You seem to be insisting that no one ever tries to explain it, just so you can cling to your ancient myths.
People can try, but not pretend they know when all they do is use beliefs in unknowns states and myopic modern myths.
So if we see deuterium in the ancient universe, and if deuterium was created in the ancient universe, this is somehow wrong?
If we see deuterium on say, the space station, does that mean it flew in from the 'ancient universe'? There is no such thing as the ancient universe. That is a modern myth. I see no reason NOT so see flipped hydrogen, or deuterium in the far away universe, do you? Neither do I see any way to claim that some of it being there, (we know not
in what else --if there is more in that unknown space than physical 3d stuff under earth laws) had to have been due to some modern myth or fable. It really is not a difficult issue or problem. Some hydrogen and deuterium exists far away..whoopee do.
And so far, the only thing you have provided to show that a same past state position is wrong is a literal interpretation of the Bible.
NO need to provide anything to show it is wrong until we have stuff that shows it is right. We do not. Not a small speck of any stuff anywhere, anytime anyhow. Really. Literally.
And you think that the ideas of a bunch of cavemen who had very little understanding of how the world works are more authoritative than science?
Yes. I do. A caveman that God gave detailed words to far outranks an apartment cave dweller of the truth molesting modern era making stuff up. Even a pagan caveman who wrote of real long lifespans, or how he married an angel, or some spirit king outranks that
vacuous rantings of modern so called science gone mad men.
Aesop's fables indicate that animals could once speak. Can animals speak now? When was the last time you saw a lion or a fox or a bear talk? So I guess this proves that the past state was one where animals could talk!
Of course animals can talk. Man just can't listen too well.
I said that it is foolish to claim that science is false when it has a great deal of supporting evidence when the source you cite is the only source to mention it.
The same state past has NO evidence. What science has aside from the
tales from the kook state dream factories is not an issue!
The Bible says a particular thing, and no other source anywhere says it, and you accept it as fact.
Such as..?
Science says a particular thing, and dozens of independently conducted experiments from all over the world, using different techniques, from different scientists, at different times all say the same thing, and you dismiss it as wrong.
It is not science that says that same state decay existed and is good for real time dates. Get over it.
This is what I am saying, and yet you try to turn it into a discussion about how ancient Egyptian records show people married ghosts.
No, the Egyptian records indicate they felt that spirits were the first kings of Egypt, showing that they lived together in this world. That collaborates the bible.
You laugh at my inability to provide verifiable evidence? I'm sorry, I must have missed all the bits where I showed how radio dating techniques prove it. Last I heard, those techniques are verifiable.
Don't feel bad I think
we all missed where you showed that! So, what makes them verifiable in your mind now?? Show us one concrete example.
And isn't it hypocritical that you criticise my so-called lack of evidence, when you have provided none yourself?
No. If I claim there is NO evidence from science, then if I am correct, neither of us would have it! The sort of evidence we have is outside that box.
Here's something I came across...
Pristine relics of the Big Bang spotted
Let me quote a paragraph from this...
"For the first time, astronomers have discovered two distant clouds of gas that seem to be pure relics from the Big Bang. Neither cloud contains any detectable elements forged by stars; instead, each consists only of the light elements that arose in the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago. Furthermore, the relatively high abundance of deuterium seen in one of the clouds agrees with predictions of Big Bang theory."
Glad you caught that, this is exactly why I mentioned it.
Dad, could you explain why the relatively high abundance of deuterium seen in one of the clouds agrees with predictions of Big Bang theory if the predictions of the Big Bang theory are wrong?
Already addressed that when I brought it up. The hydrogen and etc exists...so what? In no way would the only reason it could exist be some fantasy universe sailing out of a speck. We know how far the space station is. If we saw a little deuterium in or near it, we could start to have a few real clues. Distant space we know nothing about, so all distance is out the window. We also do not know the laws there, and the space time fabric etc. So what we see may only be part of the picture. We do not know how deuterium or flipped hydrogen or etc are produced in a different space and state. Man has merely assumed it must have been produced a certain way, in a certain state. Meaningless.
There are many steps to get to what we call the distant universe that science takes. Every step is an earth state and law and space and time step!
I would sooner ask Buzz Lightyear about infinity and beyond, than so called science about what goes on outside it's box! Bottom line..we do not know.