• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Age of the Universe

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,432
10,019
48
UK
✟1,333,114.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The problem with this whole curious debate is that it's based on a misnomer, a faulty premise.

The universe is only 6000 years old. Because you guys look at extraneous theories, you are not able to confirm what is what. That's why we need a reference-point for the truth. The Bible says "IN THE BEGINNING", meaning "THAT WAS THE BEGINNING!!!", God made the heaven (space) and the earth. - FYI the Hebrew in the Old Testament does not have plural "Heavens", it has the singular... "Heaven" (meaning - 'Space'; or if you like, "The Cosmos")

And i know for a fact that the earth has been dated and confirmed as 6000 years old, so that's also when space (the "Heaven") was created. Therefore the 13.7 billion compared to 42 billion light years away blah blah induces a faulty albeit blurry/confused conceptualization for theorizing. Obviously if we know the truth already, then factual answers can stem from that to avoid 'what ifs" and 'whys' or 'hows', and therefore we can see by the Bible that when God made the earth and the universe 6000 years ago, he obviously made the 'entire expanse' AT THE SAME TIME; problem solved! If anyone calls themself a Christian, then they need to look at the 'facts' (truths) in the Bible for exactly what they say, the Bible does not play word-games; capiche?
There is no mystery about all this... IN THE BEGINNING (6000 YEARS AGO), GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH". That's the end of the matter. Now get-on with being a Christian and rejoicing in your salvation...


And for the naysayer know-it-alls who wish to continue disputation, then consider this...

Some 'non-Christian' scientists said they found the perfect way to date the earth, and they said it's even 'more' reliable than telling the age of a tree by the rings on it's stump (which is 100% foolproof), and to their amazement they confessed that the earth is 6000 years old. There you go folks. So now you can have no more confusion unless you insist...
The other
That is simply untrue. There are many scientists within the fields of geology, physics, geochronology who will admit that they simply don't have answers. Serious flaws are being exposed with radio carbon dating and even more deep fundamental flaws with the geological column.

Just because you were taught that everyone agree's in HS and your undergrad 100 level courses taught by liberal teachers doesn't mean that people with Phd's working in their fields in the field agree with your assessment.

There is undeniable, reliable evidence of a world wide flood. If you assume such a thing DID NOT occur you have to have an earth that is billions of years old to explain the deep beds of coal found all over the earth. You have to do things like say the grand canyon was formed over millions upon millions of years carved out by the Colorado river... we know for absolute certainty that a canyon of size can be formed in extraordinarily short periods of time. Mt St Helen's is a striking example of how rapid erosion can form large canyon's in a short period of time.

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r04/
1. Radio carbon dating is used to date thevrecent past 40000 years say, radiometric dating using istopes found in rock is one of the methods used to date rock and that goes back a lot further.
2. There is zero evidence of a global flood, plenty of evidence of floods in floodvplains, including the middle east, but nada zip evidence of a global flood.
3. Guess what, geologists/archaeolgists know what flood deposit looks like, zero evidence of such a global flood has been found.
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
...all I can say is that the majority of physicists are in agreement on this figure, which is nothing more than an argument from authority.

Citing a scientific consensus in the relevant field is a valid argument. While this can't prove beyond any doubt that the assertion is true (that would be an appeal to authority), it is very good evidence, and it is much more reasonable to accept the view of the experts than to reject them claiming that it's an "appeal to authority". Thus Goonie is fine saying that the 13.8 date is correct based on the experts - leaving it up to doveman to provide a cogent argument for some other age (and citing a Bible is not valid).


It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.


From here: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority


In Christ-

Papias
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
No physicist has ever claimed magic as a cause behind why the universe expand.

Unlike inelastic scattering processes (plural) in plasma which *have* been observed and documented in the lab, none of the Lambda-CDM proponents can demonstrate that space expansion occurs in controlled experimentation or that it has any effect on a photon in the *real* (non magical) universe. It's all an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer". It's a *supernatural* claim that *fails* in the lab every single day, every single time.

An expanding universe falls out as a natural consequence of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

I will grant you that you can stuff the claim into a GR formula if you choose to do so, just like "dark energy', but that doesn't mean it actually *occurs* in nature! GR is *not* dependent upon "space expansion" claims for it's legitimacy anymore than it *requires* dark energy. GR works *perfectly fine* without all your unsupported assertions as Lerner demonstrates with his surface brightness tests at high redshifts. Stuffing magic into a GR formula doesn't lend any credibility to magic.

Unless you also regard physics as magic I see no reason why it should be considered a magical expansion, unless you think you can dictate what rules the universe ought to follow or behave accordingly to.

Funny how they never behave according to "space expansion" rules in a lab. Only some mythical creation event requires it.

Redshift from distant start is an observational fact.

And inelastic scattering is also observational fact and it's not shy around the lab either.

Another observational fact is that redshift increase with distance.

All tired light theories explain that phenomenon as well. They also happen to jive with surface brightness tests on high redshift objects, something your theory doesn't!

These observations are best explained as an effect caused by an expansion of the universe.

Best? According to whom? Even *if* that's true, there's absolutely no need or requirement for 'space expansion' anyway!

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

What exactly makes it the "best' explanation if "space expansion" never happens in a lab, and multiple *empirical* options which do show up in the lab already exist to explain it?

(With "best" is meant that there is no contraction with any other observation - ever - made.

You mean except for the fact that it fails Lerners surface brightness test, it fails in the lab, it conflicts with hemispheric variations in the Planck data set, and it conflicts with every observation about "dark matter" in the lab, and conflicts with newer data about galaxy mass estimates. It also conflict with the observations of SN1A events that are *not* all "standard candles" as falsely advertized a few year ago. Sure, *except for* all that, it doesn't conflict with anything else we observe. :)

Nor is there any contradiction with any other part of the standard model of physics,

You mean except for the standard particle physics model which is now complete *without* SUSY theory?

that means there is no contradiction with our basic and must fundamental understanding of physics. I.e. the very same physics that is taught in high school and undergraduate courses in science classes.

What high school class teaches "expanding space" or "dark energy" concepts? What high school class ponders multiple supernatural variations of inflation claims? The only place where any of that *metaphsics* is taught is in relationship to *one* otherwise *falsified* cosmology theory. It's all useless, irrelevant or unnecessary outside of that one theory of physics. There are even cosmology replacement theories which *do not* require it, so those claims are entirely *optional* even in the *field* of cosmology!

Therefore this explanation, unlike others, does not require us to think that our fundamental understand of basic physics is, somehow, wrong and thus does not demands us to rewrite the text books in physics).

Yes it does. You'll have to totally rewrite the standard particle physics model for starters. I'm really curious now that LHC is back in operation to see how your exotic stable matter of the gaps claims play out at LHC. All your popular models bit the dust the go round, and every standard model prediction was right on the money.

That said, you are free to reject any explanation in physics. Nobody force you to accept anything. However, if you want other physicists to accept the view that the universe is not expanding then you need to explain the observed redshift! I.e. what cause the observed redshift if the universe is not expanding?

Hubble himself offered you *two* viable alternatives. It's not my fault that you only considered one of them.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Would you prefer arxiv PDFs instead?

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420

The bottom line is that there are also "mathematical models' to explain photon redshift as a function of inelastic scattering in plasma.

I'm scanning, but it looks like that is another example of a frequency dependent redshift, not frequency independent as we see when looking at distant stars, galaxies, and events.

What, for example, could equally redshift gamma rays and thermal radiation?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
I'm scanning, but it looks like that is another example of a frequency dependent redshift, not frequency independent as we see when looking at distant stars, galaxies, and events.

What, for example, could equally redshift gamma rays and thermal radiation?

Could you start by showing me a published paper that compares gamma rays and lower energy wavelengths at a range of redshifts? As I recall, they're using something like 10 different wavelength models/templates for various redshift distances. Why?
 
Upvote 0

dcarrera

Member
Apr 26, 2014
283
50
Lund, Sweden
Visit site
✟16,847.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Or maybe they have a different interpretation of what fundamental physics teach and their experimental evidence suggest something different.

This would explain why scientists often disagree.

Astronomers do not disagree on whether the Big Bang is the right model. There was a time when there was disagreement. Then came the evidence, the Big Bang model was accepted, and the debate moved to the next open question. There was a time when there was disagreement on black holes. Then came the evidence, black holes were accepted, and the debate moved to the next open question. Today there is debate on things like the nature of dark matter, or some aspects of how planets form, or the mechanism behind short gamma-ray bursts. As we gather new evidence, some issues get settled and we move on to new questions.
 
Upvote 0

dcarrera

Member
Apr 26, 2014
283
50
Lund, Sweden
Visit site
✟16,847.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I agree.

A lot of the scientific claims made in these forums is based on trust/faith in the words of men.
Sure.

I will never know as much about cars as my mechanic does. I will never know more about plumbing than my plumber. I try to be informed, but to an extent I also put some trust on people who have actually spent a career learning how their field works. If I started telling all dieticians that they don't know anything about diets, I would look like a fool. Do you also criticize people for taking medical advice from doctors? It is immature and silly to act as if your ignorance of a field is just as good as the knowledge of people who spent a career on that field. This is true for astronomy, medicine, etc.
 
Upvote 0

davedajobauk

dum spiro spero
Site Supporter
Dec 26, 2006
55,183
28,520
77
Salford, Greater Manchester. UK
✟300,707.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Why do scientists maintain that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old even though objects can be observed to be 46 billion light years away?

You will notice that I did not ask why objects can be observed to be 46 billion light years away.

I am asking why scientists maintain that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old.

More like an argument from pure logic. There are "simpler" ways to explain photon redshift which do *not* require *multiple* "acts of faith". The space expansion claim simply isn't the 'simplest' explanation of photon redshift.


There is the answer..... "Expansion"

ie: these "objects" were, MORE LOCAL, @ 13.8 billion years ago
but, have since moved-away so-fast (ever since) that they are now 45 billion years away
(could you travel, at the speed of light)

red-shift, is about all we have, with which to calculate that the object is 'moving-away' or,
coming toward us and by how 'fast' (approximately)

dave
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Astronomers do not disagree on whether the Big Bang is the right model. There was a time when there was disagreement.

Ya, in the good old days, Hubble himself bantered around *at least* two different explanations, not one.

Then came the evidence, the Big Bang model was accepted,

By *everyone*, or just a majority? Does that *end* the debate in your mind?

and the debate moved to the next open question.

So when did you folks do an exhaustive study on inelastic scattering methods before making your 'decision' anyway?

Today there is debate on things like the nature of dark matter, or some aspects of how planets form, or the mechanism behind short gamma-ray bursts. As we gather new evidence, some issues get settled and we move on to new questions.

The flaw in your presentation is that future data doesn't always jive with the original claims. For instance, in the case of "dark matter", we discovered that the formulas that you folks used to calculate the amount of baryonic mass present in that 2006 lensing study were *terribly flawed*.

Two years after you folks claimed to find 'proof' of dark matter, we found out that the universe is 'dustier' than you believed and you've underestimated the amount of light coming from low redshift galaxies by a factor of 2!

http://www.space.com/5348-view-universe-suddenly-bright.html

A year later we found out that you've been *grossly* underestimating the number of smaller stars compared to the larger ones that produce enough light for us to actually observe from Earth. You folks blew that calculation by a whopping factor of four!

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20090819.html

The following year we found out that you've been grossly underestimating the number of *the most common* stars in galaxies by a factor of between 3 and 20!

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/01/scientists-sextillion-stars/

The entire premise of your claims in 2006 about the amount of baryonic matter that was present as *falsified* by later studies!

Now let's see how you did in the lab since you *decided* dark matter must exist in some exotic form:

LHC *crushed* your most popular SUSY models, and not a single "sparticle" showed up as *predicted*. Furthermore all the standard model predictions bore empirical fruit, again undermining SUSY theory.

http://news.discovery.com/space/lhc-discovery-maims-supersymmetry-again-130724.htm

You folks struck out *big time* at LUX too.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/oct/31/lux-dark-matter-search-comes-up-empty

All your predictions related to LUX were *falsified* by the actual data.

You struck out again at PandaX too:

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/pandax_dark_matter_experiment_has_nothing_to_report-139995

You folks also created "tests" about electrons and how round they would be, and again you *struck out*, and falsified yet *another prediction* of exotic matter claims

http://news.yale.edu/2013/12/19/electrons-shapeliness-throws-curve-supersymmetry

Not only was the premise about the amount of ordinary matter present in that 2006 lensing study *falsified* by observation, every *prediction* you made about exotic forms of matter was *falsified* via experimentation. In other words, you *decided* that 'dark matter' was correct in 2006 and you simply buried your collective heads in the sand when it comes to the outcome of your own 'tests'. You folks have a really *bad* case of confirmation bias, and tendency to simply 'decide' something without any respect to the future data sets that actually *falsified* the claims that you made about "dark matter". :(
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rygaku

Active Member
Oct 5, 2014
107
9
34
✟23,009.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There is the answer..... "Expansion"

ie: these "objects" were, MORE LOCAL, @ 13.8 billion years ago
but, have since moved-away so-fast (ever since) that they are now 45 billion years away
(could you travel, at the speed of light)

red-shift, is about all we have, with which to calculate that the object is 'moving-away' or,
coming toward us and by how 'fast' (approximately)

dave

There is a new study saying the expansion saying it has already reached its critical limit and the universe is starting to collapse back in onto itself.

https://heiscomingblog.wordpress.co...f-collapse-and-impending-doom/comment-page-1/

and

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-brink-collapse-cosmological-timescale.html

It would explain the important question of where the matter came from. Then the next question would be when did the actual matter come into existence wouldn't be important because who knows how much or how long the universe "recycles" itself. And that being the best case scenario compared to something like the big chill.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
This is completely untrue. GR requires that space be either expanding or contracting. This is one of the most famous predictions of GR.

The only requirement imposed by GR is that *objects with mass* either expand or contract *as moving objects* without any other external influences. In other words *objects* must move either toward each other or away from each other. There is *zero* requirement that 'space' (not even physically defined in GR) does any magical expansion or contraction tricks.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Could you start by showing me a published paper that compares gamma rays and lower energy wavelengths at a range of redshifts? As I recall, they're using something like 10 different wavelength models/templates for various redshift distances. Why?
That doesn't really make any sense. Gamma rays don't come at any specific red shift.

For example,
GRB 970228 was observed at redshift z=0.695
GRB 090423 was observed at redshift z=8.2
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
That doesn't really make any sense. Gamma rays don't come at any specific red shift.

For example,
GRB 970228 was observed at redshift z=0.695
GRB 090423 was observed at redshift z=8.2

Let me reword my request, and explain my motive. I'm *overtly* skeptical of the claim that *all* wavelengths experience *exactly* the very same amount of redshift from various objects at various distances. I'm looking for a study that compares gamma ray wavelengths from objects at various redshift distances to *lower energy* photons, to ensure that they are all redshifted exactly the same amount. I highly suspect that the medium itself is simply going to *eat* various wavelengths that are readily absorbed and/or scattered by the various elements and molecules that composed the medium between the Earth and any specific object, and that the amount of redshift for each energy state will vary to at least *some* degree.

The last paper I read used a series of various *templates* for different redshifts to attempt to work around that issue, and even then it was sketchy at best.

The fact that *some* lower energy wavelengths are "close" in terms of their amount of redshift does not mean that *all* wavelengths are redshifted from the same object equally. You claimed they were all redshifted the same regardless of the energy state of the photon. I'd like to see a published paper to support that claim.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
I will never know as much about cars as my mechanic does. I will never know more about plumbing than my plumber.

Nor will I, but I can fix a lot of typical car problems myself. I know enough about cars not to let some shady mechanic bill me for 6 plugs and wires on a four cylinder vehicle however, and yes, that's actually happened to me before. :)

Likewise I can typically unplug my drains without calling a plumber.

You guys are essentially trying to sell me four additional, very expensive supernatural spark plugs and claiming that they are required to fix my car! I simply don't buy it. Even a single *supernatural* definition of God is better than four supernatural constructs simply to avoid talking about, or dealing with plasma physics, and the role of electricity in space.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Let me reword my request, and explain my motive. I'm *overtly* skeptical of the claim that *all* wavelengths experience *exactly* the very same amount of redshift from various objects at various distances. I'm looking for a study that compares gamma ray wavelengths from objects at various redshift distances to *lower energy* photons, to ensure that they are all redshifted exactly the same amount. I highly suspect that the medium itself is simply going to *eat* various wavelengths that are readily absorbed and/or scattered by the various elements and molecules that composed the medium between the Earth and any specific object, and that the amount of redshift for each energy state will vary to at least *some* degree.

The last paper I read used a series of various *templates* for different redshifts to attempt to work around that issue, and even then it was sketchy at best.

The fact that *some* lower energy wavelengths are "close" in terms of their amount of redshift does not mean that *all* wavelengths are redshifted from the same object equally. You claimed they were all redshifted the same regardless of the energy state of the photon. I'd like to see a published paper to support that claim.
If you think that some wavelengths of light do not redshift as a function of distance (or redshift more as a function of distance), please provide evidence for that. if nothing else, specify exactly what wavelengths you think redshift differently.

The distance calculations are done in part by spectroscopically confirming what we are seeing. If some wavelengths redshifted differently, that spectroscopic analysis would fail since the bars would be in the wrong place.

If you want a specific peer reviewed paper, sure, easy enough. I'd just have to look at, oh, any spectroscopically verified thing or event at a meaningful redshift. Since i already cited such an event, (GRB 090423), we can just look at that one.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7268/full/nature08445.html

The paper is paywalled, but you can look at the figures easy enough.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
If you think that some wavelengths of light do not redshift as a function of distance (or redshift more as a function of distance), please provide evidence for that. if nothing else, specify exactly what wavelengths you think redshift differently.

Keep in mind that I'm not claiming that every wavelength is redshifted identically, that's your (original) claim, so technically the responsibility is yours to make your case, not mine. I simply clarified my question about supporting *your* claim.

But let's start with higher energy gamma rays and MAGIC observations:

http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=8364

There's a four minute delay between higher energy gamma rays, and lower energy gamma rays, whereas standard theory predicts they should arrive at the same time. That observation alone makes mainstream claims about photons and redshift a tad hard to swallow. Why the four minute delay in the first place unless they're interacting differently with the medium?

The distance calculations are done in part by spectroscopically confirming what we are seeing. If some wavelengths redshifted differently, that spectroscopic analysis would fail since the bars would be in the wrong place.

That 'seems' to be the whole point of the various "templates" for different redshifted objects.

If you want a specific peer reviewed paper, sure, easy enough. I'd just have to look at, oh, any spectroscopically verified thing or event at a meaningful redshift. Since i already cited such an event, (GRB 090423), we can just look at that one.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7268/full/nature08445.html

The paper is paywalled, but you can look at the figures easy enough.

Hmmm. I can't access that paper at the moment, and the figure (1) didn't really seem to be comparing a whole range of wavelengths with different peaks and valleys. I'd need to see the original paper. I'll see If I can access the PDF after work and I have time to check it out.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Keep in mind that I'm not claiming that every wavelength is redshifted identically, that's your (original) claim, so technically the responsibility is yours to make your case, not mine. I simply clarified my question about supporting *your* claim.

But let's start with higher energy gamma rays and MAGIC observations:

http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=8364

There's a four minute delay between higher energy gamma rays, and lower energy gamma rays, whereas standard theory predicts they should arrive at the same time. That observation alone makes mainstream claims about photons and redshift a tad hard to swallow. Why the four minute delay in the first place unless they're interacting differently with the medium?



That 'seems' to be the whole point of the various "templates" for different redshifted objects.



Hmmm. I can't access that paper at the moment, and the figure (1) didn't really seem to be comparing a whole range of wavelengths with different peaks and valleys. I'd need to see the original paper. I'll see If I can access the PDF after work and I have time to check it out.
now hold on, we were talking about redshift then you throw out a possible delayed gamma ray thing? lets stick to one topic at a time.

as far as burden of proof, im saying im not aware of any wavelength that redshifts differently with distance, or any non doppler redshift that is frequency independant.

as a more general issue, if you are making the claim that there exists some wavelength of light that doesnt redshift the same way, that burden of proof is squarely on you.
 
Upvote 0

zardak

Newbie
Feb 12, 2012
57
6
✟306.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
The flood is an historical fact!

Reverse-count the population of the earth from the current seven billion (the population of the earth only ever 'increases', correct?); so, by normal birth-rates in reverse (taking into consideration wars, disease epidemics etc), we end-up at basically zero people around 2500BC!! Which is when the Bible tells us the flood happened! Starting with 8 people (Noah and his family) in 2500BC, and then going by normal birth-rates up to today by normal mean calculation, we end-up with seven billion people in 2015, exactly the number we have today! DO YOU UNDERSTAND, ATHEISTS??? The atheists in here have a lot of explaining to do, and that's gonna be hard, because they have no explanation and they have no reference-point of truth, just speculation. That's why we see the slogan "The THEORY of evolution".
So now that i've shown you an INDISPUTABLE fact, based on natural birth-rates which proves the flood, consider the following, and then you can repent and be saved from your sin by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and 'believe' in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, and thus the Bible says if you do that, you will be saved...


1: Even if the Moon had been right next to the earth originally, we need to consider that the gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards away from the earth gradually, moving further away from the earth all the time. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of observable recession (moving away from the earth), we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth! And if we were multiple billions of years old the moon would not be in our solar-system any more LOL.


2: Like other planets, the earth has a magnetic field that is decaying quite rapidly. We are now able to measure the rate at which the magnetic energy is being depleted and develop models to explain the data.

Secular scientists invented a “dynamo model” of the earth’s core to explain how the field could have lasted over such a long period of time, but this model fails to adequately explain the data for the rapid decay and the rapid reversals that it has undergone in the past. (It also cannot account for the magnetic fields of other planets, such as Neptune and Mercury.)

However, the creationist model (based on the Genesis Flood) effectively and simply explains the data in regard to the earth’s magnetic field, providing striking evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old—and not billions.

3: In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!

According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.

4: When solid rock is bent, it normally cracks and breaks. Rock can only bend without fracturing when it is softened by extreme heating (which causes re-crystalization) or when the sediments have not yet fully hardened.

There are numerous locations around the world (including the famous Grand Canyon) where we observe massive sections of strata that have been tightly folded, without evidence of the sediments being heated.

This is a major problem for evolutionists who believe these rock layers were laid down gradually over vast eons of time, forming the geologic record. However, it makes perfect sense to creationists who know that these layers were formed rapidly in the global catastrophic flood mentioned in Genesis.


You evolutionists and atheists and god-rejecters cannot explain-away any of this. And you certainly will never ever be able to explain-away the following... The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything.

The Bible, God's word, tells us, God made Adam form the dust of the earth. If you believe in billions of years, then you believe in evolution, and that's a problem, because there is no living thing today (human or animal) in a transition stage, that's a fact. As God said: "And they shall 'bring-forth' AFTER THEIR OWN KIND". Another fact you don't realize (because atheist God rejecting scientists keep lying to you out of the backsides, and theorizing with speculation and falsified evidence) is that 'REAL' scientists have proven that the genetic genome in each species is LOCKED, it CANNOT EVOLVE, it is an impossibility, there is no way possible for the genetic structure of 'any' living thing to morph it's genetic make-up and become something else. So you atheists have a problem. There is no fossil in existence showing anything in a transistion stage. CAPICHE??? These are the simple FACTS!

The Bible does tell us, however, that the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam. The animals whose bones became fossilized had to have died after God created Adam. That means those fossils must be less than 6,000 years old. Here's why:

fossil-raptor.jpg
How do we get fossils?

The animal has to first die. That's rather obvious. When did death enter the world? Not until Genesis chapter three when Adam and Eve disobey God. So up until that time neither people nor animals died. So, based on the Bible, there could not be any bones to create fossils until after the fall.

Here's another Biblical reason why the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam:

When we examine fossils, in some of them we see evidence of sickness, disease and cancer. There is evidence of violence and of one animal eating another. So there were some problems. Not everything was good.

Yet, at the end of day six of creation: "God saw all that He made and behold. It was very good." (Genesis 1:31)

God didn't call His creation just good. He called it very good. A world with sickness, disease, cancer and violence is not good. So, the fossilized bones we now find had to have come from animals that died AFTER God created Adam, and AFTER the fall, which was only 6000 years ago by counting the geneaologies of Israel.


Another thing that atheists and God rejecters fail to understand is that dinasours lived alongside humans, and how is that so? Quite easy really... The Bible tells us what animals, including dinosaurs, ate. During day six of creation God said: "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food; and it was so."

But, what about those BIG, sharp teeth? Take T-Rex for example, certainly he was a meat eater.

panda-eating.jpeg
Big, sharp teeth do not mean an animal is a meat eater. Bears have teeth that are big and sharp, similar to a lion's. Yet many bears are mostly vegetarion. Chinese Pandas have very sharp teeth. They need those sharp teeth because bamboo, their only food, is very hard to chew. There are numerous examples of animals that only eat plants, and that have very sharp teeth. An animal with big, sharp teeth just means that it is an animal with big, sharp teeth--nothing more.

So, Adam and Eve did not have to worry about being eaten by dinosaurs.

By the way, it's not until Genesis 9:3, just after Noah's flood, and about 1500 years after Adam and Eve were created, that God gives the animals to man as food. From that point on people started eating meat.


Keep coming atheists, i've got more where that came from. The fact that we tolerate you, is just a bonus for you, because Jesus said if they reject your message then shake the dust off your feet and move-on, it will be more tolerable for Sodom&Ghomorrah on the day of judgment than for them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0