The Creationistic Method and Why It Is Fraudulent

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Hopefully, then you will ditch the big bang idea but I doubt it.

You are correct. The Big Bang theory is here to stay. The evidence supporting it will not go away even if a new discovery requires it to be modified to accommodate the new finding. The theory is definitely correct in the main. It would not have been possible to predict the cosmic microwave background or the relative amount of the constituents of the primeval nebulae if the theory were not at least mostly correct.

Why would we ever ditch a theory that unifies observation and makes detailed and specific predictions accurately? What incentive do we have to do that?

The creationists want us to do the same with evolutionary theory, which also unifies observations, has successfully predicted what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature, has explanatory power, and has been successfully applied to practical matters that resulted in improving the human condition. They poke and prod at it, citing what hasn't been explained or found yet, and how they just can't see how it is possible to people that can't see how it's impossible, in the apparent hope that man will abandon the theory for a supernaturalistic claim that does none of those things.

Sorry, but that would be irrational. The reason and evidence based thinker has a different epistemology from that of the faith based thinker. We come to our beliefs using different methods, and not surprisingly, they yield contradictory positions. As I explained earlier, the criterion for truth in the rational, skeptical, and empirical is based on the ability of an idea to accurately predict or beneficially modify outcomes. That is, truth is inferred from evidence properly evaluated and confirmed by the generated conclusion's utility.

The criterion for truth in faith based epistemologies appears to be nothing more than the will to believe and declare an idea true independent of evidence, or despite contradictory evidence. By that method, I can declare anything true as you have been doing regarding the nature of angels.By that method, I can make any statement at all that I want to about angels and declare it true.

You can see why empiricists are not interested in the objections of faith based thinkers. The process generating such objections is flawed.

 

[Super Universe]

You mean proves it to you.

Proof is that which convinces. Cosmic background radiation has convinced you that there was no big bang. It has convinced the scientific community of the opposite. Somebody is misinterpreting the observation. Is it the guy with little understanding of mainstream cosmology who gets his scientific information from The Urantia Book, or the generations of highly educated physicists, astronomers and mathematicians working over a century that have improved the human condition with their ideas.

Have you noticed that none of the ideas you bring here have any practical value. There's not one that can be used to explain, predict or control any aspect of nature - the sine qua non of a wrong idea.

Let me illustrate that with a mundane situation. I want to get to the pier, which I am told is three blocks west and five blocks south of where I am. If I want to get there, and if the directions are correct, they will allow me to predict and control the outcome of my afternoon walk: I will get to the pier. And that is the evidence that the idea was a sound and useful one.

If somebody comes along with false ideas, they will not generate the desired outcome. The idea will be less than useless, since it will end up wating my time and energy.

That is the measure of a correct idea - it's utility.

If that

I mean the cosmic background radiation proves to me that the nebula hypothesis is correct? I'm a Urantia Book believer. I don't need science to prove anything to me. But, the background radiation is exactly what it would be if space expanded, which it is doing.

Cosmic background radiation has convinced me that there was no big bang? No, once again, I'm a Urantia Book believer. The background radiation just fits what I already knew.

The background radiation has convinced the scientific community of the opposite? Yeah, they simply had to dismiss gravity. Must have been easy for them to do, it's not like gravity is an important law or anything.

Somebody is misinterpreting the observation? The expansion of cold space causes the coldness of space. The radiation result we see is exactly what we would see if space expands and it is expanding. The scientists think the expansion is because of the big bang but that does not fit because gravity would never allow a big bang to happen and because the expansion is INCREASING in speed. Explosions don't INCREASE in speed.

Is the problem with me or the educated scientists? You tell me, how long was it after the big bang before gravity somehow turned itself on? How does the Conservation of Energy law, which says that energy CANNOT be created, allow the big bang to happen?

You're trusting people. Never do that.

Have I noticed that none of the ideas I brought here have any practical value? Not true at all. I think gravity is a fundamental law and should be returned to that status. I think scientists should not invent laws like the COE unless they have evidence that energy cannot be created, which they don't. I think that scientists should not limit their estimate of the age of the universe based only upon their ability to see only 13.8 billion years.

None of my ideas can be used to explain, predict, or control any aspect of nature? I can explain many things but I won't give you, or any other undeserving human who has not done the work, a nobel prize. God has to give you that information.

I have made a prediction, the James Webb Telescope should reveal galaxies much farther away than 13.8 billion years. Where is your prediction?

If somebody comes along with false ideas it will be useless and waste time? Were you under the impression that people always get complicated things right the first time? They don't. They never do. You can't do it because you're always looking for the easy answer first.

's not what you mean by knowledge, or if that's not your test of what is true, then your ideas are by definition of no value to me, and can be of no practical value to you, either.

I mean the cosmic background radiation proves to me that the nebula hypothesis is correct? I'm a Urantia Book believer. I don't need science to prove anything to me. But, the background radiation is exactly what it would be if space expanded, which it is doing.

Cosmic background radiation has convinced me that there was no big bang? No, once again, I'm a Urantia Book believer. The background radiation just fits what I already knew.

The background radiation has convinced the scientific community of the opposite? Yeah, they simply had to dismiss gravity. Must have been easy for them to do, it's not like gravity is an important law or anything.

Somebody is misinterpreting the observation? The expansion of cold space causes the coldness of space. The radiation result we see is exactly what we would see if space expands and it is expanding. The scientists think the expansion is because of the big bang but that does not fit because gravity would never allow a big bang to happen and because the expansion is INCREASING in speed. Explosions don't INCREASE in speed.

Is the problem with me or the educated scientists? You tell me, how long was it after the big bang before gravity somehow turned itself on? How does the Conservation of Energy law, which says that energy CANNOT be created, allow the big bang to happen?

You're trusting people. Never do that.

Have I noticed that none of the ideas I brought here have any practical value? Not true at all. I think gravity is a fundamental law and should be returned to that status. I think scientists should not invent laws like the COE unless they have evidence that energy cannot be created, which they don't. I think that scientists should not limit their estimate of the age of the universe based only upon their ability to see only 13.8 billion years.

None of my ideas can be used to explain, predict, or control any aspect of nature? I can explain many things but I won't give you, or any other undeserving human who has not done the work, a Nobel prize. God has to give you that information.

I have made a prediction, the James Webb Telescope should reveal galaxies much farther away than 13.8 billion years. Where is your prediction?

If somebody comes along with false ideas it will be useless and waste time? Were you under the impression that people always get complicated things right the first time? They don't. They never do. You can't do it because you're always looking for the easy answer first.

 

[Super Universe]

You are correct. The Big Bang theory is here to stay. The evidence supporting it will not go away even if a new discovery requires it to be modified to accommodate the new finding. The theory is definitely correct in the main. It would not have been possible to predict the cosmic microwave background or the relative amount of the constituents of the primeval nebulae if the theory were not at least mostly correct.

Why would we ever ditch a theory that unifies observation and makes detailed and specific predictions accurately? What incentive do we have to do that?

The creationists want us to do the same with evolutionary theory, which also unifies observations, has successfully predicted what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature, has explanatory power, and has been successfully applied to practical matters that resulted in improving the human condition. They poke and prod at it, citing what hasn't been explained or found yet, and how they just can't see how it is possible to people that can't see how it's impossible, in the apparent hope that man will abandon the theory for a supernaturalistic claim that does none of those things.

Sorry, but that would be irrational. The reason and evidence based thinker has a different epistemology from that of the faith based thinker. We come to our beliefs using different methods, and not surprisingly, they yield contradictory positions. As I explained earlier, the criterion for truth in the rational, skeptical, and empirical is based on the ability of an idea to accurately predict or beneficially modify outcomes. That is, truth is inferred from evidence properly evaluated and confirmed by the generated conclusion's utility.

The criterion for truth in faith based epistemologies appears to be nothing more than the will to believe and declare an idea true independent of evidence, or despite contradictory evidence. By that method, I can declare anything true as you have been doing regarding the nature of angels.By that method, I can make any statement at all that I want to about angels and declare it true.

You can see why empiricists are not interested in the objections of faith based thinkers. The process generating such objections is flawed.

The BB theory is here to stay? For a long while it is but eventually the scientists working on String Theory will explain everything. We won't see it but it will happen.

It would not have been possible to predict the background radiation without the BB? The background radiation just means that space is uniformly very cold. It's not like it's proof of anything else. You're way too trusting of humans.

Why would we ditch a theory that unifies observation and makes detailed and specific predictions accurately? Incorrect. The scientists came up with the BB idea then debated whether the universe was open or closed, then they found out it was INCREASING in it's speed of expansion. A big bang does not support an INCREASE in the expansion speed. That, along with the law of gravity, is evidence that the BB is incorrect, the scientists simply dismiss it all. You're too trusting of humans.

The creationists want you to do the same with evolutionary theory? Most of them are uneducated. I have 5 years of college. And the book of Genesis describes evolution but that's another thread.

You've come to your beliefs using different methods? Right, you simply dismiss gravity and come up with the big bang.

Truth is inferred from evidence? If I told you that my telescope can only see 13.8 billion years away so therefor the universe must only be 13.8 billion years old, would you accept it? Is that proof?

You can make any statement you want regarding angels and declare it true? How would you know anything about angels?

Empiricists are not interested in the objections of faith based thinkers? Right, you worship the scientists who dismiss their own laws when they get in the way.

You trust humans way, way, way too much.

 

[Thief]

That's not true. It is pretty easy to avoid logical fallacies, as long as you know what to look for. The way to avoid it is to use verifiable evidence that can be seen by all.

none so blind as those who refuse to see

 

[Sapiens]

The UB endorses eugenics? What's wrong with eugenics? Certain couples who are carriers of genetic diseases generally have tests done to see if their fetus has a terrible disease like Tay Sachs and other diseases. We're already doing everything we can to fight genetic diseases, why not breed out the disease causing genes? If eugenics had been properly performed by the angels on primitive humans we would not have psychopaths or any genetic diseases at all now.

The UB also says that the asian race is superior but does not explain why. The asian race has more population so maybe that's what they meant. I tend to think that they meant that the asian race tends to be meek and not seeking conquest.

The UB also says that the black race is backwards and this offends people. If you study African tribal societies, the women do the cooking, fetch the water, tend the children, plant and raise and harvest the crops, while the men sit under the shade tree all day long and once in a while they go hunting and start wars with neighboring tribes.

If you have any other specific problems with anything the UB says, list them and I will address them. The UB is 1,800 pages long so a Wiki page doesn't explain it all.

It explains enough for a reasonable person to see it for what it is, racist claptrap, and you just confirmed that.

 

[Super Universe]

It explains enough for a reasonable person to see it for what it is, racist claptrap, and you just confirmed that.

The Wiki explains that eugenics is racism? The Wiki page you posted says that eugenics is "a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population." Doctor's are trying to fix genetic diseases.

So, doctors who are trying to eliminate genetic diseases are racist?

So, you believe we should allow people with severe mental disabilities to have children? How many? What if they want to have child after child after child and can't take care of any of them?

Do you also believe we should not attempt to prevent Down Syndrome if we can?

Do you also believe we should not work towards eliminating genetic diseases from the population?

Do you also believe we should not work to remove psychopathic genes from the population?

There have been doctors who have done horrible experiments, that does not mean that doctors should not be allowed to care for patients anymore. The Nazi's hijacked the idea of eugenics and took it to a cruel and abusive level but a more positive eugenics, fixing our genes, is going to help future humanity.

 

[leibowde84]

none so blind as those who refuse to see

What does that mean?

 

[Sapiens]

The Wiki explains that eugenics is racism?

The Wiki page you post says that eugenics is "a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population." Doctor's are trying to fix genetic diseases.

So, doctors who are trying to eliminate genetic diseases are racist?

So, you believe we should allow people with severe mental disabilities to have children? How many? What if they want to have child after child after child and can't take care of any of them?

Do you also believe we should not attempt to prevent Down Syndrome if we can?

Do you also believe we should not work towards eliminating genetic diseases from the population?

Do you also believe we should not work to remove psychopathic genes from the population?

There have been doctors who have done horrible experiments, that does not mean that doctors should not be allowed to care for patients anymore. The Nazi's hijacked the idea of eugenics and took it to a cruel and abusive level but a more positive eugenics, fixing our genes, is going to help future humanity.

I know it is hard for you ... try to focus. No one said that eugenics is racism, though a good case can be made for a large overlap in belief between eugenicists and racists that is fully occupied by the Urantia believers and it has nothing to do with diagnosing or treatment of genetic disease, but rather with prejudgement based on skin pigmentation.

​

You posted:

The UB also says that the asian race is superior but does not explain why. The asian race has more population so maybe that's what they meant. I tend to think that they meant that the asian race tends to be meek and not seeking conquest.

The UB also says that the black race is backwards and this offends people. If you study African tribal societies, the women do the cooking, fetch the water, tend the children, plant and raise and harvest the crops, while the men sit under the shade tree all day long and once in a while they go hunting and start wars with neighboring tribes.

 

[gnostic]

No, I don't. The scientists invented the incorrect idea that all matter in the universe came from a big bang even though gravity would have never allowed it to happen. They also think that background radiation proves the big bang but background radiation just proves that space is cold. It's cold because it's always been cold.

They also came up with this Conservation of Energy idea that says that energy can't be created when there is no experiment that supports it. And the only reason they believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old is because that's as far as they can see with current telescopes. They're not going off of experiments and results and tests, they're making things up based upon insufficient evidence.

Oh, and their ideas about time are all screwed up as well.

You guys dug your own hole and crawled into it. No one did it for you.

You didn't answer my question, SU.

Where are your sources that the universe is 250 billion years old?

Or your evidences that support your supposition?

 

[Super Universe]

I know it is hard for you ... try to focus. No one said that eugenics is racism, though a good case can be made for a large overlap in belief between eugenicists and racists that is fully occupied by the Urantia believers and it has nothing to do with diagnosing or treatment of genetic disease, but rather with prejudgement based on skin pigmentation.

​

You posted:

The UB also says that the asian race is superior but does not explain why. The asian race has more population so maybe that's what they meant. I tend to think that they meant that the asian race tends to be meek and not seeking conquest.

The UB also says that the black race is backwards and this offends people. If you study African tribal societies, the women do the cooking, fetch the water, tend the children, plant and raise and harvest the crops, while the men sit under the shade tree all day long and once in a while they go hunting and start wars with neighboring tribes.

I should focus? You posted the Wiki on eugenics, not I, and claimed eugenics was racism.

A good case could be made for eugenicists and racists? Sure if you listen to the Nazi's, the Aryan Brotherhood, or the Skinheads. But who is listening to them? They're ideas are not leading humanity into the future.

Mentally disabled people have trouble finding mates who are not mentally disabled. That's eugenics at work. It's always been at work but it's very slow. Doctors one day will be able to fix genetic disease causing genes. You can call that eugenics or whatever but it will be a great day for humanity.

Eugenics and racism are fully occupied by Urantia believers? How so? I don't know any other UB believers so I can't say.

The UB says that the asian race is superior. I don't feel they are superior at all but, as I said, every time I've been there they tend to be meek and shy, not all but more so than the people in Europe. Asians tend to be less outgoing and their history is one of isolation instead of seeking conquest, well, except for the Japanese in the 30's.

The UB says that the black race is backwards. I don't know what that means because they did not elaborate. Women do almost all of the family work in tribal society so maybe that's it. In my opinion that is definately backwards and I think most of humanity would agree. That's why we don't live like that anymore.

 

[Super Universe]

You didn't answer my question, SU.

Where are your sources that the universe is 250 billion years old?

Or your evidences that support your supposition?

I did answer your question. You just did not like the answer. People always ask me how I know this or that but all you have to do is look in the upper right hand corner of my title where it says my religion.

Where is the evidence that supports my "supposition"? I posted why the big bang is wrong over and over again many times. How did you miss it?

Are you suggesting that the law of gravity is not evidence?

 

[Sapiens]

I should focus? You posted the Wiki on eugenics, not I, and claimed eugenics was racism.

A good case could be made for eugenicists and racists? Sure if you listen to the Nazi's, the Aryan Brotherhood, or the Skinheads. But who is listening to them? They're ideas are not leading humanity into the future.

Mentally disabled people have trouble finding mates who are not mentally disabled. That's eugenics at work. It's always been at work but it's very slow. Doctors one day will be able to fix genetic disease causing genes. You can call that eugenics or whatever but it will be a great day for humanity.

Eugenics and racism are fully occupied by Urantia believers? How so? I don't know any other UB believers so I can't say.

The UB says that the asian race is superior. I don't feel they are superior at all but, as I said, every time I've been there they tend to be meek and shy, not all but more so than the people in Europe. Asians tend to be less outgoing and their history is one of isolation instead of seeking conquest, well, except for the Japanese in the 30's.

The UB says that the black race is backwards. I don't know what that means because they did not elaborate. Women do almost all of the family work in tribal society so maybe that's it. In my opinion that is definately backwards and I think most of humanity would agree. That's why we don't live like that anymore.

You are a racist and you don't even recognize it ... typical.

 

[Polymath257]

To get a uniform temperature requires the temperature in the past to be uniform across space? There's no way a super hot expanding plasma cooled perfectly the same throughout. The outer edges would cool quicker than the central areas. We don't see that in the background radiation.

Precisely. And since that isn't what the BB scenario claims, all is good. The BB *does* predict the uniform temperature across the sky that is actually observed. In fact, the background radiation was predicted 25 years before it was observed.

The cosmological constant doesn't negate the BB scenario? When science is willing to dump gravity for background radiation then nothing will ever disprove the big bang to you but what you are doing is not science anymore.

Okay, so the newest explanation is that the singularity existed outside of the 3D universe? That is not science.

No, that is NOT what I said. But in order to understand what I said, you have to learn a bit of how 4 dimensional geometry works. The 'singularity' isn't an object. It is the failure of our coordinate systems to be extendable past a certain value. So, it is literally meaningless to take about 'before the BB because time itself didn't exist.

The uniformity of the background radiation proves the universe was not created by multiple nebula? It does. Space is cold. The expansion of space is the reason for the uniform temperature because the new space is cold. It's not created hot like a plasma and then allowed to cool. It's cold from the beginning and is still cold today.

But that wouldn't give a *uniform* temperature to one part in 100,000. Just being 'cold' isn't the same as being the exact same temperature everywhere.

 

[Super Universe]

You are a racist and you don't even recognize it ... typical.

What have I said that is racist? Name one thing.


You assumed that I came up with a judgment about asian people without experiencing their culture. I've been to Japan four times. I have been to Korea twice. If you've ever ridden the train in Japan you will see many people and all of them are quiet and respectful, not like a subway in the US. If you try to talk to someone they are usually polite but very reserved. My opinion of them is not racism, it's experience. I've been there. You haven't. You assumed incorrectly. Do you know what happens when you assume?

As for African tribal society, I've only been to Africa once but mostly I took some social anthropology courses in college and learned about tribal societies.

Racism is the belief that one race is superior. I don't think any race is superior. It's also prejudice, but I've been to Japan and Africa. It's also an antagonism based upon someone who is a different race. What antagonism have I posted towards a race?

What we have here is a lack of education. You thought that eugenics was racism but the Wiki page you posted has a definition that means "to improve the species by improving genes" and that's exactly what medical science is trying to do. And, you think that any judgment of a race is racism but judgment also does not meet the definition of racism unless it's prejudging and, as I said, I've been there multiple times.

I could say that the asian race is superior because there are more asians on the planet than any other race. That's not racist, it's not a condemnation, it's fact.

 

[Super Universe]

Background radiation was predicted 25 years before it was found? Oh, you mean someone predicted that space is very cold and then 25 years later we found out that it actually is very cold. Wow. Amazing. That's incredible. And you are willing to dump gravity for that?

The singularity is not well defined? Finally you guys can admit when you just don't know. That's better than dismissing fundamental laws. Now take that and apply it to what you were taught and bring back gravity and rewrite the textbooks correctly.

It is meaningless to talk about before the BB because time did not exist? Space/time did not exist but time as a sequence of events did. Or you could say that all matter existed in some manner that is beyond the standard model, it all came from some other dimension or whatever. Coming up with a theory as to how it happened is better than ditching fundamental laws and writing in the textbooks that the big bang happened and gravity just wasn't working yet.

The nebula hypothesis would not give a uniform temperature of 1 to 100,000? Yes, it would. When galaxies spread outward new space fills in the gap. New space is very cold. The expansion is causing the uniform coldness of space. New space is not created hot.

 

[Sapiens]

What have I said that is racist? Name one thing.


You assumed that I came up with a judgment about asian people without experiencing their culture. I've been to Japan four times. I have been to Korea twice. If you've ever ridden the train in Japan you will see many people and all of them are quiet and respectful, not like a subway in the US. If you try to talk to someone they are usually polite but very reserved. My opinion of them is not racism, it's experience. I've been there. You haven't. You assumed incorrectly. Do you know what happens when you assume?

As for African tribal society, I've only been to Africa once but mostly I took some social anthropology courses in college and learned about tribal societies.

Racism is the belief that one race is superior. I don't think any race is superior. It's also prejudice, but I've been to Japan and Africa. It's also an antagonism based upon someone who is a different race. What antagonism have I posted towards a race?

What we have here is a lack of education. You thought that eugenics was racism but the Wiki page you posted has a definition that means "to improve the species by improving genes" and that's exactly what medical science is trying to do. And, you think that any judgment of a race is racism but judgment also does not meet the definition of racism unless it's prejudging and, as I said, I've been there multiple times.

I could say that the asian race is superior because there are more asians on the planet than any other race. That's not racist, it's not a condemnation, it's fact.

You said that the asian race is superior, meek and shy, less outgoing and their history is one of isolation instead of seeking conquest, well, except for the Japanese in the 30's. (you somehow forgot Genghis Khan, Kublai Kahn, Pol Pot, and a slew of other rather warlike folks.

You said that the black race is backwards because women do almost all of the family work in tribal society and that's definately (sic) backwards, we don't live like that anymore.

Definitely racist. Your denials only dig your hole deeper.

 

[Super Universe]

I should focus? You posted the Wiki on eugenics, not I, and claimed eugenics was racism.

A good case could be made for eugenicists and racists? Sure if you listen to the Nazi's, the Aryan Brotherhood, or the Skinheads. But who is listening to them? They're ideas are not leading humanity into the future.

Mentally disabled people have trouble finding mates who are not mentally disabled. That's eugenics at work. It's always been at work but it's very slow. Doctors one day will be able to fix genetic disease causing genes. You can call that eugenics or whatever but it will be a great day for humanity.

Eugenics and racism are fully occupied by Urantia believers? How so? I don't know any other UB believers so I can't say.

The UB says that the asian race is superior. I don't feel they are superior at all but, as I said, every time I've been there they tend to be meek and shy, not all but more so than the people in Europe. Asians tend to be less outgoing and their history is one of isolation instead of seeking conquest, well, except for the Japanese in the 30's.

The UB says that the black race is backwards. I don't know what that means because they did not elaborate. Women do almost all of the family work in tribal society so maybe that's it. In my opinion that is definately backwards and I think most of humanity would agree. That's why we don't live like that anymore.

The definition of racism is: the idea that one race is superior to another race, prejudice, or having an antagonistic attitude towards another race.

Name what thing I said that meets any of the above criteria.

Nothing I said meets the criteria of prejudice because I've been there and studied them. Can't be antagonistic because my comments are not insulting. And, the asian race is superior in numbers, there are more asians on the planet than any other race. If that is racism then population statistics are racist and anyone who thinks that there are more asians than any other race are also racists.

The asians I met tended to be meek and shy, except the guy in the martial arts clothing store was mean and yelled at us for no reason, I think we were supposed to go up and bow to him when we first walked in but we didn't. I don't judge them all by that one guy. Also, a friend of mine's wife lost her wallet on the train to Yokohama. It showed up at the hotel lobby the next morning with all the money still in it and the hotel was 2 miles from the train station. That probably doesn't happen in the US or Europe or any other place in the world.

Somehow I forgot Genghis Khan? Yeah, they have their warriors and control freak leaders. I think if you compared european history to asian history you would find that the europeans tended to not only fight with their neighbors but also tried to conquer distant cultures whereas the asians tended to fight amongst themselves and with close neighbors.

I said the black race is backwards? What I said was that having women do most of the family work in tribal society is backwards. It doesn't matter if the women are black, white, asian, amazonian, new guinean, or Kenyan, it's backwards. Men should do most of the work.

You didn't take any philosophy, sociology, or social anthropology courses in college, did you?

 

[gnostic]

I did answer your question. You just did not like the answer. People always ask me how I know this or that but all you have to do is look in the upper right hand corner of my title where it says my religion.

Where is the evidence that supports my "supposition"? I posted why the big bang is wrong over and over again many times. How did you miss it?

Are you suggesting that the law of gravity is not evidence?

My question want about the Big Bang, but your number of "25 billion" years.

I want to know where you got this number from?

Did you get this number from books, articles or essays from scientists? Did you get it from webpages of scientific sources or from creationist websites? Did you get it from the Book of Urantia?

Where?

Claiming that the Big Bang wrong, doesn't mean that this 25 billion years is right.

 

[Super Universe]

My question want about the Big Bang, but your number of "25 billion" years.

I want to know where you got this number from?

Did you get this number from books, articles or essays from scientists? Did you get it from webpages of scientific sources or from creationist websites? Did you get it from the Book of Urantia?

Where?

Claiming that the Big Bang wrong, doesn't mean that this 25 billion years is right.

You did not read my entire post. You read the first sentence then decided to comment. If you would have read the second sentence you would have found the answer.

And, I did not say the universe was 25 billion years old. I said it was 250 billion years old.

Claiming that the big bang is wrong does not mean the 250 billion year answer is right? Nope, it doesn't, but everyone who knows anything about how gravity works already knows the big bang is wrong, well, except the scientists.

 

[gnostic]

And, I did not say the universe was 25 billion years old. I said it was 250 billion years old.

Sorry, 250 billion years. My mistake.

You did not read my entire post. You read the first sentence then decided to comment. If you would have read the second sentence you would have found the answer.

Claiming that the big bang is wrong does not mean the 250 billion year answer is right? Nope, it doesn't, but everyone who knows anything about how gravity works already knows the big bang is wrong, well, except the scientists.

I did read your whole reply, and none of it say where you got 250 billion years from.

That’s my question, which I will repeat:

WHERE DID YOU GET THE “250 BILLION YEARS” FROM?​

What is your source(s)?

Please don’t give me another lecture from, and just tell where you got the number from?