Some Einstein sh..tuff, science discussion

[MemeFan]

What evidence shows the opposite?

I want to stay out of HPT theory. Not my forte.

Horewer, scientific theory can't start with Bible since Bible itself can't used to test correctness of theory since Bible itself is variant of somebody has said something, instead of reality itself.

Horewer, if universe is 6000 years old, then what is issue with carbon dating? And all other measures which says more 6000 years.

Why is redshift used to observe distance between stars wrong?

Did natural laws chaged throught time?

Regarding 2 Peter 3:8, well Lord is patient. 15 billion years is like 15 million days which is about 41095 years. Small time for extremely important project. Also same verse can be understood as metaphor of Lord patience.

Remember, it rook just one day between Lord and David.

Personally, I find it more magnificient when old universe has 30+ extremely precise constants or no universe.

My personal rule, when in doubt correct explanation is one with most magnificience for Lord.

 

[FollowingHim]

So @MeganC, are you suggesting he created it in 6000 years and then rested for 1000 years? Or what? Because that sounds the least likely of any suggestion so far.

 

[frederick]

@MeganC Please tell me how old Adam was on the day he died and give supporting evidence from Scripture. Thanks

 

[The Revolting Man]

Alright, @MeganC has been clear, if not here then in earlier discussions of this topic, that she does not take a literal interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis. Arguments based on that are just going to be frustrating and clutter up the thread and obscure the issue.

For the record, I do take a literal interpretation of it (although not as most of you understand it) and I was quite impressed with her explanation of why she does not and what that means for her theology. It was a private conversation so I won’t share it here but it was very beautiful and she has a definite belief in the majesty of our Creator and the miraculousness of His Creation.

But if you’re going to try and show her that her ideas don’t fit the literal explanation found in Genesis then she will agree with you and that will be a boring argument.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

I want to stay out of HPT theory. Not my forte.

Horewer, scientific theory can't start with Bible since Bible itself can't used to test correctness of theory since Bible itself is variant of somebody has said something, instead of reality itself.

Horewer, if universe is 6000 years old, then what is issue with carbon dating? And all other measures which says more 6000 years.

Why is redshift used to observe distance between stars wrong?

Did natural laws chaged throught time?

Regarding 2 Peter 3:8, well Lord is patient. 15 billion years is like 15 million days which is about 41095 years. Small time for extremely important project. Also same verse can be understood as metaphor of Lord patience.

Remember, it rook just one day between Lord and David.

Personally, I find it more magnificient when old universe has 30+ extremely precise constants or no universe.

My personal rule, when in doubt correct explanation is one with most magnificience for Lord.

This is an EXCELLENT segue! Would it surprise you if I told you that HPT addresses some of the scientific concerns or that C-decay addresses the concern about redshift? Real Science Radio has covered these topics. @FollowingHim raises a legitimate question regarding God resting for 1,000 years. in my youth, I tried to reconcile billions of years with the 1,000 years = one day, and the math just doesn't work out! I am going to quote Dr Ross, whom I have repeatedly attempted to refute in this thread, but one thing I will agree with him on, is that it is not a question of what God COULD have done, but rather a matter of what He DID do. While I STRONGLY disagree with his conclusions, he is spot on with this question. I asked Dr Ross, at a conference held at a church I was a member of here in Austin, TX about the redshift, because I had found an article in CMI, that said that the speed of light was slowing down after all. That was because of the fact that Dr. Ross core argument hinges on the speed of light being constant throughout eons of time. Now I have heard this "Constants prove the existence of God" argument many times, and it sounds impressive on the surface, but I am convinced that we need to reexamine that argument. This is because this argument is pretty much an "Intelligent Design" argument which relies on a completely unbiblical "process of evolution" for many of its improbabilities.

After I asked Dr. Ross two follow up questions, because he had blatantly misstated facts, he wrapped up the Q&A section. I believe he was rattled a bit, based on feedback I got from the minister who had invited him. His closing response to my second follow up, was that he believes that constants are constant because God is constant, which is something that has to make you wonder where he came up with that conclusion. A constant is constant by the very definition of what a constant is, not because of God's nature, but the real question is, are the things we have labelled "Constants" truly constants to begin with, or is it possible that they are based on a variable and their proportions to that variable? Barry Setterfield, who has twice been offered honorary PhDs, and has turned it down both times, has proposed that these things we have always assumed are constants, are actually proportional either linearly or quadratically, and for some inversely, to the strength of the ZPE. I would strongly encourage you to investigate this ZPE, because it has explanative power for the "force of gravity", the Bohr radius, the "Strong force", and the mass of the nucleus of the atom (and by extension ions) itself. I have covered some of that in this thread. I also highly recommend you watch some of the Ray Fleming videos that I have posted here as well. We, as believers in Christ, have to ask ourselves whether we are going to continue to embrace Einstein and his failed models, or the Word of God. Those who continue to embrace EInstein, have come up with all kinds of wacky pseudo-scientific ideas such as "string theory". They believe in the nonsensical notions of curved space-time and time dilation. As for me and my house, we have chosen to believe God's Word, and expose Einstein for the fraud that he was.

EDIT: Our knowledge of the universe, is not as complete as we have fooled ourselves into believing. A small minority of scientific minds has come to realize the significance of the Kasimir experiment, and being in the minority in the scientific community will almost always earn you scorn, whenever you challenge the entrenched beliefs of the science establishment. However, time and time again, those who have done so, have been proven right in the end. Take that to heart.

EDIT EDIT: I mentioned that some of the issues you raised, are addressed by HPT. I will include the link for the chapter on the Origin of Earth's Radioactivity. https://hpt.rsr.org/onlinebook/Radioactivity.html Also Bryan Nickel has a video that covers this in his uploads

Unlike the Grand Canyon, this section is based on something that is much more repeatable and hence observable. While the Grand Canyon itself might perhaps be repeatable on a small scale, handling magma mixed with water, is a difficult thing to manage, due to its explosive nature.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Alright, @MeganC has been clear, if not here then in earlier discussions of this topic, that she does not take a literal interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis. Arguments based on that are just going to be frustrating and clutter up the thread and obscure the issue.

For the record, I do take a literal interpretation of it (although not as most of you understand it) and I was quite impressed with her explanation of why she does not and what that means for her theology. It was a private conversation so I won’t share it here but it was very beautiful and she has a definite belief in the majesty of our Creator and the miraculousness of His Creation.

But if you’re going to try and show her that her ideas don’t fit the literal explanation found in Genesis then she will agree with you and that will be a boring argument.

It would have been good for her to answer the questions that I raised regarding the reliability of the Scriptures and the ramifications of such belief. The fact that she did not, is telling. Look, I don't have an issue with people holding unbiblical beliefs, who still have come to know the God of the Bible, and have received the gift of salvation that is freely offered through Christ's shed blood on the cross. We all come to know Christ and His redemptive work, from a life of sin, and somewhat an understanding ingrained in us by the world and their unbelief. However, when you come to a public forum, and present your beliefs as fact, and you mock the beliefs of others, you had better be prepared to defend your arguments in that forum. Just spouting out that you hold a bunch of beliefs dogmatically, does not remove the confusion that you may have instilled in others who are seeking the truth!

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Using a legend to assert the provenance of another legend is circular logic.

The point is to demonstrate that under similar circumstances, a lake may have existed in the past, where again we would not expect to see a shoreline. Searching for whether a lake exists or has existed in the past that has no shoreline, is intrinsically hard to find, information wise. It matters very little though, if we can demonstrate that the conditions those other lakes existed in, do not match the conditions we would have expected to see at the Grand Lake.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It would have been good for her to answer the questions that I raised regarding the reliability of the Scriptures and the ramifications of such belief. The fact that she did not, is telling. Look, I don't have an issue with people holding unbiblical beliefs, who still have come to know the God of the Bible, and have received the gift of salvation that is freely offered through Christ's shed blood on the cross. We all come to know Christ and His redemptive work, from a life of sin, and somewhat an understanding ingrained in us by the world and their unbelief. However, when you come to a public forum, and present your beliefs as fact, and you mock the beliefs of others, you had better be prepared to defend your arguments in that forum. Just spouting out that you hold a bunch of beliefs dogmatically, does not remove the confusion that you may have instilled in others who are seeking the truth!

She is defending her beliefs, quite ably.

 

[MeganC]

So @MeganC, are you suggesting he created it in 6000 years and then rested for 1000 years? Or what? Because that sounds the least likely of any suggestion so far.

My opinion used to be that the universe as we know it was 15 billion to 50 billion years old. Now there is a growing view among physicists and astronomers that the universe is immensely larger than we previously thought and also that it is eternal.

An eternal universe squares with an eternal God Who was and is and will be forevermore. To me this is yet another instance of science unintentionally validating Scripture.

As to the view of creation being only a few thousand years ago this is the interpretation of nomadic shepherds whose grasp of numbers was generally very limited. They had to put things into a context they could understand, just as we are doing in our time.

“Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits”

— Romans 12:16

“Further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; much study is a weariness of the flesh”

— Ecclesiastes 12:12

There are actually several verses in the Bible that caution us not to be vain about our understandings and to let God be God. I extend this overall thought to Biblical knowledge as well. People who are so caught up in the minutiae of the Bible that they miss the greater message are no different than the Pharisees who exhaustively studied prophecy about the Messiah and then failed to see Him when He was standing before them.

John the Baptist, on the other hand, was not so caught up in legalities and the bureaucratic and dogmatic views of Scripture that he was unable to accept that his own cousin was the Messiah. To the contrary, John announced Jesus because John understood the greater message of Scripture and he was also mentally capable of accepting the idea that prophecy was being fulfilled in his time, in his place, and by his very cousin. Honestly, I think John the Baptist is dreadfully underrated by Christians for his ability to accept the advent of a Black Swan event.

In any case, the more I get into actual science the more I know of God and the more I feel insignificant in the vastness of His creation.

 

[MeganC]

Alright, @MeganC has been clear, if not here then in earlier discussions of this topic, that she does not take a literal interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis. Arguments based on that are just going to be frustrating and clutter up the thread and obscure the issue.

For the record, I do take a literal interpretation of it (although not as most of you understand it) and I was quite impressed with her explanation of why she does not and what that means for her theology. It was a private conversation so I won’t share it here but it was very beautiful and she has a definite belief in the majesty of our Creator and the miraculousness of His Creation.

But if you’re going to try and show her that her ideas don’t fit the literal explanation found in Genesis then she will agree with you and that will be a boring argument.

You can share that conversation if you think it will help.

 

[MeganC]

We all come to know Christ and His redemptive work, from a life of sin, and somewhat an understanding ingrained in us by the world and their unbelief.

This is what matters. This.

 

[MemeFan]

This is an EXCELLENT segue! Would it surprise you if I told you that HPT addresses some of the scientific concerns or that C-decay addresses the concern about redshift? Real Science Radio has covered these topics. @FollowingHim raises a legitimate question regarding God resting for 1,000 years. in my youth, I tried to reconcile billions of years with the 1,000 years = one day, and the math just doesn't work out! I am going to quote Dr Ross, whom I have repeatedly attempted to refute in this thread, but one thing I will agree with him on, is that it is not a question of what God COULD have done, but rather a matter of what He DID do. While I STRONGLY disagree with his conclusions, he is spot on with this question. I asked Dr Ross, at a conference held at a church I was a member of here in Austin, TX about the redshift, because I had found an article in CMI, that said that the speed of light was slowing down after all. That was because of the fact that Dr. Ross core argument hinges on the speed of light being constant throughout eons of time. Now I have heard this "Constants prove the existence of God" argument many times, and it sounds impressive on the surface, but I am convinced that we need to reexamine that argument. This is because this argument is pretty much an "Intelligent Design" argument which relies on a completely unbiblical "process of evolution" for many of its improbabilities.

After I asked Dr. Ross two follow up questions, because he had blatantly misstated facts, he wrapped up the Q&A section. I believe he was rattled a bit, based on feedback I got from the minister who had invited him. His closing response to my second follow up, was that he believes that constants are constant because God is constant, which is something that has to make you wonder where he came up with that conclusion. A constant is constant by the very definition of what a constant is, not because of God's nature, but the real question is, are the things we have labelled "Constants" truly constants to begin with, or is it possible that they are based on a variable and their proportions to that variable? Barry Setterfield, who has twice been offered honorary PhDs, and has turned it down both times, has proposed that these things we have always assumed are constants, are actually proportional either linearly or quadratically, and for some inversely, to the strength of the ZPE. I would strongly encourage you to investigate this ZPE, because it has explanative power for the "force of gravity", the Bohr radius, the "Strong force", and the mass of the nucleus of the atom (and by extension ions) itself. I have covered some of that in this thread. I also highly recommend you watch some of the Ray Fleming videos that I have posted here as well. We, as believers in Christ, have to ask ourselves whether we are going to continue to embrace Einstein and his failed models, or the Word of God. Those who continue to embrace EInstein, have come up with all kinds of wacky pseudo-scientific ideas such as "string theory". They believe in the nonsensical notions of curved space-time and time dilation. As for me and my house, we have chosen to believe God's Word, and expose Einstein for the fraud that he was.

EDIT: Our knowledge of the universe, is not as complete as we have fooled ourselves into believing. A small minority of scientific minds has come to realize the significance of the Kasimir experiment, and being in the minority in the scientific community will almost always earn you scorn, whenever you challenge the entrenched beliefs of the science establishment. However, time and time again, those who have done so, have been proven right in the end. Take that to heart.

EDIT EDIT: I mentioned that some of the issues you raised, are addressed by HPT. I will include the link for the chapter on the Origin of Earth's Radioactivity. https://hpt.rsr.org/onlinebook/Radioactivity.html Also Bryan Nickel has a video that covers this in his uploads

Unlike the Grand Canyon, this section is based on something that is much more repeatable and hence observable. While the Grand Canyon itself might perhaps be repeatable on a small scale, handling magma mixed with water, is a difficult thing to manage, due to its explosive nature.

It would more rely on work by Stephan Wolfam. I haven't followed his and associates reserch last year, horewer they were able inside year to get result from both quanthum mechanics theory and theory of relativity. Including what both theories predict and are experimentaly observed.

What is even more impressive their theory also includes computing.

Unless HPT can do both observations of both quantum mechanism and relativity, it's second grade candidate. Sorry.

 

[FollowingHim]

Alright, @MeganC has been clear, if not here then in earlier discussions of this topic, that she does not take a literal interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis. Arguments based on that are just going to be frustrating and clutter up the thread and obscure the issue.

I don't wish to apply a double standard here though. The implication seems to be that we should just accept what Megan believes to keep the peace. But here she is vigorously arguing against what Daniel believes. You can't have it both ways - either you're in a debate or you're not. If Megan is going to throw the sort of verbose arguments against Daniel that she has been doing, she can expect to receive equal in return. On the other hand, if she wishes her own views to be accepted peaceably, she should stop attacking the views of others.

I'm not encouraging anyone to argue against @MeganC, nor am I telling her to stop asserting her viewpoint. I'm not telling anyone to do anything. But I am wanting everyone to make their own decisions about how to treat each other equitably and fairly.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I don't wish to apply a double standard here though. The implication seems to be that we should just accept what Megan believes to keep the peace. But here she is vigorously arguing against what Daniel believes. You can't have it both ways - either you're in a debate or you're not. If Megan is going to throw the sort of verbose arguments against Daniel that she has been doing, she can expect to receive equal in return. On the other hand, if she wishes her own views to be accepted peaceably, she should stop attacking the views of others.

I'm not encouraging anyone to argue against @MeganC, nor am I telling her to stop asserting her viewpoint. I'm not telling anyone to do anything. But I am wanting everyone to make their own decisions about how to treat each other equitably and fairly.

I’m not trying to insert myself into Megan’s fun. She can handle herself. I just saw the conversation heading towards Answers in Genesis territory and figured I could save us all a little time.

 

[MeganC]

I don't wish to apply a double standard here though. The implication seems to be that we should just accept what Megan believes to keep the peace. But here she is vigorously arguing against what Daniel believes. You can't have it both ways - either you're in a debate or you're not. If Megan is going to throw the sort of verbose arguments against Daniel that she has been doing, she can expect to receive equal in return. On the other hand, if she wishes her own views to be accepted peaceably, she should stop attacking the views of others.

I'm not encouraging anyone to argue against @MeganC, nor am I telling her to stop asserting her viewpoint. I'm not telling anyone to do anything. But I am wanting everyone to make their own decisions about how to treat each other equitably and fairly.

To me this is less about what I believe than it is about the conclusion of research coming before the actual research.

With hydroplate theory and the notion that the Grand Canyon was suddenly and catastrophically created the only reason these notions get any support is because they're used to bolster the claim that the earth was created only a few thousand years ago.

Some folks have latched onto the Young Earth theory and that's fine by me so long as they come up with evidence that passes scientific muster to back it up. Referring to passages in Genesis to back up a Biblical claim is circular logic, which is not logic at all.

This line of discussion will only play well with those specific believers who believe this way anyhow.

I do not expect anyone to agree with me on my views. Most people don't. But, I can explain my views and back them up with references that are not of a religious origin. I can also argue some Biblical claims from a rational viewpoint such that non-believers are sometimes swayed just a little.

Keep in mind I came to God and Jesus as a purely secular non-believer. I was born and raised into a secular and rational world and after some life experience I came to realize that God and Jesus are real in my life. It was a rational conclusion that followed years of experience and personal observation.

Now that I know God and Jesus are real in my life am I to give up the same sense of reason that brought me to my understanding? Of course not. For me, and I emphasize this... for me to reject reason would be to reject God and Jesus and the truth they are to me.

Please also take note that while I disagree with Daniel's assertions in favor of hydroplate theory & etc. I still hold Daniel in high esteem. I envy him his faith. I am not capable of the level of faith he expresses and even if I disagree with his views on the details he's totally nailed the important part.

A discussion I am having in fellowship right now and that is pissing off one of our men is about Matthew 3:11

"...He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals...."

In particular when I first heard this in discussion on the 16th it struck me what John the Baptist was truly saying here when he spoke of Jesus's sandals:

"I am unfit to remove Jesus' unclean sandals."

In our time it is lost to us just how filthy sandals were in John's time. City streets of the time were covered in human and animal excrement and to touch someone else's turd-covered sandals was to become ritually unclean.

This one gentleman is pissed off at me because I said that something of Jesus' was unclean and he refuses to accept that John said it and not me. I am the one at fault for observing this. At the time this hit me I was impressed with what John was saying. This is really one of those Biblical metaphors I sometimes obsess over and one whose meaning has been lost to us in our time.

It is a detail like this that gives the Bible texture and it impresses upon me just how much Jesus had been made a man and it also impressed me to no end that John recognized his cousin as the prophesied Messiah. The guy with shit on his feet was the Son of the Living God.

Very impressive if you ask me.

I am now rambling.

Back on track here I am not ruling out the hydroplate theory in whole or in part. Just saying that so far I am finding nothing to support it outside of the people who adhere to it.

 

[FollowingHim]

To me this is less about what I believe than it is about the conclusion of research coming before the actual research.

That's the problem I have with long-age theories - again, they fundamentally exist due to the conclusion coming first. Conclusion: God does not exist. Question: How can everything exist without a God? Answer: Natural processes take a long time to do anything, so it must have taken a really long time. This then prompts lots of research to fill in the detail.

That's overly simplistic of course, you'll find exceptions to that generalisation, but my point is that the same problem exists on both sides of the fence. It's faulty logic - but we can't dismiss either side over it if both are doing it.

I am not a geologist and have not investigated hydroplate or plate tectonics much. I am if anything a biologist. And in that field, the above statement is certainly true. All the actual observational evidence we have is that animals cannot change into other animals through natural processes, nor can they obtain new complex features, the known processes of mutations and natural selection actually reduce information and mathematically can do nothing else. Yet because of a presupposition that everything must have originated without a god, biologists assume that they MUST have caused new forms of animals to arise, and assume that given enough time things must happen which we simply have not observed yet. And it is that long time needed for evolution that initially caused people to assume the earth itself must be very old, and then interpret every observation within that paradigm, rejecting every possibility that does not fit within what they already think they know to be true.

Lots of research is conducted to find things that the scientists already assume by faith must exist but have not yet been observed (e.g. searches for "missing links" in the fossil record, investigations into how life could come spontaneously from basic chemicals...).

Scientists are just normal people and make the same logical errors as everyone, for the same psychological reasons.

 

[FollowingHim]

and then interpret every observation within that paradigm, rejecting every possibility that does not fit within what they already think they know to be true.

A really good example of this is radioisotope dating. When you actually consider the methods used, radioisotope dating generally tells you the maximum age of an object, not the actual age, because a lot of assumptions need to be made about how to do the calculations and many assumptions are possible that render younger ages.

For a really simple example, take Uranium - Lead dating. Uranium decays over time to lead. If you measure the uranium content of a sample, and the lead content, and assume that all that lead has come from uranium decay, you can work out how long it would have taken to produce that amount of lead. But that's only assuming all the lead came from uranium. If there was any lead at all in the sample when it was first laid down, then the actual age will be less than this. The age calculated is the maximum possible assuming the extreme (and unlikely) situation of having a starting sample that was completely lead-free. Any other assumption gives you a younger age.

All the younger assumptions are rejected. Why? Because the researchers already think that they know the sample is very old. Any assumption that does not give that answer is automatically rejected as wrong, and the one that best fits their presuppositions is considered the right one.

Conclusion first, then research to fill in the details.

 

[steve]

Adam was not created as a child, he was created as a fully grown man, presumably. So his creation bypassed the years that it would take his body to grow up to be man-sized.

Likewise the earth, at what level of age was it actually created?
If this has already been discussed, my apologies.

 

[MeganC]

Question: How can everything exist without a God? Answer: Natural processes take a long time to do anything, so it must have taken a really long time.

There are simply too many coincidences in our universe for there not to be a Designer.

Stars and planets organize themselves into solar systems. Some of those planets end up in orbits that are conducive to life.

The complexity of polynucleotides to form out of nucleotides which are formed from cytosine, guanine, adenine, and thymine whose particular molecular bonds are dictated by physics to occur in set patterns speaks to the existence of a Programmer all the same as the computer I am writing on right now speaks to a myriad of designers and programmers. Maybe even more so since the laws that ordered the nucleotides are inherently and inseparably part of the very fabric of our universe.

It takes a huge statement of faith to believe that so many things (stars, planets, DNA, life, us) were an accident. It takes less faith to believe my computer arose organically and that fairies delivered it to my home. My computer being far less complex than the components that make up DNA.

And an eternal or old universe no more disproves God than did these discoveries:

1. That the earth is not the center of the universe.
2. That the sky is not a solid object, a firmament.
3. That the moon is not perfect.
4. That microbes exist.
5. That illnesses are not all caused by demonic possession or demonic oppression.
6. That atoms exist.
7. That atoms are composed of even smaller particles.
8. That man can fly.
9. That space flight is possible.
10. The world is round.
11. That stars are not lights from heaven.

etc.

Despite the bleatings of HERESY!! from so many narrow minded clerics and narrow minded people these facts were eventually accepted and did any of this disprove God? Not at all.

Perhaps your experience is that everyone you know who doesn't cleave to a Young Earth theory denies the existence of God.

It really shouldn't matter how old the earth is so far as our acceptance of God goes.

If the world is fifteen billion years old then how does this disprove God? It doesn't.

Here's a thought for you: UFO/UAP are being taken seriously lately. What if it turns out that aliens are real? Does that disprove God? Not to me.

It'll just mean new people to discuss the Glory of God with is all.

 

[MemeFan]

There are simply too many coincidences in our universe for there not to be a Designer.

Stars and planets organize themselves into solar systems. Some of those planets end up in orbits that are conducive to life.

The complexity of polynucleotides to form out of nucleotides which are formed from cytosine, guanine, adenine, and thymine whose particular molecular bonds are dictated by physics to occur in set patterns speaks to the existence of a Programmer all the same as the computer I am writing on right now speaks to a myriad of designers and programmers. Maybe even more so since the laws that ordered the nucleotides are inherently and inseparably part of the very fabric of our universe.

It takes a huge statement of faith to believe that so many things (stars, planets, DNA, life, us) were an accident. It takes less faith to believe my computer arose organically and that fairies delivered it to my home. My computer being far less complex than the components that make up DNA.

It takes zero faith for self organisation to happen.

It happens between humans as discovered by proper economic and in natural science as fractal. Both live and unlive things show as fractals.

By itself universe and things itside have structure.