Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Justatruthseeker]

How do you know that these meteorites were not part of a larger asteroid? We are not talking a large body with a significant force of gravity. You are now grasping at nonexistent straws.

How do you know they were?

Especially when they specifically told you they were never large. And to survive a force of 105 million pounds per square foot without vaporizing, would require a large body with significant gravitational force.

Your nonexistent straw you are grasping at requires ignoring physics....

 

[Darkstorn]

How do you know they were?

Especially when they specifically told you they were never large. And to survive a force of 105 million pounds per square foot without vaporizing, would require a large body with significant gravitational force.

Your nonexistent straw you are grasping at requires ignoring physics....

Your "physics" is based on a hypothetical scenario you're pulling out your *** though. I can make a thought experiment and ponder its validity too. But that's... Just plain stupid.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your "physics" is based on a hypothetical scenario you're pulling out your *** though. I can make a thought experiment and ponder its validity too. But that's... Just plain stupid.

Your entire cosmology requires 96% “thought experiment”. It would be just plain stupid to take it all as fact.

My physics is based upon the reality of two objects colliding with a force equivalent to 105 million pounds per square foot. Yours requires you ignore that physics and believe anyways.... because you need to to keep their imaginations alive....

Despite your understanding believing in imaginations would be stupid....

No one has seen anything. It’s all imaginations.

 

[Darkstorn]

Your entire cosmology requires 96% “thought experiment”. It would be just plain stupid to take it all as fact.

My physics is based upon the reality of two objects colliding with a force equivalent to 105 million pounds per square foot. Yours requires you ignore that physics and believe anyways.... because you need to to keep their imaginations alive....

Despite your understanding believing in imaginations would be stupid....

You don't actually know what i believe in. But good try. Focus on yourself before you make claims of others. <3

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You don't actually know what i believe in. But good try. Focus on yourself before you make claims of others. <3

Apparently I do, since you are arguing for, not against their imaginations....

 

[Darkstorn]

Apparently I do, since you are arguing for, not against their imaginations....

Where am i arguing for "their imaginations?" Show it now or stop making false statements.

Or are you basing that ONLY on the fact that i don't agree with YOU? Good luck with that thought.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where am i arguing for "their imaginations?" Show it now or stop making false statements.

Or are you basing that ONLY on the fact that i don't agree with YOU? Good luck with that thought.

See your post above.

I’m the one arguing that two objects colliding with 105 million pounds per square foot of force would vaporize anything but a large body. You argued against that.

So apparently you are arguing that small bodies of loose aggregates can survive the impact force of 105 million pounds per square foot.

You best contemplate on what you are actually arguing instead of just arguing to argue.

That’s what trolls do, argue just to argue...

 

[Darkstorn]

See your post above.

I’m the one arguing that two objects colliding with 105 million pounds per square foot of force would vaporize anything but a large body. You argued against that.

No i didn't. I said it was entirely hypothetical. That's all.

So apparently you are arguing that small bodies of loose aggregates can survive the impact force of 105 million pounds per square foot.

You best contemplate on what you are actually arguing instead of just arguing to argue.

That’s what trolls do, argue just to argue...

Wrong. I'm not making any such arguments and you know it. You're scrambling and WISHING i had done exactly that, because it would validate your claims of me. But, very unfortunately i might add, your claims are still false.

Are you now also prepared to defend your claim of me being a troll? Or are you just breaking the forum rules because you feel like it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know they were?

Especially when they specifically told you they were never large. And to survive a force of 105 million pounds per square foot without vaporizing, would require a large body with significant gravitational force.

Your nonexistent straw you are grasping at requires ignoring physics....

Can't you follow a conversation? Because they were shocked, that means multiple signs of being in a serious collision. And your conclusion is not justified. I need to remind you that you failed at simple Newtonian mechanics. You are in no position to make such a claim.

 

[tas8831]

That’s what trolls do, argue just to argue...

Huh... Trolls also use repeatedly debunked claims as if nobody had ever addressed them.

Use of court-approved science to assess primate phylogeny... or the case of the mistaken YEC

 

[gnostic]

Your entire cosmology requires 96% “thought experiment”. It would be just plain stupid to take it all as fact.

Sorry, but it depends on which modern physical cosmology you are talking about.

The Big Bang cosmology is no longer categorized as theoretical hypothesis; it is ongoing “scientific theory”, meaning scientific theory that is still undergoing testing.

Observable and verifiable evidences have already provided useful data and increase our knowledge on the universe and cosmology, such as the redshift from the late 1929 to the present using the Hubble and other space telescopes, and the CMBR from the 1964 to the present with WMAP and Planck probe.

CMBR have validated the predictions made in 1948 (by Gamow, Alpher and Herman) with how atoms formed in the period known as the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) and the Recombination Epoch.

BBN is a period when the atomic nuclei first bond the hadron particles, eg protons and neutrons, creating ionised hydrogen and ionized helium (as well as lithium).

The Recombination Epoch is a period when electrons bonded with the ionized elements, so the atoms become electrically stable and neutral for the first time. The coupling of the electrons to the ionized elements had two-fold effect on the universe:

1. The universe before the Recombination Epoch was opaque, like the event horizon of blackholes, where the observer cannot view beyond the event horizon; the bonding of electrons to ionized atoms resulted in the universe becoming transparent, so that we can observe or detect photons for the first time.
2. The bonding of electrons to the atomic nuclei, resulted in decoupling of photons, which have redshifted to microwave EM, which we know it as cosmic background radiation of microwave, or CMBR. These photons or microwave, is the earliest detectable light that we can observe/detect. CMBR is even earlier than the quasars.

The Recombination Epoch started 377,000 years after the Big Bang.

The soon to be launch James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) mission in 2021, will hopefully uncover more than the Hubble, WMAP and Planck have accomplished already. Hopefully, it will detect another, even earlier cosmic background radiation, the Cosmic Neutrino Background Radiation. If not, the mission will attempt to observe the formation of earliest population of stars.

As I said, the Big Bang theory is ongoing scientific theory, where scientists are attempting to test other BB predictions.

BB isn’t just a thought experiment.

 

[gnostic]

@Justatruthseeker :

I would like to add that the Big Bang theory make uses of fields in physics that are pretty much well-substantiated “scientific theory” themselves:

1. General Relativity
2. Special Relativity
3. Quantum Physics
4. Particle Physics
5. Field Theory
6. and even Nuclear Physics

Each one of the above are supported by evidences, and you would required each one of these to understand in order to understand HOW the Big Bang work.

For instance, can you understand how atoms and atomic form in the early history of the universe, without understanding subatomic particles (eg quarks, hadrons, leptons, bosons, etc), as to what they are and how they work?

And there is another as to why hydrogen is so abundant in the universe?

Can you understand how stars produce the energy, the light and heat without understanding the process that’s going on in the star’s core, the nuclear fusion of lighter elements into heavier elements, a process known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis?

My points, justatruthseeker, that the Big Bang theory is very dependent on knowledge of more than just General Relativity.

And when you combine all the different fields together, the Big Bang theory isn’t just a thought experiment.

PS

Two other physics fields that I forgot to mention, are optics and electromagnetism.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

@Justatruthseeker :

I would like to add that the Big Bang theory make uses of fields in physics that are pretty much well-substantiated “scientific theory” themselves:

1. General Relativity
2. Special Relativity
3. Quantum Physics
4. Particle Physics
5. Field Theory
6. and even Nuclear Physics

Each one of the above are supported by evidences, and you would required each one of these to understand in order to understand HOW the Big Bang work.

For instance, can you understand how atoms and atomic form in the early history of the universe, without understanding subatomic particles (eg quarks, hadrons, leptons, bosons, etc), as to what they are and how they work?

And there is another as to why hydrogen is so abundant in the universe?

Can you understand how stars produce the energy, the light and heat without understanding the process that’s going on in the star’s core, the nuclear fusion of lighter elements into heavier elements, a process known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis?

My points, justatruthseeker, that the Big Bang theory is very dependent on knowledge of more than just General Relativity.

And when you combine all the different fields together, the Big Bang theory isn’t just a thought experiment.

PS

Two other physics fields that I forgot to mention, are optics and electromagnetism.

Can you understand that General Relativity has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy inside the solar system to clumps of non-ionized matter, planetary systems (.1% of the universe) without any ad-hoc theory added to it????

That the very second you attempt to apply this same theory as the dominating force in the other 99.9% of the universe, ionized single particles, plasma, the theory just tested to be 99.8% accurate suddenly requires 96% ad-hoc theory to it where it needed none as tested to that accuracy?

So why do you ignore its accuracy? Why do you ignore that 99.8% tested accuracy when not one single plasma laboratory uses anything but particle physics and electromagnetic theory as the dominating force in plasma?

Continue to ignore 200 years of laboratory experiments and trying to sledgehammer a theory to the wrong state of matter.

You require ad-hoc theory because you keep trying to sledgehammer the wrong physics to the wrong state of matter. That’s why you have to ignore that 99.8% tested accuracy. You don’t believe in General Relativity at all, else you would accept that tested accuracy and stop trying to sledgehammer it to states of matter it’s not the dominating force in.

I on the other hand accept its astounding accuracy as tested, realizing what it is telling you, that it is not the dominating force in plasma as every plasma experiment for the last 200 years has also told you.

But keep ignoring its accuracy and keep adding epicycles as to why it doesn’t fit anywhere except in .1% of the universe and you will always need those epicycles.... Just accept that 99.8% accuracy that doesn’t need any epicycles and perhaps science can begin to advance again.....

As for the BB you mean as long as we ignore the antimatter problem, normalize, then renormalize, add 96% ad-hoc theory, or add epicycles after epicycles to make our beliefs kinda work out.....

You don’t believe in the BB either, else you would accept the tensor being set to zero in all black hole math and what that tells you as well. Hint: it’s called a singularity for a good reason.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you understand that General Relativity has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy inside the solar system to clumps of non-ionized matter, planetary systems (.1% of the universe) without any ad-hoc theory added to it????

That the very second you attempt to apply this same theory as the dominating force in the other 99.9% of the universe, ionized single particles, plasma, the theory just tested to be 99.8% accurate suddenly requires 96% ad-hoc theory to it where it needed none as tested to that accuracy?

So why do you ignore its accuracy? Why do you ignore that 99.8% tested accuracy when not one single plasma laboratory uses anything but particle physics and electromagnetic theory as the dominating force in plasma?

Continue to ignore 200 years of laboratory experiments and trying to sledgehammer a theory to the wrong state of matter.

You require ad-hoc theory because you keep trying to sledgehammer the wrong physics to the wrong state of matter. That’s why you have to ignore that 99.8% tested accuracy. You don’t believe in General Relativity at all, else you would accept that tested accuracy and stop trying to sledgehammer it to states of matter it’s not the dominating force in.

I on the other hand accept its astounding accuracy as tested, realizing what it is telling you, that it is not the dominating force in plasma as every plasma experiment for the last 200 years has also told you.

But keep ignoring its accuracy and keep adding epicycles as to why it doesn’t fit anywhere except in .1% of the universe and you will always need those epicycles.... Just accept that 99.8% accuracy that doesn’t need any epicycles and perhaps science can begin to advance again.....

As for the BB you mean as long as we ignore the antimatter problem, normalize, then renormalize, add 96% ad-hoc theory, or add epicycles after epicycles to make our beliefs kinda work out.....

You don’t believe in the BB either, else you would accept the tensor being set to zero in all black hole math and what that tells you as well. Hint: it’s called a singularity for a good reason.....

No one has proposed any "ad hoc theory" here except for perhaps you. Do you even understand what that phrase means?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No one has proposed any "ad hoc theory" here except for perhaps you. Do you even understand what that phrase means?

96% of your cosmology is ad-hoc and not required where GR has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy.

But like I said, you’ll continue to ignore that accuracy.... because you don’t believe in GR at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

96% of your cosmology is ad-hoc and not required where GR has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy.

But like I said, you’ll continue to ignore that accuracy.... because you don’t believe in GR at all.

96% of your biology is pure fantasy and you must force it into a position that it cannot adequately fill.

But like I said, you’ll continue to ignore that fact.... nothing but oodles and oodles of never ending poodles.

I am still waiting for the answers to my questions.

Now it is time for you to reply "What questions?" or continue to ignore the questions.

Talk to me Goose.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

96% of your biology is pure fantasy and you must force it into a position that it cannot adequately fill.

But like I said, you’ll continue to ignore that fact.... nothing but oodles and oodles of never ending poodles.

I am still waiting for the answers to my questions.

Now it is time for you to reply "What questions?" or continue to ignore the questions.

Talk to me Goose.

I’m not the one ignoring that 100 breeds of dogs came from one wolf stock and yet we can’t get but a few from Poodles.....

That’s you who’s biology doesn’t fit reality. Despite bacteria remaining bacteria no matter how many times you mutate them. Fruit flies remaining fruit flies no matter how many times you mutate them. Fossils that never change across the millions of years of their existence until they go extinct.

Only your biology claims things never once observed ever....

If you want a question answered, ask..... don’t get scared of the answers before you ask the question. Only someone scared of the answers needs to pretend he can’t asks questions until permission is given to him....

But it still won’t change the fact that 96% of your cosmology is ad-hoc epicycles.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry, but it depends on which modern physical cosmology you are talking about.

The Big Bang cosmology is no longer categorized as theoretical hypothesis; it is ongoing “scientific theory”, meaning scientific theory that is still undergoing testing.

Observable and verifiable evidences have already provided useful data and increase our knowledge on the universe and cosmology, such as the redshift from the late 1929 to the present using the Hubble and other space telescopes, and the CMBR from the 1964 to the present with WMAP and Planck probe.

CMBR have validated the predictions made in 1948 (by Gamow, Alpher and Herman) with how atoms formed in the period known as the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) and the Recombination Epoch.

BBN is a period when the atomic nuclei first bond the hadron particles, eg protons and neutrons, creating ionised hydrogen and ionized helium (as well as lithium).

The Recombination Epoch is a period when electrons bonded with the ionized elements, so the atoms become electrically stable and neutral for the first time. The coupling of the electrons to the ionized elements had two-fold effect on the universe:

1. The universe before the Recombination Epoch was opaque, like the event horizon of blackholes, where the observer cannot view beyond the event horizon; the bonding of electrons to ionized atoms resulted in the universe becoming transparent, so that we can observe or detect photons for the first time.
2. The bonding of electrons to the atomic nuclei, resulted in decoupling of photons, which have redshifted to microwave EM, which we know it as cosmic background radiation of microwave, or CMBR. These photons or microwave, is the earliest detectable light that we can observe/detect. CMBR is even earlier than the quasars.

The Recombination Epoch started 377,000 years after the Big Bang.

The soon to be launch James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) mission in 2021, will hopefully uncover more than the Hubble, WMAP and Planck have accomplished already. Hopefully, it will detect another, even earlier cosmic background radiation, the Cosmic Neutrino Background Radiation. If not, the mission will attempt to observe the formation of earliest population of stars.

As I said, the Big Bang theory is ongoing scientific theory, where scientists are attempting to test other BB predictions.

BB isn’t just a thought experiment.

The James Webb telescope will simply uncover further fully mature galaxies and galaxy clusters falsifying your theories again, even though that’s already been done. You just keep ignoring those mature galaxies and galaxy clusters before they had time to form according to the theory.....

Just hand wave it away as a minor problem instead of the falsifying fact that it is.....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m not the one ignoring that 100 breeds of dogs came from one wolf stock and yet we can’t get but a few from Poodles.....

But you are.

You cannot answer my questions can you.

That’s you who’s biology doesn’t fit reality. Despite bacteria remaining bacteria no matter how many times you mutate them. Fruit flies remaining fruit flies no matter how many times you mutate them. Fossils that never change across the millions of years of their existence until they go extinct.

Still not answering my questions. Why is that? We all know.

Only your biology claims things never once observed ever....

But you have oodles and oodles of never ending poodles that claim things never observed. Those poor poodles. Carrying you away from answering questions. No it is not the loyal dog that is barring you. It is the fact that your fantasy biology cannot answer questions.

Still no answer to my questions.

If you want a question answered, ask..... don’t get scared of the answers before you ask the question. Only someone scared of the answers needs to pretend he can’t asks questions until permission is given to him....

I did ask. It is here for all to see. They were asked and have been avoided like the plague. If you cannot answer my questions just say so and stop pretending, obfuscating and relying on ad hominem and straw man fallacies. I do not need to see more evidence that you cannot answer them. Not at all, but you just keep giving away that evidence free of charge.

But it still won’t change the fact that 96% of your cosmology is ad-hoc epicycles.

Still not answering my questions. How unexpected.

Not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The James Webb telescope will simply uncover further fully mature galaxies and galaxy clusters falsifying your theories again, even though that’s already been done. You just keep ignoring those mature galaxies and galaxy clusters before they had time to form according to the theory.....

Just hand wave it away as a minor problem instead of the falsifying fact that it is.....

That is your signature move. Hand waving. If you were with the crew of the Minnow, those people would never have been stuck on that island. Your hand waving is visible from space.