what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?

[Bradskii]

also, please test how gravity was created.
Add mass, energy and time.

None of those are theories.

 

[Andre_b]

It is tested constantly. If you find a rabbit it the precambrian, the theory is done.

They looked for a Tiktaalik right where they expected to find it, and found it. Theory confirmed.



We have a wide range of data and testing methods which point towards a consistent answer of 4.5 billion years.


If you're claiming the laws of physics and the physical constants have changed, then you have to abandon the notion of the universe being fine-tuned. Is that what you're claiming?

Zero dating methods are good data. They all use major major assumptions. Once again some folks love assumptions:

(1) the radioactive element decays at a constant rate
(2) the rock crystal being analyzed is not contaminated by infusion of excess end product
(3) the rock crystal contained no end product when it was formed
(4) leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur.


Based on the researcher’s starting assumptions, effectively any age desired or anticipated can be “accurately” calculated.

>“Contrary to the impression that we are given, radiometric dating does not prove that the Earth is millions of years old. *The vast age has simply been assumed*.”

>Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F.,

When completing the form submitted with the sample to be tested, the laboratory asks the researcher to estimate the sample’s expected age before any examination. The lab then knows which results are “most” accurate to provide to the researchers. However, should samples conclude ages unacceptable or outside the exceptions age *presumed* by the researchers, they are discarded.**4**

>“In conventional interpretation of…age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.“

>Dr. Hayatsu, “K-Ar Isochron Age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia,” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 16, April, 1979, p. 973-975

To illustrate, the radiometric dating method for Potassium-Argon is used to estimate the ages of lava flows. Liquid samples (before they solidify) are presumed to have zero Argon. Argon is a gas, and at scorching temperatures of liquid lava, all Argon is forced out. Therefore, fresh lava flows immediately after solidifying are presumed to be 100% Parent element of Potassium with 0% Daughter Argon. Potassium-Argon has an incredible 1.3-billion-year half-life. Therefore, if any Argon is found in the lava sample, ages amass millions of years quickly. One such example is found in rock samples were collected from a freshly solidified lava dome observed to form at the Mount St Helen’s eruption in June of 1980. The lab conducted Potassium-Argon radiometric testing that calculated the lava sample to be approximately 350,000 years old.**5** Yet, the sample was only 10 years old at the time of the test. There are many such examples. Many are far worse, calculating recent lava flows as being many millions of years ancient.

>“We’re building a new generation of fairy castles and myths for the next generation to play with.”

>Houtermans, F.G., The Physical Principles of Geochronology, No. 151, p. 242, 1966.

 

[AV1611VET]

So the snake trick by the Egyptian magicians:
Magic, miracle or stage magic sleight of hand?

Miracle.

 

[Bradskii]

Shouldn't drive you nuts.

I agree one starts with a hypothesis (and tests the hypothesis). One develops theories from facts. Theories are not facts.

Seems like the only thing we disagree on is I believe theories should be designed to be tested (even if they cannot be tested....they should have a criteria for ultimate acceptance or rejection). But that part is my opinion of how I believe theories should be designed.

And your last statement is incorrect. You exclude theories that fail to meet your presuppositions.

You are just repeating the same nonsense.

 

[Andre_b]

None of those are theories.

You are really willingly ignoring.

are you telling me gravity never came into existence, nor matter or time at the big bang? So where did it come from. All are eternal? And if they are eternal none is testable. So you put yourself in a conundrum.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Go ahead reproduce the theory of the big bang with very small scale, condense just a cup of water to an object smaller than an atom. Should be easy, because apparently the entire mass, and energy of the universe fit into a spot smaller than this...

We routinely compress several TeV of energy into a volume of a fm^3 or so. That's much smaller than an atom.

Is there any point to your comments? You seem to be all over the place.

 

[Bradskii]

Why not?

Because the light would get here eventually. Which would tell us how far away the source was. Which would tell us how old it was. Why make everything relatively young and then try to kid us that it's old?

Sorry @Estrid. Couldn't help myself.

 

[Andre_b]

We routinely compress several TeV of energy into a volume of a fm^3 or so. That's much smaller than an atom.

Is there any point to your comments? You seem to be all over the place.

where’s the evidence of a cup of water size matter compressed into smallpox than an atom. Stop pretending with your numbers. Show the experimentations not just the philosophy please, I want the scientific method, you now testable, OBSERVABLE, REPEATED, EXPERIMENTS. No hypothesis nonsense.

sorry you cannot take the time to comprehend and then use it as an excuse for you wilful ignorance regarding my comment. People that hate truth will do that.

 

[Bradskii]

well you folks are trickling yourselves in the end because all of the theories will not be proven until you can literally look in the past...

That's what a telescope is. An instrument for looking into the past.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The definition of science is KNOWLEDGE.

1 Timothy 6:20 “avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called”

Oh great, another user of an antiquated biblical translation with anachronistic terminology.

The term "science" does indeed arise from a work that formerly meant "knowledge", but that is not the way to use term today in modern English. The author of "timothy" was *NOT* speaking of the thing we call science today. Any modern translation will use the word "knowledge" in that passage.

 

[Andre_b]

Because the light would get here eventually. Which would tell us how far away the source was. Which would tell us how old it was. Why make everything relatively young and then try to kid us that it's old?

Sorry @Estrid. Couldn't help myself.

Putting the photons already in motion the entire pathway to constantly see the light from the moment it was created is the possibility you willingly ignore. You hate truth I see because you deny any logical possibility that crumbles your philosophy.

the light in its position immediately would never tell you how old it is. Only how far is measured.

 

[Hans Blaster]

where’s the evidence of a cup of water size matter compressed into smallpox than an atom. Stop pretending with your numbers. Show the experimentations not just the philosophy please, I want the scientific method, you now testable, OBSERVABLE, REPEATED, EXPERIMENTS. No hypothesis nonsense.

Your complaint is odd. I was literally speaking of experiments at particle colliders.

sorry you cannot take the time to comprehend and then use it as an excuse for you wilful ignorance regarding my comment. People that hate truth will do that.

Friendly reminder: using the "funny" tag on someones post as mocking or laughing at them is against site rules. There is no humor in this thread.

 

[Bradskii]

You are really willingly ignoring.

are you telling me gravity never came into existence, nor matter or time at the big bang? So where did it come from. All are eternal? And if they are eternal none is testable. So you put yourself in a conundrum.

I'm not putting you on ignore because I think that's rude. I'm just being polite in letting you know that I shan't be responding to your posts from here on in.

 

[Andre_b]

Oh great, another user of an antiquated biblical translation with anachronistic terminology.

The term "science" does indeed arise from a work that formerly meant "knowledge", but that is not the way to use term today in modern English. The author of "timothy" was *NOT* speaking of the thing we call science today. Any modern translation will use the word "knowledge" in that passage.

Noce try with your philosophy. Because evil folks change the definition of words over time doesn’t mean it was wrong in the past. Only evil people change words and ignore 100% of the old meanings of the word. You’re just finding excuses not to read something intelligent.

you heap yourself teachers because you have inching ears don’t you? Oh the philosophers claiming to be scientific. It’s pathetic really.

 

[sjastro]

The ban has already been removed as it was a complete fabricated lie because someone was angry at him. Typical from people that are upset that their philosophy like the big bang and other subject are questioned.

I'm sorry you're too willingly ignorant (willingly not wanting knowledge and research properly, you'll just do a 2 minute search and post any negative view of someone without knowing anything. What's amazing is even if someone would have said something wrong to you it is everything else is false. But that's besides the point, just an example of biased views) and barely did research and simply posted an ignorant wiki article that lies just like you. Maybe if you actually looked at the facts of what happened instead of post blind information. It's folks like this that the Nazis in Germany did so well. Their propaganda was the only view accepted, the rest was a conspiracy against the Nazis and condemed. Especially if you went against their scientists and darwinism. look it up, see. I wonder how the Nazis came into power. gee.

Again doesn't take a genius to figure out the philosophy has plenty of holes. If you're too lazy to look at the video that is completed ON TOPIC THE BIG BANG AND BILLIONS OF YEARS philosophy.

Why do you lie that it's not on topic? You cannot watch a 1.5hr evidence and exposé on the science behind the billions of years and the Big Bang and how it's full of holes and why? Why do you avoid even watching and act childish instead?

If 1.5hrs is too long then no wonder you believe in the Big Bang. You can't study longer than an hour at the evidence. So you just accept any philosophy as long as it's not biblical and it's the fad of the century so that you'll be accepted and be popular guy like in high school? Yes, I know you'll come up with useless excuses as to why you ignore watching the evidence. It's amazing people are so blind to see how ridiculous the BB is.

You must be a conspiracy theorist to believe in the Big Bang and you must be racist towards Germans then since you are saying this about Walter Veith. This is literally what they did to him. Typical left tactics. As soon as people don't go with the narrative or the fad of the century, it's a conspiracy theory. Everything that isn't your biased view is a conspiracy. You didn't even watch one of his videos all with quoted history books and the organizations own information which is apparently called a conspiracy. 100% blind willingly. Some people really really hate the truth.

This is pure comedy gold; I’ve been called lots of things by upset creationists in the past but a racist, a NAZI and leftist sympathizer by association (in the same breath!!), trying to be the alpha male at school by blindly accepting the Big Bang, along with the usual potpourri of personal attacks such as being a liar, childish, blind, lazy etc.

I can understand why you are upset by being caught out with your foot well and truly wedged in your mouth by using a Zoologist who doesn’t understand simple physics.
This is what happens when you are blinded by confirmation bias where the devil in the detail is irrelevant along the blind acceptance of Veith’s other activities which have been brought into question by various organizations.
If I was a creationist I would have used Hugh Ross as a reference who is also an astrophysicist but since he is not of YEC School his knowledge is perhaps irrelevant.

One issue I will take up is accusing me of being a liar and lazy for not looking at Veith’s video.
If I didn’t look at the video how could I made commentary on Veith’s nonsensical comments regarding angular momentum?
No more than 20 minutes of the 1.5 hr video is devoted to the Big Bang which casts aspersions on your own honesty on watching the video; either that or you displaying horrendous ignorance in not being able to differentiate that over three quarters of the video has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

Since I got chuckle from your hysterical nonsense I am going to give you a break by not reporting your post for the personal attacks, if it continues I won’t be so lenient next time around.

 

[Andre_b]

Your complaint is odd. I was literally speaking of experiments at particle colliders.



Friendly reminder: using the "funny" tag on someones post as mocking or laughing at them is against site rules. There is no humor in this thread.

I never new a cup of water was 1 particle. Do you even know math or science? PARTICLE collider. They are COLLIDING them and breaks them in pieces, doesn’t compress them. Man you just want to be willingly ignoring forcing nonsense upon yourself. I know you must be smarter than this, but it’s a heart problem and not an intellectual problem with you folks.

“became vain in their imaginations…foolish heart was darkened.”
“Claiming to be wise they become fools”

“turned aside to fables”. The fables of the Big Bang pseudo science philosophy

 

[Hans Blaster]

Noce try with your philosophy. Because evil folks change the definition of words over time doesn’t mean it was wrong in the past. Only evil people change words and ignore 100% of the old meanings of the word. You’re just finding excuses not to read something intelligent.

Words don't have permanent meanings, pronunciations, or spellings. They change with time. Deal with it. The term "science" is one of those. What we call "science" now was once known as "natural philosophy" until a few hundred years ago. When it says "science" in Timothy it IS NOT speaking of things like geology or chemistry or astronomy. That is completely anachronistic.

you heap yourself teachers because you have inching ears don’t you?

I have no idea what this means.

I don't know what "heaping teachers" could possibly mean.

Nor do I know what "inching ears" (probably itching?) have to do with anything.

Oh the philosophers claiming to be scientific. It’s pathetic really.

I have no use for philosophers. There is at least one person on this thread who could verify this.

 

[Andre_b]

This is pure comedy gold; I’ve been called lots of things by upset creationists in the past but a racist, a NAZI and leftist sympathizer by association (in the same breath!!), trying to be the alpha male at school by blindly accepting the Big Bang, along with the usual potpourri of personal attacks such as being a liar, childish, blind, lazy etc.

I can understand why you are upset by being caught out with your foot well and truly wedged in your mouth by using a Zoologist who doesn’t understand simple physics.
This is what happens when you are blinded by confirmation bias where the devil in the detail is irrelevant along the blind acceptance of Veith’s other activities which have been brought into question by various organizations.
If I was a creationist I would have used Hugh Ross as a reference who is also an astrophysicist but since he is not of YEC School his knowledge is perhaps irrelevant.

One issue I will take up is accusing me of being a liar and lazy for not looking at Veith’s video.
If I didn’t look at the video how could I made commentary on Veith’s nonsensical comments regarding angular momentum?
No more than 20 minutes of the 1.5 hr video is devoted to the Big Bang which casts aspersions on your own honesty on watching the video; either that or you displaying horrendous ignorance in not being able to differentiate that over three quarters of the video has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

Since I got chuckle from your hysterical nonsense I am going to give you a break by not reporting your post for the personal attacks, if it continues I won’t be so lenient next time around.

I never called you a Nazi. But keep lying. Whatever makes you want to feel better. Just like the folks accusing Veith because they are childish. Thanks for proving the point I was exactly making with Walter about the antisemitism accusation nonsense like you just did. Shows how you operate.

I was giving an example how the Nazis used propaganda and fake science. But clearly you just want to find excuses for denying the evidence so you have to fall on ad hominem type arguments or go re-read. You’re confused.

 

[Andre_b]

Words don't have permanent meanings, pronunciations, or spellings. They change with time. Deal with it. The term "science" is one of those. What we call "science" now was once known as "natural philosophy" until a few hundred years ago. When it says "science" in Timothy it IS NOT speaking of things like geology or chemistry or astronomy. That is completely anachronistic.



I have no idea what this means.

I don't know what "heaping teachers" could possibly mean.

Nor do I know what "inching ears" (probably itching?) have to do with anything.



I have no use for philosophers. There is at least one person on this thread who could verify this.

Lol you’re childish really. I’m simply stating a fact that AT THE TIME SOMETHING IS WRITTEN IT HAS A DEFINITION AND DICTIONARY FOR THAT TIME. You’re desperate.

 

[Andre_b]

That's what a telescope is. An instrument for looking into the past.

You must be deluded or something. The light was already put in motion but clearly you hate any other possibility you end up responding with childish comments.