My Big Bang Challenge

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

What's in a name? Although it might help if you understand that it bears no relation to what an atom means today or even in Democritus' time. Le Maitre was speculating, and it turns out not to be quite what he speculated.

Click to expand...

Georges Lemaitre was one of the 'Big Four' to develop the Big Bang theory along with Alexander Friedmann, Howard Robertson and Arthur Walker.
It incoherent to base this thread on a theory proposed by Lemaitre which is nearly a century old and clearly wrong given the advances in cosmology, atomic and particle physics in the meantime.
By today's standards Friedmann, Robertson and Walker probably have a more lasting legacy.
Friedmann developed the mathematics behind expansion while Robertson and Walker rigorously proved the metric describing expansion is the only one in spacetime which is consistent with an isotropic and homogeneous universe.

Yttrium said:

Hey, sand dunes can erode even faster! That proves that the Grand Canyon could have been gouged out in a day, right? I mean, different materials wouldn't erode at different rates, would they?

Click to expand...

I’m sure you have no problem accepting that the earth’s major landforms were created as a result of upheavals, subterranean movements and continents breaking up on a colossal scale… but a flood of such magnitude to create the Grand Canyon (in Arizona) is impossible?

AV1611VET said:

Grand Canyon = allegedly 70,000,000 years old
Mississippi River = allegedly 70,000,000 year old

Click to expand...

Huh. You're reading way different sources than I am.

inquiring mind said:

Maybe in the case of the GC there was more water than they can imagine.

Click to expand...

It's not just the scale of the GC, it's the details.

People have closely examined the layers that make up the walls and most of them are the kind of rock that can't be laid down quickly, or you don't get the delicate layers. Also there fossil structures within the layers, not just of small creatures remains, but of nests and tracks. All these things would be completely obliterated by gigantic deluges that last less than a decade.

inquiring mind said:

I’m sure you have no problem accepting that the earth’s major landforms were created as a result of upheavals, subterranean movements and continents breaking up on a colossal scale… but a flood of such magnitude to create the Grand Canyon (in Arizona) is impossible?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's impossible. But a flood that massive would have left a lot more evidence. Meanwhile, the Grand Canyon sure looks consistent with gradual erosion over a great amount of time.

Yttrium said:

Huh. You're reading way different sources than I am.

Click to expand...

The article below the video says approximately 80,000,000 years old.
Mississippi River Facts, Location & History | How Long is the Mississippi River? - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Shemjaza said:

It's not just the scale of the GC, it's the details.

People have closely examined the layers that make up the walls and most of them are the kind of rock that can't be laid down quickly, or you don't get the delicate layers. Also there fossil structures within the layers, not just of small creatures remains, but of nests and tracks. All these things would be completely obliterated by gigantic deluges that last less than a decade.

Click to expand...

Yttrium said:

I wouldn't say it's impossible. But a flood that massive would have left a lot more evidence. Meanwhile, the Grand Canyon sure looks consistent with gradual erosion over a great amount of time.

Click to expand...

It's my understanding that there is not enough consensus among scientist on exactly how the canyon was formed, for the park to even tell visitors.

inquiring mind said:

It's my understanding that there is not enough consensus among scientist on exactly how the canyon was formed, for the park to even tell visitors.

Click to expand...

That is misleading to the point of being false.

Disagreements about the river being present through the entire laying of the rock of the area for millions of years, or the river merely being hundreds of thousands if years old cut through million year old flood plain are based on interpretations of evidence.

Asserting any disagreement indicated that nothing can be known, so it might have been laid in a year a century before the pyramids were built is 100% false.

Shemjaza said:

That is misleading to the point of being false.

Disagreements about the river being present through the entire laying of the rock of the area for millions of years, or the river merely being hundreds of thousands if years old cut through million year old flood plain are based on interpretations of evidence.

Asserting any disagreement indicated that nothing can be known, so it might have been laid in a year a century before the pyramids were built is 100% false.

Click to expand...

There are differences I'm sure, let alone the flood disagreement: Grand Canyon: Exposing the Flood

inquiring mind said:

There are differences I'm sure, let alone the flood disagreement: Grand Canyon: Exposing the Flood

Click to expand...

Do you have a source that will allow the study of science without the declaration of a literal reading of Genesis?

They declare that mountain formation can happen over a single year without accounting for the necessary energy required for that amount of force.

If you want to declare it's all miracles that's fine... but you shouldn't pretend you have scientific evidence or any respect for the scientific method.

It's cowardly and dishonest.

AV1611VET said:

Why didn't the Mississippi River do the same thing?

Click to expand...

Lack of uplift.

If you go to the Upper Mississippi there is even a water falls and much of the river is surrounded by bluffs. This relief map of the "Driftless Region" shows the erosion carved set of streams and tributaries flowing into the Mississippi.

File:Driftless trout streams1.png - Wikipedia

inquiring mind said:

I’m sure you have no problem accepting that the earth’s major landforms were created as a result of upheavals, subterranean movements and continents breaking up on a colossal scale… but a flood of such magnitude to create the Grand Canyon (in Arizona) is impossible?

Click to expand...

Yes. There are features that cannot be carved by flood waters in the canyon.

inquiring mind said:

There are differences I'm sure, let alone the flood disagreement: Grand Canyon: Exposing the Flood

Click to expand...

A known lying source is worse than no source at all. The following picture is of a tributary to the Colorado river which refutes the flood story all by itself:

Shemjaza said:

Do you have a source that will allow the study of science without the declaration of a literal reading of Genesis?

They declare that mountain formation can happen over a single year without accounting for the necessary energy required for that amount of force.

If you want to declare it's all miracles that's fine... but you shouldn't pretend you have scientific evidence or any respect for the scientific method.

It's cowardly and dishonest.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

Lack of uplift.

If you go to the Upper Mississippi there is even a water falls and much of the river is surrounded by bluffs. This relief map of the "Driftless Region" shows the erosion carved set of streams and tributaries flowing into the Mississippi.

File:Driftless trout streams1.png - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Yes. There are features that cannot be carved by flood waters in the canyon.

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

A known lying source is worse than no source at all. The following picture is of a tributary to the Colorado river which refutes the flood story all by itself:

Click to expand...

I don’t get your reasoning at all, even if you don’t believe the bible. When PhDs and scientists look at any situation in mainstream science, and say, wait a minute this doesn’t look right or there could be another answer, they are immediately rejected and labeled liars, quacks, etc. It’s like you’ve been tranced… reject the bible, its not science, don’t even consider it, assault it, you know it doesn’t make sense, it couldn’t happen, don’t listen. When someone even mentions the possibility of the Grand Canyon being caused by a flood, you ignore the power that could have been released on a global scale, yet accepting it regarding plate tectonics, and talk about any suggestion of flooding as if it could have only been on a local scale and in terms of rainwater run-off, and therefore not a possibility. How much clearer could Genesis 7:11 (In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.) be? As I said, even if you don't believe it, it was written in an untripping, short term, earth-altering way which brings PhD's at odds even today.

inquiring mind said:

I don’t get your reasoning at all, even if you don’t believe the bible. When PhDs and scientists look at any situation in mainstream science, and say, wait a minute this doesn’t look right or there could be another answer, they are immediately rejected and labeled liars, quacks, etc. It’s like you’ve been tranced… reject the bible, its not science, don’t even consider it, assault it, you know it doesn’t make sense, it couldn’t happen, don’t listen. When someone even mentions the possibility of the Grand Canyon being caused by a flood, you ignore the power that could have been released on a global scale, yet accepting it regarding plate tectonics, and talk about any suggestion of flooding as if it could have only been on a local scale and in terms of rainwater run-off, and therefore not a possibility.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how much power is brought to bear in a short time if multiple lines of evidence unequivocally point to a very long history.

inquiring mind said:

I don’t get your reasoning at all, even if you don’t believe the bible. When PhDs and scientists look at any situation in mainstream science, and say, wait a minute this doesn’t look right or there could be another answer, they are immediately rejected and labeled liars, quacks, etc. It’s like you’ve been tranced… reject the bible, its not science, don’t even consider it, assault it, you know it doesn’t make sense, it couldn’t happen, don’t listen. When someone even mentions the possibility of the Grand Canyon being caused by a flood, you ignore the power that could have been released on a global scale, yet accepting it regarding plate tectonics, and talk about any suggestion of flooding as if it could have only been on a local scale and in terms of rainwater run-off, and therefore not a possibility. How much clearer could Genesis 7:11 (In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.) be? As I said, even if you don't believe it, it was written in an untripping, short term, earth-altering way which brings PhD's at odds even today.

Click to expand...

No, no one is ignoring the power. It is the power that makes the specific type of geologic features that we see impossible. We know the sort of erosion and land forms made by a flood.


The photograph I posted shows a land form that took millions of years to form. How could a flood have made it?

Subduction Zone said:

The photograph I posted shows a land form that took millions of years to form. How could a flood have made it?

Click to expand...

It's a miracle?