) + cooperire "to cover up, cover over, overwhelm, bury" (see cover (v.)).

At first with a sense of betrayal or malicious exposure (discoverer originally meant "informant"). Also in Middle English used in lteral senses, such as "to remove" (one's hat, the roof from a building). The meaning "to obtain the first knowledge or sight of what was before not known," the main modern sense, is by 1550s.

Discover, Invent, agree in signifying to find out; but we discover what already exists, though to us unknown; we invent what did not before exist: as, to discover the applicability of steam to the purposes of locomotion, and to invent the machinery necessary to use steam for these ends. ... Some things are of so mixed a character that either word may be applied to them. [Century Dictionary]
Sense of "make famous or fashionable" is by 1908. Related: Discovered; discovering.

That man is not the discoverer of any art who first says the thing; but he who says it so long, and so loud, and so clearly, that he compels mankind to hear him--the man who is so deeply impressed with the importance of the discovery that he will take no denial, but at the risk of fortune and fame, pushes through all opposition, and is determined that what he thinks he has discovered shall not perish for want of a fair trial. [Sydney Smith, in Edinburgh Review, 1826]"

discover | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

No one but a pinhead makes a big deal and argues about what you end up arguing. You seem to be an argumentative person and this appears to be your point. What you end up doing is monopolize a forum and hijack it. How else can you explain multiple posts for the same thought?

I’m perfectly happy with you believing man created science, math and music.

I believe man discovered math, science and music.

We good?

 

[james bond]

We are currently still trying to detect dark matter at CERN.

This is what makes you an idiot. There's always going to be dark matter on the part of the universe we are not going to see. Some of it is baryonic and others non-baryonic, but doubt CERN or any other group cares about it at this point.

Instead, CERN is focusing on galaxies, dark matter, and gravitational effect. These galaxies should've been torn apart due to their high speeds of rotation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Instead, CERN is focusing on galaxies, dark matter, and gravitational effect.

... and trying to detect candidates for dark matter. this is a fact. What you did there was trip over yourself to disagree with factual information that you don't understand. And this is because you are a thin skinned, YEC moron who is on the wrong side of all the facts. So, you have your little fits and try to destroy science threads with your voodoo chanting.

 

[james bond]

I’m perfectly happy with you believing man created science, math and music.

I believe man discovered math, science and music.

We good?

Not really. You said you are not a creationist. What do you think God created? Do you not believe he created that which is stated in the Bible?

Whether math, science, and music was invented or discovered isn't of much use compared to the subjects.

 

[james bond]

Instead, CERN is focusing on galaxies, dark matter, and gravitational effect.

... and trying to detect candidates for dark matter. this is a fact. What you did there was trip over yourself to disagree with factual information that you don't understand. And this is because you are a thin skinned, YEC moron who is on the wrong side of all the facts. So, you have your little fits and try to destroy science threads with your voodoo chanting.

That's not what you said. You're only now saying it because I just told you.

You said, "We are currently still trying to detect dark matter at CERN." First, I doubt you work at CERN. Second, what you should have mentioned was non-baryonic and baryonic dark matter. The baryonic dark matter is important, too, but they are more easily detected and scientists understand what matter baryons make up. They may find the answer as a black hole. The more exotic non-baryonic dark matter I mentioned are gravitons and showed a gif of it. There are other hypothesis on this type of dark matter.

 

[Frannie]

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.

Actually, I think you’re getting rather frantic with your “ranting and raving maniac”, claim.

When you “religiously” cut and paste from a religious extremist site, it suggests you share the biases and extremism.

The charlatans at creation.com actually are “that bad” because “creation science” is a fraud.

Why are you a willing accomplice to fraud?

DNA is not the so called building blocks of life that formed in a pond. DNA is a molecular code that was written from the molecules it contains. Science has proved this and now physicist are claiming that the universe is a computer program because they see the clear programming in DNA. So a religious nut may be nuts, but science has proved them right

 

[Frannie]

Instead, CERN is focusing on galaxies, dark matter, and gravitational effect.

... and trying to detect candidates for dark matter. this is a fact. What you did there was trip over yourself to disagree with factual information that you don't understand. And this is because you are a thin skinned, YEC moron who is on the wrong side of all the facts. So, you have your little fits and try to destroy science threads with your voodoo chanting.

That's not what you said. You're only now saying it because I just told you.

You said, "We are currently still trying to detect dark matter at CERN." First, I doubt you work at CERN. Second, what you should have mentioned was non-baryonic and baryonic dark matter. The baryonic dark matter is important, too, but they are more easily detected and scientists understand what matter baryons make up. They may find the answer as a black hole. The more exotic non-baryonic dark matter I mentioned are gravitons and showed a gif of it. There are other hypothesis on this type of dark matter.

LOL he does that all the time

 

[ding]

I’m perfectly happy with you believing man created science, math and music.

I believe man discovered math, science and music.

We good?

Not really. You said you are not a creationist. What do you think God created? Do you not believe he created that which is stated in the Bible?

Whether math, science, and music was invented or discovered isn't of much use compared to the subjects.

I believe God created existence.

Math, music and science were discovered by man but the author is the creator of existence.

 

[james bond]

I believe God created existence.

And by existence, do you mean "life spirit," or that which keeps us alive in this world? And that we are saved because of Jesus? Jesus is the creator of heaven and Earth.

This life is mentioned in Genesis as God's breath. That helps to live in this fallen life. Jesus' sacrifice and payment for our ransom keeps us spiritually alive in the next one.

As for the rest, people will believe what they want to believe.

 

[ding]

I believe God created existence.

And by existence, do you mean "life spirit," or that which keeps us alive in this world? And that we are saved because of Jesus? Jesus is the creator of heaven and Earth.

This life is mentioned in Genesis as God's breath. That helps to live in this fallen life. Jesus' sacrifice and payment for our ransom keeps us spiritually alive in the next one.

As for the rest, people will believe what they want to believe.

By existence I mean the beginning of space and time.

 

[james bond]

I believe God created existence.

And by existence, do you mean "life spirit," or that which keeps us alive in this world? And that we are saved because of Jesus? Jesus is the creator of heaven and Earth.

This life is mentioned in Genesis as God's breath. That helps to live in this fallen life. Jesus' sacrifice and payment for our ransom keeps us spiritually alive in the next one.

As for the rest, people will believe what they want to believe.

By existence I mean the beginning of space and time.

We got that with Kalam Cosmological Argument as evidence for God. Just what do you think God's breath is?

 

[ding]

I believe God created existence.

And by existence, do you mean "life spirit," or that which keeps us alive in this world? And that we are saved because of Jesus? Jesus is the creator of heaven and Earth.

This life is mentioned in Genesis as God's breath. That helps to live in this fallen life. Jesus' sacrifice and payment for our ransom keeps us spiritually alive in the next one.

As for the rest, people will believe what they want to believe.

By existence I mean the beginning of space and time.

We got that with Kalam Cosmological Argument as evidence for God. Just what do you think God's breath is?

I have all of creation as evidence of God.

God willed existence into being. That’s what I believe God’s breath is.

Why are you arguing with me?

 

[Frannie]

I believe God created existence.

And by existence, do you mean "life spirit," or that which keeps us alive in this world? And that we are saved because of Jesus? Jesus is the creator of heaven and Earth.

This life is mentioned in Genesis as God's breath. That helps to live in this fallen life. Jesus' sacrifice and payment for our ransom keeps us spiritually alive in the next one.

As for the rest, people will believe what they want to believe.

By existence I mean the beginning of space and time.

There is no evidence that space and time have a beginning or end.

In fact no one knows anything in this reguard

Sad but true, fools will not accept this

 

[Frannie]

I believe God created existence.

And by existence, do you mean "life spirit," or that which keeps us alive in this world? And that we are saved because of Jesus? Jesus is the creator of heaven and Earth.

This life is mentioned in Genesis as God's breath. That helps to live in this fallen life. Jesus' sacrifice and payment for our ransom keeps us spiritually alive in the next one.

As for the rest, people will believe what they want to believe.

By existence I mean the beginning of space and time.

We got that with Kalam Cosmological Argument as evidence for God. Just what do you think God's breath is?

I have all of creation as evidence of God.

God willed existence into being. That’s what I believe God’s breath is.

Why are you arguing with me?

No one should ever argue with a schizzo

 

[Mac1958]

One of the many wonderful things about science is that we know there is so much more to learn.

I can't imagine the amount of ego it must to think that you have all the answers.