The Creationistic Method and Why It Is Fraudulent

[sayak83]

Scientific conspiracy? Or you could call it misuse of the public trust.

I noticed you did not address the points, how does gravity allow a big bang? Oh, it doesn't, right. Now that's a problem, isn't it?

Yes it does. Why won't it? The expanding universe solution was mathematically derived from Einstein's gravitational equations just a few years after Einstein published it. So yes, obviously Big Bang expansion is undoubtedly allowed by gravity. The rigorous derivation is shown below.

Solving the Friedman Equation
Cosmological Physics

Thus gravity is perfectly consistent with Big Bang expansion of the universe as the math formally proves.

Also the detection of the long predicted gravity waves for which this year's Nobel Prize was awarded shows beyond doubt that Einstein's GR is the correct theory of gravity for the post Big Bang conditions of the universe.

 

[Super Universe]

Yes, scientists practice science.

Your claim didn't make sense. I pointed that out. Perhaps you could clarify.

I did clarify. I posted three clear issues of scientists lying to the public.

 

[Polymath257]

I can't wait to see you backtrack and come up with excuses, bbbut, but...

And again, the backtracking will be done by you when no evidence of anything farther back than 13.8 billion years is found.

 

[Super Universe]

Yes it does. Why won't it? The expanding universe solution was mathematically derived from Einstein's gravitational equations just a few years after Einstein published it. So yes, obviously Big Bang expansion is undoubtedly allowed by gravity. The rigorous derivation is shown below.

Solving the Friedman Equation
Cosmological Physics

Thus gravity is perfectly consistent with Big Bang expansion of the universe as the math formally proves.

Also the detection of the long predicted gravity waves for which this year's Nobel Prize was awarded shows beyond doubt that Einstein's GR is the correct theory of gravity for the post Big Bang conditions of the universe.

The expanding universe was derived from Einstein's gravitational equations just a few years after Einstein published it? I never said the universe was not expanding. What I said was that all matter did not come from one big bang.

A big bang is not allowed by gravity. If it were then we would see black holes blowing up all over the place.

Einstein's GR is proven? GR is not the big bang. GR is GR.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did clarify. I posted three clear issues of scientists lying to the public.

Your examples were silly, but that's not what I'm pointing out.

You said the scientists aren't lying but the science is lying. How does that make sense and/or what do you mean?

 

[Super Universe]

Your examples were silly, but that's not what I'm pointing out.

You said the scientists aren't lying but the science is lying. How does that make sense and/or what do you mean?

My examples were silly? So it's silly to think that gravity would stop a big bang from happening? Do we see black holes exploding matter into space?

I said the scientists are lying but the science is lying? No, the science is telling the truth, the scientists are interpreting it incorrectly and they should know better. They came up with the big bang simply because galaxies are moving away from each other. Just because they are moving away from each other does not mean that all matter came from one place. And they ditched gravity because of background radiation but space is cold because it's always been cold.

And this COE idea that energy cannot be created has no evidence whatsoever supporting it. There is no way for a human to know whether energy can or cannot be created.

 

[SkepticThinker]

 

[sayak83]

The expanding universe was derived from Einstein's gravitational equations just a few years after Einstein published it? I never said the universe was not expanding. What I said was that all matter did not come from one big bang.

Big bang is not allowed by gravity. If it were then we would see black holes blowing up all over the place.

Einstein's GR is proven? GR is not the big bang. GR is GR.

Big Bang Theory IS the theory of the expansion of the universe from a hot denser past. The concept that there was an initial singularity is an as yet speculative hypothesis for which there is no evidence and is not a proper part of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang Singularity Hypothesis is different from the Big Bang theory. The latter is based on excellent observational and predictive evidence, but the former is not.

 

[Super Universe]

Big Bang Theory IS the theory of the expansion of the universe from a hot denser past. The concept that there was an initial singularity is an as yet speculative hypothesis for which there is no evidence and is not a proper part of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang Singularity Hypothesis is different from the Big Bang theory. The latter is based on excellent observational and predictive evidence, but the former is not.

The big bang theory is the theory of the expansion of space? Is it now? Then how come they have recently come up with this dark energy idea? How does a big bang cause an accelerating expansion? It doesn't.

What proof of a hot denser past universe?

The evidence is pointing to the truth, you can't get there without stumbling but at some point you are going to have to stand up on your own two feet and accept it.

 

[Profound Realization]

Well as you probably anticipated I can't attain your ridiculous acceptance criteria; so little point in continuing the discussion. So good luck debunking science, I hope you never go in an aeroplane as scientists who have ascertained the distance to the sun also do tracking devices and distances for planes and airports.
I wouldn't rely on your satnav in your phone either, because if you are correct that'll be out by some magnitude.

I suppose that what is labeled ridiculous is perceptive-based. Your criteria is whatever government sponsored organizations tell you.

Don't really understand what you mean, or the relevance of local distances and/or sat nav to the distance of the sun. If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that because we can measure distances very locally on Earth from our everyday guy and girl next door neighbors, that NASA/government sponsored organizations can know the distance of the sun by measure of it through atmospheres, solar radiation and solar flares, through micrometeroids, comet tails and time warps, through light bending gravity pulls by planetary orbits and the asteroid belt.. therefore: auto-gospel.

 

[gnostic]

Even the angels, with their fantastic abilities, can't violate certain laws of physics.

Human like beings with wings, don’t violate law of nature?

Some angels, I cannot remember if they were seraphs or cherubs, were described as having 4 faces, that of man, lion, bull and eagle. That doesn’t seem impossible to you?

There are Egyptian religion which depict some deities with head of lion (or of lioness, like Hathor, Sekhmet), of hawk (Horus, Ra), cow (Hathor, Nut), jackal (Anubis), ibis (Thoth), crocodile (Sobek), snake (Wadjet), and even of scarab beetle (Ra as Kherpi).

In Hinduism, we have some Deva and Devi, who can have 4 arms, 6 or even 8.

All of these imageries come from ancient people, who were superstitious, believe just about anything.

But the question is, have you ever seen a real angel? Did you see them with with a pair of wings, or 2 or 3 pairs? Have you seen any being with 4 different faces?

So why would you think angels, or any deity for that matter, be more real than the formation of physical matters, or objects as large a star, through natural mean.

 

[gnostic]

Am I claiming that scientists who operate the Hubble, WMAP, Planc, and other telescopes have been lying? No, what I'm claiming is that science as a whole has been lying to the public. You know that gravity will not allow a big bang yet they've continued to promote this idea and they have been trying to force fit the evidence to fit the idea when the evidence does NOT support it.

I am not concern about what the JWST will show after it is launch and make public any evidence available.

You have been making all sorts of ridiculous assumptions about the capabilities of James Webb Space Telescope.

And you have been telling everyone you don’t trust government, and yet JWST mission, NASA is the major contributor. I don’t see how can dismiss all scientists at NASA, and yet, you are ignoring the fact that NASA is working on JWST.

Other contributor is the ESA (European Space Agency), with multiple funding by various European governments.

I'm not thinking straight? Oh, right, and science is? They violate their own laws and invent ridiculous laws that have no evidence supporting then.

Never trust humans.

Again, you are definitely showing paranoia delusion.

Tell me, you would know better than all the scientists working at NASA, ESA, Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), and all other astronomers involved in optic and radio telescope observatories, then do you have a degree in astrophysics?

Well, don’t worry. I, at least, I don’t trust you to tell me anything about astrophysics or astronomy, or even physics in general.

 

[Super Universe]

Human like beings with wings, don’t violate law of nature?

Some angels, I cannot remember if they were seraphs or cherubs, were described as having 4 faces, that of man, lion, bull and eagle. That doesn’t seem impossible to you?

There are Egyptian religion which depict some deities with head of lion (or of lioness, like Hathor, Sekhmet), of hawk (Horus, Ra), cow (Hathor, Nut), jackal (Anubis), ibis (Thoth), crocodile (Sobek), snake (Wadjet), and even of scarab beetle (Ra as Kherpi).

In Hinduism, we have some Deva and Devi, who can have 4 arms, 6 or even 8.

All of these imageries come from ancient people, who were superstitious, believe just about anything.

But the question is, have you ever seen a real angel? Did you see them with with a pair of wings, or 2 or 3 pairs? Have you seen any being with 4 different faces?

So why would you think angels, or any deity for that matter, be more real than the formation of physical matters, or objects as large a star, through natural mean.

Human like beings with wings don't violate laws of nature? So you think a primitive misunderstanding of the universe should control the universe?

Some angels were described as having 4 faces, that of a man, lion, bull, and angels? The bible is primitive human attempt to explain something that even humans today we have trouble understanding. Don't see the bible as the word of God or pure truth. See it as a myth with some truth sprinkled in here and there.

Egyptian religion depicts deities with the heads of animals? And they worshipped the sun. Humans were, and still are to some degree, primitive beings. The universe is way, way, way more complicated than even your scientists realize.

In Hinduism there are some dieties who have 4, 6, or even 8 arms? There are hints of truth in every religion. Don't get stuck on idols. God is not so primitive that He will not reward you with heaven simply because you thought He really looked like one incorrect idol.

Have I ever seen a real angel? No.

Did I see them with wings or 2 or 3 pairs? No, but they don't have wings like birds, they have an aura that surounds them. I can't prove it to you but astronauts on the space station have seen them. There is one video of a female astronaut looking out a window and screaming while another (Russian Cosmonaut) yells at her to calm down.

Have I seen a being with 4 different faces? No, but the universe is an absolutely huge place and there are more life forms than you can imagine.

Why would I think that angels or a deity are more real than physical matters? God is absolutey real to me. He is first in my belief, before everything, but He does not interfere with humanity like the religions say He does. I don't think that angels are more real than physical things that I use and come into contact with every day but I know they exist. They have their jobs to do, their jobs don't include doing things for me. I can take care of myself. I'm not here to play the lottery.

 

[gnostic]

Have I ever seen a real angel? No.

And yet you are saying believeing in angels are more real than science.

 

[Super Universe]

I am not concern about what the JWST will show after it is launch and make public any evidence available.

You have been making all sorts of ridiculous assumptions about the capabilities of James Webb Space Telescope.

And you have been telling everyone you don’t trust government, and yet JWST mission, NASA is the major contributor. I don’t see how can dismiss all scientists at NASA, and yet, you are ignoring the fact that NASA is working on JWST.

Other contributor is the ESA (European Space Agency), with multiple funding by various European governments.


Again, you are definitely showing paranoia delusion.

Tell me, you would know better than all the scientists working at NASA, ESA, Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), and all other astronomers involved in optic and radio telescope observatories, then do you have a degree in astrophysics?

Well, don’t worry. I, at least, I don’t trust you to tell me anything about astrophysics or astronomy, or even physics in general.

I have been making ridiculous assumptions about the capabilities of the James Webb? Name one.

I am showing paranoia delusion? Do you remember something called gravity? What happend to gravity? When did it turn on?

Tell you I would know better than all the scientists working at NASA, ESA, and whatever? I know because I'm supposed to know.

Do I have a degree in astrophysics? I don't have to follow their theories to make my living. Any scientist who does not agree with the big bang concept will never work again.

You don't trust me to tell you anything? Jesus walked to a hillside, He sat and begin teaching to those who wanted to hear. He didn't need everyone to hear Him.

 

[gnostic]

Do I have a degree in astrophysics? I don't have to follow their theories to make my living. Any scientist who does not agree with the big bang concept will never work again.

I didn’t ask you if you follow any theory, I asked if you have the qualifications and experiences to refute scientists.

Again, do you have a degree in astronomy or astrophysics?

Do you even have a degree in physics?

 

[Super Universe]

And yet you are saying believeing in angels are more real than science.

I am saying that angels are more real than science? No. Angels are not real to most people. A devout Christian might believe in them and want them to be true but they don't know for sure. I know for sure that angels are real. I also know they are doing their work behind the scenes, well, mostly behind the scenes.

As for science being real, the evidence is real, the conclusions are sometimes incorrect. I don't have a problem with scientists getting things wrong, you're going to get things wrong, my problem is when you take some belief that violates a known law (gravity) and every scientist and new scientist has to accept it in order to get and keep their employment. And every other piece of evidence for that one incorrect belief does not support it but the scientists twist things and say "We can't explain it but that's still what happened."

 

[gnostic]

You don't trust me to tell you anything? Jesus walked to a hillside, He sat and begin teaching to those who wanted to hear. He didn't need everyone to hear Him.

Are you now comparing yourself to Jesus?

Jesus had no more knowledge in science, then apparently you do, that much is obvious.

 

[gnostic]

I am saying that angels are more real than science? No. Angels are not real to most people. A devout Christian might believe in them and want them to be true but they don't know for sure. I know for sure that angels are real. I also know they are doing their work behind the scenes, well, mostly behind the scenes.

That’s called faith, and superstition.

You believe in what you haven’t seen before, that is blind faith.

And you believe that angels are doing something that you think it is their works. That’s both superstition and blind faith.

 

[Super Universe]

Are you now comparing yourself to Jesus?

Jesus had no more knowledge in science, then apparently you do, that much is obvious.

Am I comparing myself to Jesus? We all need goals to strive towards.

Jesus had no more knowledge in science than I do? Evidence? Do you have any?