The Creationistic Method and Why It Is Fraudulent

[Polymath257]

Yeah, if you jog the theory and the numbers around enough you can actually get them to fit.

Again, not so easy to do while staying consistent with known observations.

The numbers and theories can't get you into heaven, though.

Not interested.

 

[DavidFirth]

Not interested.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry to hear that.

I'm really not interested in that sort of mythology. I am more interested in verifiable truths. Deities and angels just don't qualify.

 

[DavidFirth]

I'm really not interested in that sort of mythology. I am more interested in verifiable truths. Deities and angels just don't qualify.

Verifiable truths? Don't you mean somewhat verifiable truths based on intelligent assumption?

 

[Super Universe]

Yes, that is how scientific theories work: they are not proven true until observations support them. So, when GR was proposed, it explained the motion of the planet Mercury and was consistent with Special Relativity, but didn't have much else to justify it. Then the deflection of light past the sun was observed and agreed with the predictions. Then the expansion of the universe (actually, the red shifts) was observed and agreed with GR. Then other predictions (time dilation due to gravity) were observed, so the theory gained status.



Huh? Not at all. GR allows for both open and closed universes *depending on the density of energy*.



Then you claim a falsehood.


And the evidence says otherwise.


Actually every experiment we have ever done verifies the COE. One interesting case was that of beta decay (a type of radioactivity). it *appeared* that energy was not conserved in the decays, so a new particle was postulated (the neutrino). It was verified to exist 20 years later. Energy is conserved.


Life *is* chemicals.


The consistent lack of perpetual motion machines.



Well, I am. But then, I am a mathematician. If you would learn a bit of it, you would quickly learn where you run into errors. But it is clear you have no desire to learn.

That's how scientific theory works, you develop a theory but don't accept it until observations support them? So even though the big bang violates the law of gravity you think background radiation is superior evidence? Wasn't the big bang hot, so why is black body radiation considered evidence of a hot event?

GR explained the motion of the planet Mercury and other? I'm not arguing against GR. GR doesn't say all matter came from a big bang or that energy cannot be created. I'm arguing against the hypocriscy that is science. You say your beliefs are based upon testable evidence but that is not true and you disregard your own fundamental laws when they get in the way of what you want to be true.

GR allows for both open and closed universes? Good, it's open. It will continue to expand and evolve for a length of time that is beyond the human ability to comprehend, and then it will stabilize.

My claim that the universe is much older than 13 billion years is false? Any proof?

The evidence says that the big bang happened? No, the evidence says that galaxies are spreading outward not that they came from one same place in the universe.

Every experiment you scientists have done verifieds the COE? Which one proved that it's impossible to create energy? Which experiment tells you how much matter/energy there is in the universe at any given time? The experiments told you that matter converts to energy, not that energy can't be created and not even that energy can't be destroyed. You have no way of knowing.

Life is chemicals? What arrangement of chemicals gives life? What test proved this?

The lack of perpetual motion machines tells you that energy cannot be created? Ahh, okay. But you already believe it can be created because you believe in the big bang. You're own big bang theory violates the COE.

I have no desire to learn your math? I accept your math but I don't accept your explanations of what it's really saying. Academics have to either come up with something entirely new and prove it or you have to be good followers in order to get and keep a job. 99% of you are followers.

 

[Polymath257]

My claim that the universe is much older than 13 billion years is false? Any proof?

Yes. The nature of the fluctuations in the background radiation.

The evidence says that the big bang happened? No, the evidence says that galaxies are spreading outward not that they came from one same place in the universe.

Is that what you think the BB theory says?

 

[Super Universe]

Yes. The nature of the fluctuations in the background radiation.



Is that what you think the BB theory says?

If the nebula hypothesis is correct then the universe background radiation would be exactly as it is measured now.

Do I think the BB theory says that galaxies are spreading out? If I remember correctly I think it says the early BB matter formed stars that produced heavier elements that eventually became planets and other stars but all of that is based upon the outward spread of the galaxies.

 

[Polymath257]

If the nebula hypothesis is correct then the universe background radiation would be exactly as it is measured now.

Prove it.

Do I think the BB theory says that galaxies are spreading out? If I remember correctly I think it says the early BB matter formed stars that produced heavier elements that eventually became planets and other stars but all of that is based upon the outward spread of the galaxies.

Yes, but you claimed it says that the galaxies originated from the same place within the universe. Is this what you think it says?

 

[Super Universe]

Prove it.



Yes, but you claimed it says that the galaxies originated from the same place within the universe. Is this what you think it says?

The cosmic background radiation proves it.

I claimed that the BB said that galaxies came from the same place in the universe? Okay, matter that formed proto-stars that formed heavier elements that then formed other stars and planets. The early BB still violates the law of gravity and the creation of energy/matter violates your COE.

 

[Polymath257]

The cosmic background radiation proves it.

Demonstrate how to get a collection of distinct nebula to produce a nearly perfect black body radiation from all directions.

I claimed that the BB said that galaxies came from the same place in the universe? Okay, matter that formed proto-stars that formed heavier elements that then formed other stars and planets.

Again, are you claiming everything came from the *same place in the universe*?

The early BB still violates the law of gravity and the creation of energy/matter violates your COE.

No, it does neither. But you have to actually understand the math to understand why not.

 

[Super Universe]

Demonstrate how to get a collection of distinct nebula to produce a nearly perfect black body radiation from all directions.


Again, are you claiming everything came from the *same place in the universe*?



No, it does neither. But you have to actually understand the math to understand why not.

Nebula's are made of particles. Particles are black bodies.

Am I claiming that everything came from the same place in the universe? Yes. The BB says it expanded from a singularity, a single point.

The BB does not violate the law of gravity or the idea that energy cannot be created? Yeah, it does. You guys are really something. You're supposed to follow the evidence even when it says something you don't understand, not change the evidence and disregard other evidence when it gets in the way.

 

[Super Universe]

You scientists like to make predictions and then verify them with experiments so why don't we make a 2 or 3 year prediction?

What will the scientists say when the James Webb Telescope finds galaxies farther than 13 billion years away?

I'm not sure what kind of sensitivity the telescope has but the only reason you guys are stuck on 13 billion years is because that's as far as you can see now. If you had a series of Hubble telescopes, or James Webb telescopes, in space acting as an interferometer you could see much farther and realize that there is a whole lot more out there.

I'm sure you will simply just say "Well, the big bang still happened, it just happened longer ago than we originally thought."

 

[Polymath257]

Nebula's are made of particles. Particles are black bodies.

You just showed you have no idea what you are talking about. Those nebulas are each at a slightly different temperature, but a black body radiation is at a single temperature. To get an even temperature across the whole sky to an accuracy of 1 part in 100,000 is not possible with scattered nebula.

Am I claiming that everything came from the same place in the universe? Yes. The BB says it expanded from a singularity, a single point.

The position of that singularity is NOT defined. It is NOT a 'location in the universe'. In fact, the very nature of it is that space and time cannot even be defined for it.

The BB does not violate the law of gravity or the idea that energy cannot be created? Yeah, it does. You guys are really something. You're supposed to follow the evidence even when it says something you don't understand, not change the evidence and disregard other evidence when it gets in the way.

No, it does NOT. The COE says that the total amount of energy at any two times is the same. The BB does NOT violate that. NOBODY has changed or disregarded the evidence except for you. The *evidence* supports the BB scenario in detail. Too bad for you.

 

[Polymath257]

You scientists like to make predictions and then verify them with experiments so why don't we make a 2 or 3 year prediction?

What will the scientists say when the James Webb Telescope finds galaxies farther than 13 billion years away?

I will make an absolute prediction it will NOT find any galaxies that are over 13.8 billion light years away.

I'm not sure what kind of sensitivity the telescope has but the only reason you guys are stuck on 13 billion years is because that's as far as you can see now. If you had a series of Hubble telescopes, or James Webb telescopes, in space acting as an interferometer you could see much farther and realize that there is a whole lot more out there.

No, that is the whole point. We wouldn't. The amount of time since the universe began is about 13.8 billion years. NOTHING farther than that will be visible (although their current position is about 47 billion light years, we cannot see them *right now*).

I'm sure you will simply just say "Well, the big bang still happened, it just happened longer ago than we originally thought."

OK, this is a clear test of the different ideas. If, after 3 years of the Webb telescope, nothing farther than 13.8 billion years is found, will you be willing to admit that you are wrong?

If, instead, something is found over 13.8 billion light years, I will state that I was wrong.

How's that for a bet?

 

[Polymath257]

Verifiable truths? Don't you mean somewhat verifiable truths based on intelligent assumption?

No, I mean verifiable via testing of the basic ideas.

 

[Super Universe]

You just showed you have no idea what you are talking about. Those nebulas are each at a slightly different temperature, but a black body radiation is at a single temperature. To get an even temperature across the whole sky to an accuracy of 1 part in 100,000 is not possible with scattered nebula.



The position of that singularity is NOT defined. It is NOT a 'location in the universe'. In fact, the very nature of it is that space and time cannot even be defined for it.



No, it does NOT. The COE says that the total amount of energy at any two times is the same. The BB does NOT violate that. NOBODY has changed or disregarded the evidence except for you. The *evidence* supports the BB scenario in detail. Too bad for you.

Nebulas are each at a slightly different temperature but black bodies radiate at a single temperature? Does the moon radiate at a single temperature? Do asteroids? One side faces the sun while the other is in darkness so what is it's temperature?

The position of the BB singularity is not defined? It's isn't but it should be if it were true. It should be obvious. All galaxies would be located in an expanding sphere, and they're not.

The singularity was not in a location in the universe? Okay fine, it was not a part of the universe until it suddenly was a part of the universe, regardless, it had to have an initial focus and inflated from that initial focus.

Space and time cannot be defined for the singularity? Right, you don't understand how it could happen. It defies all of your ability to comprehend, even when you ditch gravity it still does not make sense yet it's accepted by scientists. So, do you agree that accepted scientific theories are only sometimes based upon testable evidence and other times they are an act of faith?

The BB does not violate the COE? But it does. Matter was created, that violates the idea that matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed.

The evidence supports the BB scenario? Yeah, if we completely disregard gravity. It's not like gravity was an important law or anything. And the COE, well, it just didn't come into effect until it did. So, you believe that the laws of physics can be deactive and then activated by something?

You're trying to play word games to avoid the embarassing conclusions that you guys are making things up and even violating your own fundamental laws.

 

[Polymath257]

Nebulas are each at a slightly different temperature but black bodies radiate at a single temperature? Does the moon radiate at a single temperature? Do asteroids? One side faces the sun while the other is in darkness so what is it's temperature?

And that is my point. The background radiation radiates at *one* very specific temperature. This is NOT possible with distinct nebula scattereed across the universe.

The position of the BB singularity is not defined? It's isn't but it should be if it were true. It should be obvious. All galaxies would be located in an expanding sphere, and they're not.

Again showing that you don't understand what the BB claims. No, they would NOT be located on an expanding sphere. In a strict sense, the universe at a particular time *is* the sphere. ALL points of the universe are points of expansion.

The singularity was not in a location in the universe? Okay fine, it was not a part of the universe until it suddenly was a part of the universe, regardless, it had to have an initial focus and inflated from that initial focus.

No. The reason it is called a singularity is that the coordinate system cannot be extended there. In a very literal sense, it does not actually exist.

Space and time cannot be defined for the singularity? Right, you don't understand how it could happen.

No. What I mean is that mathematically in GR, there is no way to do it. Sort of like saying there is no 'north of the north pole'. String theory and other quantum theories of gravity are able to *mathematically* avoid such singularities. So, for those systems, there is NOT a singularity at all and space and time can be defined to work all the way into the past.

It defies all of your ability to comprehend, even when you ditch gravity it still does not make sense yet it's accepted by scientists. So, do you agree that accepted scientific theories are only sometimes based upon testable evidence and other times they are an act of faith?

The BB does not violate the COE? But it does. Matter was created, that violates the idea that matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Wrong. In the BB scenario there was no time when there was no matter or energy.

The evidence supports the BB scenario? Yeah, if we completely disregard gravity.

NO, I am *not* disregarding gravity. ALL BB scenarios are *based* on the best description of gravity we have: GR (and extensions).

Please stop claiming the BB violates the laws of gravity OR give detailed mathematical reasons why you think it violates anything in GR.

 

[Super Universe]

I will make an absolute prediction it will NOT find any galaxies that are over 13.8 billion light years away.



No, that is the whole point. We wouldn't. The amount of time since the universe began is about 13.8 billion years. NOTHING farther than that will be visible (although their current position is about 47 billion light years, we cannot see them *right now*).



OK, this is a clear test of the different ideas. If, after 3 years of the Webb telescope, nothing farther than 13.8 billion years is found, will you be willing to admit that you are wrong?

If, instead, something is found over 13.8 billion light years, I will state that I was wrong.

How's that for a bet?

James Webb won't find any galaxies over 13.8 billion light years away? It will. How far it can resolve will just depend on how sensitive it is and whether they get it right and don't have any "Hubble" type problems or unfolding problems.

James Webb is something like 4-5 times larger than Hubble so it should be able to see significantly farther. It's going to throw you guys for a loop. Hopefully, then you will ditch the big bang idea but I doubt it.

I will accept the bet. See you in 3 years.

 

[Polymath257]

James Webb won't find any galaxies over 13.8 billion light years away? It will. How far it can resolve will just depend on how sensitive it is and whether they get it right and don't have any "Hubble" type problems or unfolding problems.

James Webb is something like 4-5 times larger than Hubble so it should be able to see significantly farther. It's going to throw you guys for a loop. Hopefully, then you will ditch the big bang idea but I doubt it.

I will accept the bet. See you in 3 years.

Fair enough. The Webb telescope will give a lot more *detail*, but it won't be able to see any farther. The reason is simple: light has not had time to arrive from any farther.

 

[Super Universe]

And that is my point. The background radiation radiates at *one* very specific temperature. This is NOT possible with distinct nebula scattereed across the universe.



Again showing that you don't understand what the BB claims. No, they would NOT be located on an expanding sphere. In a strict sense, the universe at a particular time *is* the sphere. ALL points of the universe are points of expansion.



No. The reason it is called a singularity is that the coordinate system cannot be extended there. In a very literal sense, it does not actually exist.


No. What I mean is that mathematically in GR, there is no way to do it. Sort of like saying there is no 'north of the north pole'. String theory and other quantum theories of gravity are able to *mathematically* avoid such singularities. So, for those systems, there is NOT a singularity at all and space and time can be defined to work all the way into the past.



Wrong. In the BB scenario there was no time when there was no matter or energy.



NO, I am *not* disregarding gravity. ALL BB scenarios are *based* on the best description of gravity we have: GR (and extensions).

Please stop claiming the BB violates the laws of gravity OR give detailed mathematical reasons why you think it violates anything in GR.

Expanding space spreading out galaxies is what causes the cool black body radiation. A low universal temperature is caused by the expansion, the separation of the "hot" galaxies, that is increasing cold space.

You think the expansion is from the big bang when it's not and we know it's not because the expansion is increasing in speed, not slowing down as you thought.

All points of the universe are points of expansion? So, there was no singularity then, is that where you guys are now? Or, there was but it did not exist in this universe? You guys are really trying hard and in order to make sense of it you just move things out of existence into never neverland.

Here's what I don't understand, you can't accept angels, that's fine, but why do you believe that everything came from one big bang instead of many little big bangs that brought about nebula's? It's too far for you to go, right? You are willing to ditch gravity for one big bang but billions of them is just too much.

The singularity did not exist in this universe? Fine then, you guys say that because you can't make sense of how it could happen. Just like the COE wasn't a law until it became a law. If it was a law before the big bang then energy could not have been created.

Mathematically there is no way for GR to cause a big bang? GR is not this all knowing all proving theory. Einstein was given certain details, certain formula's. He was not given the whole shebang.

There was no time so there was no matter or energy? So, matter and energy are also time now? Or is time matter and energy?

I'll tell you what Einstein was really told. Three dimensional space/time is time only in the sense that it takes time to move from one place to another. Now the dimensions are a different matter altogether. The dimensions are time, there is not one dimension of time, time exists in all dimensions. The dimensions go from less dense to more dense space/time. We exist in the most dense space/time. All dimensions exist in the same place, one on top of the other. Time in the most dense dimensions is faster than time in the less dense dimensions. The ratio is about 1,000 to 1. So, space/time is eleven densities of space/time. I know that is confusing. I can't explain it better than that. Let it soak for a while.

I should stop claiming the BB violates gravity? I can't because it does.