No. 1: No, everything SHOULD be flying apart under the conventional model, but for the sprinkling of magic foo foo dust throughout the universe.
No. 2. Red shift is deemed too inaccurate to measure when it works against the conventional cosmology. Others, like Halton Arp, by measuring red shift show relative motion that cannot exist in a Big Bang model. Things are moving the wrong way.
1. The "magic foo foo dust" has been
observed, friend. Bullet Cluster etc.
2. Please give concrete examples of when red-shifts have not been usable as data in measuring distances.
You have to be in the club to use them, otherwise, one finds a way to suggest that your use of them is inappropriate. As a YEC, I am not in the club, and so it seems fair to assume the worst about what I say. The club is for evolutionists.
"Not in the club", eh?
You're a lawyer, right? Imagine if some day, someone walks up to you and tells you that all lawyers are really in a giant conspiracy to take over the world by manipulating all constitutions of all countries at once. He produces several "papers" showing this happening, including Kurt Godel's classic demonstration that it is theoretically possible for the United States of America to become a constitutionally valid monarchy, and then expects to be told that he's a savior for bringing truth that nobody has ever seen before.
But a detailed examination with a few minutes of Googling shows that he's completely wrong.
When you confront him about his massive conspiracy theory concerning all lawyers in the world, he replies that "gee, you're being dismissive, aren't you? Well that's like the scent of blood in the water to me! Just you wait!" However, instead of producing more evidence to support his shaky theories, he talks less, and when he
does talk, he lampoons lawyers as "sharks in suits who speak pointless Latin" and makes all manners of ridiculous lawyer jokes.
And finally when you ask him again for concrete evidence for his claims he shrugs his shoulders and says "I'm not in the club. Why should I bother?"
... there has never even
been a club. (Remember, my offer to teach you enough math as is necessary to understand how pulsar data refutes c-decay is still standing. Would it stand if there was a "club" from which you were being excluded?) But given the paucity of evidence for your view, is it a surprise that your views are quickly beaten down - not with rhetoric, but with
evidence? You complain that only those "in the club" get to use the papers - maybe, maybe, you get into the club
by using the papers, which unfortunately just don't work with your position at all.
Disagreeing with physical reality sucks - but it's not our fault if you choose to.
