how can we say “something is expanding and yet has no point of origin”? Wouldnt that generate a bit of a dilemma for proponents of the entire Big Bang theory…surely this would mean there is be no point of reference from which to measure and make the claim of expansion?
I don’t have issue with the idea that the stuff of the universe is just blowing by (which it must be according to the redshift pointing at something receding from us), however, to say no point of origin I think would go against mainstream views wouldn’t it? Expansion was not from a singularity but of an infinite origin. How can something from an infinite origin expand…isn’t that starting to sound circular?
I sense that secularists are planning on playing with the theory and morphing it into a new one given the problems faced by the Big Bang model.
No, not on page 23… although I enjoyed reading about how we can measure a decay rate for 40 years and therefore justify extrapolating it to hundreds of millions (if not billions) of years.
The answer, Phil, is nothing. There is nothing against which we can test the radiometric results. The results are discordant only when an “out of date” fossil is found in the same layer (or the testing facility is blindsided with a rock of known age). We date the fossils by the rocks, and the rocks by the fossils. And all of it is based on assumptions and wild speculation.
Phil, have you given any more thought to how a universe that expanded equally in all directions from a center point could be said to not have a center? Or are you satisfied with your with your first answer that it’s too hard to conceptualize?
If the latter, would you mind taking a stab at the next part of BB that has me puzzled? We begin with hot energy shooting off in all directions. Then some of this energy somehow transforms into the first matter (deuterium, helium, hydrogen). So now we have a little bit of matter shooting out in all directions from the location of the former singularity. I picture it like the spines of a sea urchin - radiating further out from each other the further they travel from the singularity location.
Not for me. Since neither the Bible nor actual science support deep time or common descent, I have never had a reason to try to reconcile Scientism and Scripture.
Well, either I and Colin Patterson - the author of many books on evolution and editor of the prestigious journal of the world’s oldest active society devoted to natural history - have misunderstood Popper, or you have.
Not sure what you’re saying. If it is that billions of years of common descent (amoeba to man) evolution is empirically testable, you are mistaken.
Anyway, I’m here to ask you about the big bang idea. We’re told that the universe doesn’t have a center. What do you think of the claim that a universe which allegedly expanded out equally in all directions from a single point wouldn’t have a center? Nonsense?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
111
Your assumption is that the Creation stories in Genesis are concerned with how the world began. Rather, it is concerned with why the world began.
Let me try to explain. Imagine someone today feels led by God to write a creation story. They would take the common understanding of the origin of the universe, namely the Big Bang theory, and interpret it in a way that reveals God’s purpose for the existence of the universe and a consequent understanding of the purpose of humankind. Then, a few centuries down the track, the Big Bang theory would have evolved in the light of further research. Should Christians then cling to an outdated version of the theory because that was the theory at the time of writing?
I think the faulty logic is on your side of the debate. You have assumed that the Creation stories exist to tell the how of Creation. The how of Creation would require knowledge of sub-atomic particles, quantum physics, and special and general relativity. Not something which could be dumped on people in the 6th century B.C.
I think that your understanding of the Creation stories in Genesis would be expanded by looking at the Creation stories of many cultures, not just those of ancient Mesopotamia. This would reveal a genre of literature not intended for a literal understanding.
Good. it is the same way your car computer measures your fuel consumption, and figures your miles to empty. Or the way you look at the eggs in your frig, and determine if you have enough to last through Christmas.
Astronomers can look at spectrographs of radiation from supernovas and determine that those radiation decay rates are consistent with what we see today. The only way you can say it has changed, is to say God performed a miracle to make it look like it is something other than it appears. Then the problem is explaining how God is both holy, and deceptive.
Again that is not the way it works, as explained in that same article. You seem to just be quoted old worn out catch phrases from Creationist organizations.
yes. It might be easier to coceptualize, if you designate one of the dots as the center, then blow up the balloon, thinking of the 2 -D surface of the ballon only, and not the air within as part of it. You can then repeat the process designating one of the other dots as the center.
3 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
114
That emperor has no clothes. It is not an analogy for the expansionS of the universe.
@MikeBoll , we bring our thoughts out into the light here for public examination. It’s what we do and how we help expose the lies that you’ve been played by. We always stand ready to have these conversations, since we love truth.
So I put it to you again:
Do you believe that the earth is not moving?
Forget all this modern cosmology stuff you are probably only pretending to be interested in from the last couple centuries. I’m way back at trying to see if you’ve even managed to learn of the contributions of Copernicus or Galileo!
Well - it’s early in the morning here in the U.S. so we should probably wait and see what the day brings.
It may well be that even today yet, some are not ready for these conversations, but if not - then they certainly aren’t ready for any of all the rest of the subjects they are attempting to poke at or feign interest in here.
No, they aren’t. The dacites at Mt. St. Helens contain xenocrysts which are unmelted rock that came up with the eruption. This means they measured the average age between the old rock and the new rock. On top of that, the creationists who dated these rocks sent it to a lab that didn’t have equipment sensitive enough to date young samples (i.e. <2 million years old).
You are saying that decay rates change. You need more than poor sample and method selection to demonstrate this. If decay rates change as you claim, then where are the lab results demonstrating this?
Math must work a lot different in creationist land. If a date is off by 1 million years then the measurement of a 100 million year old rock will have 1% error. That’s not enough to get where you want.
Scientists have yet to see anyone put God in calculations. Perhaps you can show us how it’s done?
Given that all of the evidence is consistent with a 4.5 billion year old Earth and a 13 billion year old universe, that is what scientists conclude.
That’s not how it works.
Hypothesis . . . if a rock solidified millions of years ago then we should find ratios of 40K and 40Ar that are consistent with millions of years of 40K decay.
Hypothesis . . . if the universe is billions of years old then we should be able to see galaxies that are billions of light years away.
Those are testable hypotheses.
What are your hypotheses and how can they be scientifically tested?
All science demands is empirical observations and testable hypotheses. Nowhere in the scientific method does it say there is no God.
If that is so, then you should believe that the Sun orbits the Earth.
It is a perfect description of basing your beliefs on the sands of creationism which are nothing more than disinformation and lies. The Mt. St. Helens dacites are a perfect example.
Empirical observations. This makes us start from undisputable facts that each of us can verify independently.
Testable hypotheses. This makes us make risky predictions about what empirical observations we should see and should not see if the hypothesis is true.
This type of misinformation only makes creationism look worse. It demonstrates that its followers have no interest in honest dialogue.
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
121
What kind of arbitrary, weird psycho God is that? Where do you get them?