Good presentation about what creationists believe, but are you making an argument for this stuff? I cannot tell. If you are, you need to add at least some justification for it rather than just describing. Needs more "why". If you aren't trying to do that, good job on keeping it concise and readable, although I question your choice of soundtrack.
In science you stick with a theory until a theory that accounts for more and makes better predictions is formulated. Why would they use a less accurate theory that requires more and more fixes?
If this video serious? So when your model has a problem with it instead of testing it and trying to figure out whats wrong with it you just create more events that had to occur that are also untestable? Big bang cosmology is verifiable. That's why its taken as default. White whole cosmology is not because it does not add up mathematically. It keeps hitting dead ends and so you have to keep altering it to make it work.
I already heard some evos argue that, if in the past that great gravity that would make the time really existed to pass slowly, the earth would be destroyed by that gravity.
Does anybody know the refutation of that argument?
//Does anybody know the refutation of that argument?//
He updated his model just this year, so you can look at that, but there is another way that time dilation could have happened, and that is by expansion of space
I really get depressed by these kinds of videos, not because they are deliberately wrong or because the "science" in them is complete bunk, but because they set out to deliberately mislead people away from facts into this wonderland of lies and deceit and all because a bronze age book MUST BE CORRECT. This is not astronomy, this is pure rubbish, an arrogation of real truth and a denial of facts. I can only feel sorry for you for posting this utter nonsense and shake my head in pity for you.
Here's another thing I don't get. While the earth ages seven days, the universe ages billions of years? The earth is young, but the rest of the universe is old? Again, this shows how you cling to the initial conclusion of a young earth to come up with a hypothesis for how it could be... by making the earth the only thing that is young. Thus, you're trying to do science in reverse = science FAIL. Oh, and go to your grade school English books and look up the difference between there and their.
2. What about radiometrically dated ages of the earth?
3. Why do creationist theories always require the universe to be vastly different in the immediate past?
4. Isn't it simpler to accept the model with the least extraordinary assumptions and, well, accept the possibility that God gave a metaphorical overview of history when he addressed a tribe of desert barbarians who had yet to invent physics and biology?
2. If decay rates fastened, they would have done so each in different orders of magnitude, making independant dating methods agreeing with each other an impossible coincidence. It also violates the physical laws that describe radioactive. Also, the argument that the earth is young because of haloes is based on an assumption of constant decay rates of polonium, which contradicts your first argument.
3. If it is not, it opens the door for any kind of explanation. The things you take into account are religious, they only become scientific when they result from scientific data, instead of being picked from a non scientific book. If we have to accept your version of creationism, we have to accept every form of it, muslim, hindu, navajo, pastafarian etc. Scientists don't have time to consider each of these when doing research.
4. Who are you to decide what God did and didn't do in the past?
..and if the earth was near this well, the earth would experience hugely different time dialations over relatively small distances. Even if it was 6 days on average it might be much less on one side of the planet and huge on another.
Cosmological relativity? Is this the model that doesn't exist? Don't simply say things like "time dilation" and "expansion of space time" and think that that'll stump people.
"Of course, lets ignore for the moment the fact that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and is anywhere but the centre of the Universe."
1) Most relevant physical processes suggest the earth is a lot younger. Why cling to a minority?
2) Nothing else in the solar system looks billions of years old; in particular several recent discoveries in the outer system are a real puzzle to old-worlders.
3) Ever heard of red shift quantization? Powerful evidence that our galaxy is near the center.
Oh and gravitational time dilation would not affect the speed of light, only the distance travelled through curved space - and you think that such a curvature could delay transit for billions of years? In a homogenous universe? Get real, you're reaching.
These people will make the most ridiculous anti-scientific assumptions in order to cope with a literal interpretation of some biblical allegories. The universe is homogenous which means there is no concentration of matter that could lead to a time dilation of travelling light. Also, the fact we see different kinds of galaxies the further we look i.e. more blue stars, indicates we are looking back in time at younger galaxies.
""teven hawking and his theory on multiple universes." it is not even remotely accepted. "
...and yet steven hawking is a very well respected theoretical physicist. furthermore, many other theories are based on the multiple universes theory.... thought up using common sence.
...or learn something usefull, or live and enjoy my life instead of feeling like ive "sinned" and im gona go to hell every time i watch a porno or play a voilent video game.
but then again, the closet is more inviting then watching the rest of this crap.
im sorry, didnt watch even a quarter of it by the last comment. gravity affects light by microseconds. whether the light first reached us from those stars 500 billion years ago or 400,999,999,687 years ago, its still a way to go to the universe being 6000 years old.
//how the hell do I do that, since they are either self-defeating, or already disproved by all other thinking people on youtube.////
You call yourself a thinker, but your actions speak louder then words. You refuse to even give a consideration or look into what all sides are saying.
OK, common sense: if the earth was within the depression caused by all the matter in the cosmos (I feel embarrassed only by debunking this) it will be completely ripped apart by all the gravitational forces of all the matter in the universe.
I would feel more embarrassed if I actually believed it.
//OK, common sense: if the earth was within the depression caused by all the matter in the cosmos (I feel embarrassed only by debunking this) it will be completely ripped apart by all the gravitational forces of all the matter in the universe.
//
Actually it won't. You need to provide evidence for the things you say. Science is not common sense. It is something that is evidence based. Do you think that the atomic world is "common sense"
You have no knowledge of the model whatsoever. Under Cosmological relativity, if the Earth is at the center of the rapid expansion time dilation would occur.
most of scientific theories were based on "common sense" and asumptions untill they attracted enough interest to be funded and proven experimentaly, and even then, most remain theory. example: the theory of special relativity.
many modern thinkers and scientists have never actually experimentally proven anything, but their theories are widely accepted. example: steven hawking and his theory on multiple universes.
"teven hawking and his theory on multiple universes." it is not even remotely accepted. It has the same standing as the multiverse theory, and that is one that is found in popular science books.
Now, lets get to the core: where is your evidence for that model ?
Of course, lets ignore for the moment the fact that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and is anywhere but the centre of the Universe.
ok. 2:54. You're talking about gravity wells that god kept in place despite the missing material, just to get time moving slower in "work in progress"-zone, in order to fool modern day astronomy.
Compared to the modern theories of constant speed of light, relativity and even thermodynamics just being constants.
Even without any evidence I'd say Occam's Razor points towards an old universe, instead of god simulating un-proved white-hole-like conditions and creating galaxies from the edges in.
//Even without any evidence I'd say Occam's Razor points towards an old universe, instead of god simulating un-proved white-hole-like conditions and creating galaxies from the edges in.//
No white hold involved
//progress"-zone, in order to fool modern day astronomy.//
Just because be reject god deos not mean he is fooling them. They themselves reject god. They assume the unvirse is unbound. They assume that the unvirse is billions of years old so of course they are giong to reject it
To create something in a way that it looks billions of years old although it is 6000 years old would be a perfect example of deceiving modern science.
We know light to move at a constant speed, going faster/slower in the space as a whole only makes it look older. To suggest an young universe you need this white-hole-like(not a white hole) gravity well theory, that has no even theoretical basis, let alone observed instances. This kind of extraordinary theory requires as extraordinary proof.
What he said at 1:10 sounds the same as Schroeder to me... Dr Schroeder starts the time clock for the Biblical chronology at day 6 - I guess that is the difference.
1:24 "thus the light of distant stars could traverse the distance in a few short earth days"
Your proposed solution for star light getting here in time for Adam to see is to crush the Earth in a ridiculously massive black hole? Is this even supported by any evidence? Sounds like a big Ad Hoc. Also, CDK007 already shows how your ad hoc can't work.
"is not expected to be a period where natural law explanations apply" If God was creating natural law at the same time he was creating the universe. Then they indeed wouldn't apply as they do in the final finished state. There is no reason to assume God first planned it all out. Then wrote up the applicable laws. Lastly creating the material. Instead it all happened as one event. From a mind so complex, we can't imagine it!
You sum your asinine position up quite nicely when you state that, "The Creation Week period, by definition, is not expected to be a period where natural law explanations apply."
In other words, "your science stops here!" You know what asshole? If you don't believe in the foundations of science (ie, we're not that special) then stop using the fruits of our labor. Stop going to the doctor. Turn off your fucking computer. Go join an Amish community. You don't deserve our hard work and research.
WTF are you trying to say? I know what your quoted text means thank you very much.
I believe it is YOU that is having a hard time understanding YOUR material. I can see why as it's based on nonsense, and is a clear attempt to confuse people like yourself.
Keeping morons like you ignorant is how your fundamentalist religious bigot leaders keep their power. Spend some time learning about the topics you're trying to refute as they are the same topics that give us the tech you so enjoy abusing.
What I was saying is that God made a bound universe so that time dilation happened, and he later expanded the universe This is why we don't see the affect today.
right, so why the fuck does God find it necessary to change the universe to fit the laws of nature? Why not create laws of nature that fit HIS creation? You're running a race in jagged lines here. As our knowledge increases so does the complexity and utter bullshit in creationist rationalizations. Can't you see that you are forced time and again to recreate your convoluted explanations based on scientific advances? What will it take for you to adopt some skepticism?
"Why not create laws of nature that fit HIS creation?"
He did but the laws of nature dont affect him. This is because he made them so therefore he is confide by them. For example, god created gravity so he is not trapped in gravity, so questions like "can god make a rock so big that he cannot lift it" is invailed. Gravitanoal Time dilation was not some event that broke the laws of nature if that is what you are trying to say.
"YOU claim that God worked outside of the laws of nature. So, again I ask"
When god created the earth it is not by the laws of nature, and this is what I was saying in that comment. He created a bound unvrise,this was supernatural, and this is why gravatinal time dilation happened
"What I was saying is that God made a bound universe so that time dilation happened, and he later expanded the universe ..."
Why? Why expand the universe? Why not leave it how it was when he created it? The only reason to do so is to MATCH CURRENT OBSERVATIONS. You are making shit up to fit what we see now while attempting to maintain a ridiculous position. Evidence -> Conclusion not Conclusion -> Evidence. This is very basic shit!
"Why? Why expand the universe? Why not leave it how it was when he created it? The only reason to do so is to MATCH "
So the affect of time dilation would be no more. The bible also says Job 26:7—He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.
Isaiah 40:22—Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
"So the affect of time dilation would be no more."
EXACTLY! So that what we observe today can match up with what the Bible says. Again, you're working in REVERSE. Conclusion -> Evidence -> Hypothesis ... that's the OPPOSITE of science. Science works like this: Hypothesis -> Evidence -> Conclusion. You are assuming the truth of your position and then developing reasons to believe it. When you assume your position is true, it can no longer be falsified by contrary evidence. You can never advance!
"Science works like this: Hypothesis -> Evidence -> Conclusion"
The Hypothesis is that the earth is 6 thousand years old. When the bible says he Stretches out the heavens is revering to expansion of the space. So if that is true we should see a red shift.
Your hypothesis isn't supported by your evidence in this manufactured example. Red shift only shows that everything is moving away from the earth, it says nothing regarding the age of the earth.
What's REALLY going on is you're CONCLUDING that the Bible is true, your EVIDENCE is failed prophecy, and your HYPOTHESIS is if I come up with a crazy alternative to evidence based theory (big bang) that doesn't break natural laws and agrees with the Bible, then the Bible is true.
So... God stretched the universe our in Job and Isaiah, which is some time AFTER Genesis and the creation of the universe. So, since he didn't expand it until later, then when poor Eve reached up to get the apple from the tree, the gradient of the time dilation caused her to see her hand age rapidly in front of her eyes? Why is it that the bible can be taken in whatever pieces you need to make your world warm and fuzzy?
All of this 'special earth time' bullshit sounds to me like the noodly appendage of the flying spaghetti monster changing radiometric dating results. You base your entire argument on the assertion that the Bible MUST be true, and therefore the evidence must be warped into a bunch of special cases in order to fit your fucking insane world view. Tell me ONE prediction your silly theory makes. Tell me how your 'theory' can be tested? It can't, so call it what it is: A bare assertion.
I never said that YOU claimed God changes radiometric dates; rather, I compared your flawed reasoning to the satirical claim that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster made. "no one ever said that, so don't be stupid."
If you can't even read the first sentence of my response correctly, how can you present cosmological arguments? Oh right, you just copy and paste from creationwiki. You have NO understanding of the bullshit you present. THAT is dishonest.
The evidence that we came from non-living material is the fact that we exist. You think it's unreasonable that life can come from non-living material ... I get that. Have a look at any of the many many videos covering abiogenesis here on youtube for an introduction on the theories involved in how abiogenesis might have happened. There are PLENTY of accepted, repeatable lab experiments as evidence for the possibility of these theories. I haven't the time nor inclination to present them to you.
If you've seen these videos, why do you insult me and virtually every evolutionary biologist on the planet by saying we base our beliefs on anything other than the observed evidence? YOU are the one that lacks evidence. You say as much @ 5:41.
I insult you for two reasons: 1. your willful ignorance is annoying, and 2. you try to insult my intelligence from a position of ignorance (I don't like retards calling me retarded).
You obviously have time to respond to my insulting questions. moron.
Nope, I also want to rub your face in the ignorance of your positions. Hopefully someday you and your ass clown friends will stop trying to stand in the way of scientific progress out of fear of being eviscerated by those of us with brains and the drive to help humanity through progress. In other words, I want to silence you because you stand in the way of the advancement of humanity.
IF it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. There is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law, but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe.
A classic cut and past from talk origins. I responded to this comment in my video. This only shows that you dont even have the respect of watching the whole video. Please go watch it again for the response.
The Earth is NOT , nor ever has been the center of the Solar System. The Earth is NOT, nor ever was the center of the Milky way Galaxy. The Earth is NOT, nor ever has been the center of the Local Super Group. The Earth is NOT, WAS NOT, NEVER WAS NOR EVER WILL BE the CENTER of the UNIVERSE.
What this means is that the star the astronomers saw explode NEVER existed. The super nova NEVER happened. This seems to suggest that God created the illusion of the universe and not the universe itself.
Kut77less I have TRIED to tell you that useing that Light Created in transit excuse is CrAP. (CReation Astronomy Propoganda)
Let me give you an illustration. Astronomers looking through their telescopes see a super nova explosion a billion light years away. (Super nova is when a star explodes and sends its material spewing out into space.) What exist now, at this moment, are the random bits of the old star which, allegedly, is the condition God actually created six thousand years ago.
You didnt even watch the video. I claimed that this is a proposed solution. I dont think this is the solution and I dont even use that argument, so when I say propose I mean someone offered it as a solution.
No, the effects of such huge gravitational time dilation should be still observable, no matter what. The effects of big bang are observable, cosmic microwave background radiation, cooling and expansion of universe.
And we know that billions of years have passed on Earth, the distribution of radioactive isotopes, all long half-life isotopes are here, all short half-life isotopes are missing (those that are not produced on Earth, that is).
"No, the effects of such huge gravitational time dilation should be still observable, no matter what. "
You really should not comment if you dont know what you are talking about. According the John harnnets time dilation model we should not see light to the blue shift. We cant observe the time dilation today is because the universe is now bigger, and this is observed by the red shift. I have already pointed this out in my video
"And we know that billions of years have passed on Earth, the distribution of radioactive isotopes, all long half-life isotopes are here, all short half-life isotopes are missing (those that are not produced on Earth, that is)."
This is because of accelerated nuclear decay that happened during creation week and the flood. We have evidence of polonium radio halos and helium diffusion
I did not say about time dilation itself, but it's effects. We should see extremely young earth and solar system, we don't. Very little craters, no matter has the planet or moon geologically active.
It was determined from geology alone in 1700's that the Earth was millions of years old at minimum.
Accelerated nuclear decay would also increase the released heat and radiation, enough to melt the surface of Earth.
Polonium halos and helium diffusion? Repeatedly explained by scientists.
"Accelerated nuclear decay would also increase the released heat and radiatio'
Please Creationist scientist have explained this before then even went to look for the evidence General Relativity If accelerated decay had occurred at the same time as a rapid stretching of space, that would get rid of the excess heat. So accelerated nuclear decay could have occurred as long as it was accompanied by a rapid expansion of space. String theory, m-theory, and Kaluza-Klein theory
This "rapid expansion" should be visible in the spectrum of light of nearby stars. Expansion rate should be huge but even then it would only affect free, not bound particles, it would not cool down Earth.
Btw You should read the article by Eugene Chaffin that deals with this. This was actually a study which was published in RATE 1. Which was before there experiments.
"RATE? Hah, please show a research which is also confirmed by actual scientists. RATE was flawed."
Of course it is. Any creationist organization in your eyes will always be flawed
The expansion of space causes galactic red shift and it has a tendency to cool things off. If Earth was experiencing a rapid expansion of space during an accelerated decay event it would remove the excess heat quite effectively. A local rapid expansion could result from time dilation.
Yes I know it was a friendly question because he was concerned with the data. This is good for creationist to be criticize each other. This will help for better accuracy among creationist You are talking about Keith Wanser and others
Good presentation about what creationists believe, but are you making an argument for this stuff? I cannot tell. If you are, you need to add at least some justification for it rather than just describing. Needs more "why". If you aren't trying to do that, good job on keeping it concise and readable, although I question your choice of soundtrack.
ciao!
Spiritplumber 10 months ago
In science you stick with a theory until a theory that accounts for more and makes better predictions is formulated. Why would they use a less accurate theory that requires more and more fixes?
esplin227 1 year ago
If this video serious? So when your model has a problem with it instead of testing it and trying to figure out whats wrong with it you just create more events that had to occur that are also untestable? Big bang cosmology is verifiable. That's why its taken as default. White whole cosmology is not because it does not add up mathematically. It keeps hitting dead ends and so you have to keep altering it to make it work.
esplin227 1 year ago
I already heard some evos argue that, if in the past that great gravity that would make the time really existed to pass slowly, the earth would be destroyed by that gravity.
Does anybody know the refutation of that argument?
gonho1991 2 years ago
//Does anybody know the refutation of that argument?//
He updated his model just this year, so you can look at that, but there is another way that time dilation could have happened, and that is by expansion of space
kut77less 2 years ago
Comment removed
gonho1991 2 years ago
I really get depressed by these kinds of videos, not because they are deliberately wrong or because the "science" in them is complete bunk, but because they set out to deliberately mislead people away from facts into this wonderland of lies and deceit and all because a bronze age book MUST BE CORRECT. This is not astronomy, this is pure rubbish, an arrogation of real truth and a denial of facts. I can only feel sorry for you for posting this utter nonsense and shake my head in pity for you.
Drweavil 2 years ago
Here's another thing I don't get. While the earth ages seven days, the universe ages billions of years? The earth is young, but the rest of the universe is old? Again, this shows how you cling to the initial conclusion of a young earth to come up with a hypothesis for how it could be... by making the earth the only thing that is young. Thus, you're trying to do science in reverse = science FAIL. Oh, and go to your grade school English books and look up the difference between there and their.
wherestym 2 years ago
this is piss poor science
andymoses1 2 years ago
After watching this, I have a few questions:
1. What has this to do with evolution?
2. What about radiometrically dated ages of the earth?
3. Why do creationist theories always require the universe to be vastly different in the immediate past?
4. Isn't it simpler to accept the model with the least extraordinary assumptions and, well, accept the possibility that God gave a metaphorical overview of history when he addressed a tribe of desert barbarians who had yet to invent physics and biology?
agnat86 2 years ago
1. Nothing
2. They were accelerated during the flood, and we have radio halos as evidence for this.
3. Because the present is not the key to the past. There are many things like the fall of man, and noahs flood that we have to take into account
4. Yes but that would be wrong.
kut77less 2 years ago
1. Then why mention it?
2. If decay rates fastened, they would have done so each in different orders of magnitude, making independant dating methods agreeing with each other an impossible coincidence. It also violates the physical laws that describe radioactive. Also, the argument that the earth is young because of haloes is based on an assumption of constant decay rates of polonium, which contradicts your first argument.
(continues)
agnat86 2 years ago
3. If it is not, it opens the door for any kind of explanation. The things you take into account are religious, they only become scientific when they result from scientific data, instead of being picked from a non scientific book. If we have to accept your version of creationism, we have to accept every form of it, muslim, hindu, navajo, pastafarian etc. Scientists don't have time to consider each of these when doing research.
4. Who are you to decide what God did and didn't do in the past?
agnat86 2 years ago
..and if the earth was near this well, the earth would experience hugely different time dialations over relatively small distances. Even if it was 6 days on average it might be much less on one side of the planet and huge on another.
marcotenshi 2 years ago
..and if the starts where all out doing their thing in the outer universe, what formed the mass that created the gravity well?
marcotenshi 2 years ago
*stars
marcotenshi 2 years ago
Surely the gravity would have to be, like beyond astronomical to achieve that...how would earth survive that?
marcotenshi 2 years ago
The model that I was refering to was Cosmological realtivity which works by expanstion of space= Time dilation.
kut77less 2 years ago
Cosmological relativity? Is this the model that doesn't exist? Don't simply say things like "time dilation" and "expansion of space time" and think that that'll stump people.
How would earth not get destroyed?
marcotenshi 2 years ago
"Of course, lets ignore for the moment the fact that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and is anywhere but the centre of the Universe."
1) Most relevant physical processes suggest the earth is a lot younger. Why cling to a minority?
2) Nothing else in the solar system looks billions of years old; in particular several recent discoveries in the outer system are a real puzzle to old-worlders.
3) Ever heard of red shift quantization? Powerful evidence that our galaxy is near the center.
Shikuesi 2 years ago
1 star rating. Evidence please, back this up.
pwhittingham 3 years ago
Facepalm
pwhittingham 3 years ago
Oh and gravitational time dilation would not affect the speed of light, only the distance travelled through curved space - and you think that such a curvature could delay transit for billions of years? In a homogenous universe? Get real, you're reaching.
lonerook860 3 years ago
These people will make the most ridiculous anti-scientific assumptions in order to cope with a literal interpretation of some biblical allegories. The universe is homogenous which means there is no concentration of matter that could lead to a time dilation of travelling light. Also, the fact we see different kinds of galaxies the further we look i.e. more blue stars, indicates we are looking back in time at younger galaxies.
lonerook860 3 years ago
""teven hawking and his theory on multiple universes." it is not even remotely accepted. "
...and yet steven hawking is a very well respected theoretical physicist. furthermore, many other theories are based on the multiple universes theory.... thought up using common sence.
i dont think the rest was aimed at me. was it?
ivanzenforce 3 years ago
im sorry, i cant waste my time watching past 3:19. this is trully pathetic. one star.
ivanzenforce 3 years ago
//im sorry, i cant waste my time watching past 3:19. this is trully pathetic. one star.//
Thats ok you can go in your closet and shut your ears and close your mind
kut77less 3 years ago
...or learn something usefull, or live and enjoy my life instead of feeling like ive "sinned" and im gona go to hell every time i watch a porno or play a voilent video game.
but then again, the closet is more inviting then watching the rest of this crap.
ivanzenforce 3 years ago
im sorry, didnt watch even a quarter of it by the last comment. gravity affects light by microseconds. whether the light first reached us from those stars 500 billion years ago or 400,999,999,687 years ago, its still a way to go to the universe being 6000 years old.
ivanzenforce 3 years ago
//t. gravity affects light by microseconds//
it does now, but not on creation week or early in the creation.
kut77less 3 years ago
that idea is absolutely st00pid, unsupported by any laws of physics.
ivanzenforce 3 years ago
plain idiocy. based on absolutely nothing other then imagination.
ivanzenforce 3 years ago
Its based on special realtvity. I don't think that is imagination.
kut77less 3 years ago
Ok, I admit... this was convincing.
I am convinced that faith can completely destroy a human brain.
RationalFuture 3 years ago
//I am convinced that faith can completely destroy a human brain.//
Hey Instead of posting stupid comments On my videos please make some sorth of a rebuttal against my arguments.
kut77less 3 years ago
how the hell do I do that, since they are either self-defeating, or already disproved by all other thinking people on youtube.
RationalFuture 3 years ago
//how the hell do I do that, since they are either self-defeating, or already disproved by all other thinking people on youtube.////
You call yourself a thinker, but your actions speak louder then words. You refuse to even give a consideration or look into what all sides are saying.
kut77less 3 years ago
OK, common sense: if the earth was within the depression caused by all the matter in the cosmos (I feel embarrassed only by debunking this) it will be completely ripped apart by all the gravitational forces of all the matter in the universe.
I would feel more embarrassed if I actually believed it.
RationalFuture 3 years ago
//OK, common sense: if the earth was within the depression caused by all the matter in the cosmos (I feel embarrassed only by debunking this) it will be completely ripped apart by all the gravitational forces of all the matter in the universe.
//
Actually it won't. You need to provide evidence for the things you say. Science is not common sense. It is something that is evidence based. Do you think that the atomic world is "common sense"
kut77less 3 years ago
Sweet Jesus, you continue...
First of all, where is your evidence? (you don't have it)
Second: imagine the Earth standing between KY Cygni, VV Cephei and S Dorados (by mass and gravity)... guess what would happen.
Third: nobody has even bothered to debunk your videos, because they suck so much that they don't need debunking.
RationalFuture 3 years ago
You have no knowledge of the model whatsoever. Under Cosmological relativity, if the Earth is at the center of the rapid expansion time dilation would occur.
kut77less 3 years ago
most of scientific theories were based on "common sense" and asumptions untill they attracted enough interest to be funded and proven experimentaly, and even then, most remain theory. example: the theory of special relativity.
many modern thinkers and scientists have never actually experimentally proven anything, but their theories are widely accepted. example: steven hawking and his theory on multiple universes.
ivanzenforce 3 years ago
"teven hawking and his theory on multiple universes." it is not even remotely accepted. It has the same standing as the multiverse theory, and that is one that is found in popular science books.
Now, lets get to the core: where is your evidence for that model ?
Of course, lets ignore for the moment the fact that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and is anywhere but the centre of the Universe.
RationalFuture 3 years ago
ok. 2:54. You're talking about gravity wells that god kept in place despite the missing material, just to get time moving slower in "work in progress"-zone, in order to fool modern day astronomy.
Compared to the modern theories of constant speed of light, relativity and even thermodynamics just being constants.
Even without any evidence I'd say Occam's Razor points towards an old universe, instead of god simulating un-proved white-hole-like conditions and creating galaxies from the edges in.
Daealis 3 years ago
//Even without any evidence I'd say Occam's Razor points towards an old universe, instead of god simulating un-proved white-hole-like conditions and creating galaxies from the edges in.//
No white hold involved
//progress"-zone, in order to fool modern day astronomy.//
Just because be reject god deos not mean he is fooling them. They themselves reject god. They assume the unvirse is unbound. They assume that the unvirse is billions of years old so of course they are giong to reject it
kut77less 3 years ago
To create something in a way that it looks billions of years old although it is 6000 years old would be a perfect example of deceiving modern science.
We know light to move at a constant speed, going faster/slower in the space as a whole only makes it look older. To suggest an young universe you need this white-hole-like(not a white hole) gravity well theory, that has no even theoretical basis, let alone observed instances. This kind of extraordinary theory requires as extraordinary proof.
Daealis 3 years ago
This is all hypothetical. I would like some proof that any of this is possible.
Tylonous 3 years ago
This is too much for my brain. It's going to explode! Help!
jnoort 3 years ago
What he said at 1:10 sounds the same as Schroeder to me... Dr Schroeder starts the time clock for the Biblical chronology at day 6 - I guess that is the difference.
bigwhammyRocks 3 years ago
This model allows for millions of years to pass on the edges of the bound unvirse
So during creation week it was ordinary 24 hour days but in the outer most of the cosmos it went by billions of years.
kut77less 3 years ago
1:24 "thus the light of distant stars could traverse the distance in a few short earth days"
Your proposed solution for star light getting here in time for Adam to see is to crush the Earth in a ridiculously massive black hole? Is this even supported by any evidence? Sounds like a big Ad Hoc. Also, CDK007 already shows how your ad hoc can't work.
DeimosSaturn 3 years ago
//Your proposed solution for star light getting here in time for Adam to see is to crush the Earth in a ridiculously massive black hole?//
No it is evident that you did not watch the video.
//CDK007 //
I already did and it is really nothing new. This is John Harnete solution as i said in the video
kut77less 3 years ago
"is not expected to be a period where natural law explanations apply" If God was creating natural law at the same time he was creating the universe. Then they indeed wouldn't apply as they do in the final finished state. There is no reason to assume God first planned it all out. Then wrote up the applicable laws. Lastly creating the material. Instead it all happened as one event. From a mind so complex, we can't imagine it!
Howie47 3 years ago
If the evidence is sound it will be accepted, whether or not it contradicts previous view, science chances with the evidence.
pm send.
Saukko31 3 years ago
And the survey said, FAIL!
lowcomedy 3 years ago
You sum your asinine position up quite nicely when you state that, "The Creation Week period, by definition, is not expected to be a period where natural law explanations apply."
In other words, "your science stops here!" You know what asshole? If you don't believe in the foundations of science (ie, we're not that special) then stop using the fruits of our labor. Stop going to the doctor. Turn off your fucking computer. Go join an Amish community. You don't deserve our hard work and research.
joshTheGoods 3 years ago
"is not expected to be a period where natural law explanations apply"
Yeah meaning that It didn't happen by itself. God made the universe, and he expanded the comsomes after it was done.
kut77less 3 years ago
WTF are you trying to say? I know what your quoted text means thank you very much.
I believe it is YOU that is having a hard time understanding YOUR material. I can see why as it's based on nonsense, and is a clear attempt to confuse people like yourself.
Keeping morons like you ignorant is how your fundamentalist religious bigot leaders keep their power. Spend some time learning about the topics you're trying to refute as they are the same topics that give us the tech you so enjoy abusing.
joshTheGoods 3 years ago
What I was saying is that God made a bound universe so that time dilation happened, and he later expanded the universe This is why we don't see the affect today.
kut77less 3 years ago
right, so why the fuck does God find it necessary to change the universe to fit the laws of nature? Why not create laws of nature that fit HIS creation? You're running a race in jagged lines here. As our knowledge increases so does the complexity and utter bullshit in creationist rationalizations. Can't you see that you are forced time and again to recreate your convoluted explanations based on scientific advances? What will it take for you to adopt some skepticism?
joshTheGoods 3 years ago
"Why not create laws of nature that fit HIS creation?"
He did but the laws of nature dont affect him. This is because he made them so therefore he is confide by them. For example, god created gravity so he is not trapped in gravity, so questions like "can god make a rock so big that he cannot lift it" is invailed. Gravitanoal Time dilation was not some event that broke the laws of nature if that is what you are trying to say.
kut77less 3 years ago
Again, I quote your video:
"The Creation Week period, by definition, is not expected to be a period where natural law explanations apply."
YOU claim that God worked outside of the laws of nature. So, again I ask: "Why not create laws of nature that fit HIS creation?"
Stop dancing around the questions, at least give me the stock answer: "He did it to test our faith."
joshTheGoods 3 years ago
"YOU claim that God worked outside of the laws of nature. So, again I ask"
When god created the earth it is not by the laws of nature, and this is what I was saying in that comment. He created a bound unvrise,this was supernatural, and this is why gravatinal time dilation happened
kut77less 3 years ago
*Sigh* let me make this as simple as possible:
"What I was saying is that God made a bound universe so that time dilation happened, and he later expanded the universe ..."
Why? Why expand the universe? Why not leave it how it was when he created it? The only reason to do so is to MATCH CURRENT OBSERVATIONS. You are making shit up to fit what we see now while attempting to maintain a ridiculous position. Evidence -> Conclusion not Conclusion -> Evidence. This is very basic shit!
joshTheGoods 3 years ago
"Why? Why expand the universe? Why not leave it how it was when he created it? The only reason to do so is to MATCH "
So the affect of time dilation would be no more. The bible also says Job 26:7—He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.
Isaiah 40:22—Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
kut77less 3 years ago
"So the affect of time dilation would be no more."
EXACTLY! So that what we observe today can match up with what the Bible says. Again, you're working in REVERSE. Conclusion -> Evidence -> Hypothesis ... that's the OPPOSITE of science. Science works like this: Hypothesis -> Evidence -> Conclusion. You are assuming the truth of your position and then developing reasons to believe it. When you assume your position is true, it can no longer be falsified by contrary evidence. You can never advance!
joshTheGoods 3 years ago
"Science works like this: Hypothesis -> Evidence -> Conclusion"
The Hypothesis is that the earth is 6 thousand years old. When the bible says he Stretches out the heavens is revering to expansion of the space. So if that is true we should see a red shift.
kut77less 3 years ago
Your hypothesis isn't supported by your evidence in this manufactured example. Red shift only shows that everything is moving away from the earth, it says nothing regarding the age of the earth.
What's REALLY going on is you're CONCLUDING that the Bible is true, your EVIDENCE is failed prophecy, and your HYPOTHESIS is if I come up with a crazy alternative to evidence based theory (big bang) that doesn't break natural laws and agrees with the Bible, then the Bible is true.
Care to try again?
joshTheGoods 3 years ago
So... God stretched the universe our in Job and Isaiah, which is some time AFTER Genesis and the creation of the universe. So, since he didn't expand it until later, then when poor Eve reached up to get the apple from the tree, the gradient of the time dilation caused her to see her hand age rapidly in front of her eyes? Why is it that the bible can be taken in whatever pieces you need to make your world warm and fuzzy?
wherestym 2 years ago
All of this 'special earth time' bullshit sounds to me like the noodly appendage of the flying spaghetti monster changing radiometric dating results. You base your entire argument on the assertion that the Bible MUST be true, and therefore the evidence must be warped into a bunch of special cases in order to fit your fucking insane world view. Tell me ONE prediction your silly theory makes. Tell me how your 'theory' can be tested? It can't, so call it what it is: A bare assertion.
joshTheGoods 3 years ago
:changing radiometric dating results:
No one ever said that, so dont lie
"You base your entire argument on the assertion that the Bible MUST be tru"
You base everything on that god deosnt exist, and your unfiromation assumption.
kut77less 3 years ago
No, I base my beliefs on EVIDENCE.
I never said that YOU claimed God changes radiometric dates; rather, I compared your flawed reasoning to the satirical claim that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster made. "no one ever said that, so don't be stupid."
If you can't even read the first sentence of my response correctly, how can you present cosmological arguments? Oh right, you just copy and paste from creationwiki. You have NO understanding of the bullshit you present. THAT is dishonest.
joshTheGoods 3 years ago
"No, I base my beliefs on EVIDENCE. "
Were is the evidence that we came from non living material
"You have NO understanding of the bullshit you present. "
No I think you are the one who has a poor understanding.
kut77less 3 years ago
The evidence that we came from non-living material is the fact that we exist. You think it's unreasonable that life can come from non-living material ... I get that. Have a look at any of the many many videos covering abiogenesis here on youtube for an introduction on the theories involved in how abiogenesis might have happened. There are PLENTY of accepted, repeatable lab experiments as evidence for the possibility of these theories. I haven't the time nor inclination to present them to you.
joshTheGoods 3 years ago
"The evidence that we came from non-living material is the fact that we exist"
Really? I can say that the evidence that god created us is that we exist
" I get that. Have a look at any of the many many videos covering abiogenesis here on youtube"
I have watched videos like Don exodus and cdk007 on this subject.
" I haven't the time nor inclination to present them to you"
Do you think that I have time to respond to your insulting question. you are one of those people
kut77less 3 years ago
If you've seen these videos, why do you insult me and virtually every evolutionary biologist on the planet by saying we base our beliefs on anything other than the observed evidence? YOU are the one that lacks evidence. You say as much @ 5:41.
I insult you for two reasons: 1. your willful ignorance is annoying, and 2. you try to insult my intelligence from a position of ignorance (I don't like retards calling me retarded).
You obviously have time to respond to my insulting questions. moron.
joshTheGoods 3 years ago
who are not looking for honest answers you just want to waste my time.
kut77less 3 years ago
Nope, I also want to rub your face in the ignorance of your positions. Hopefully someday you and your ass clown friends will stop trying to stand in the way of scientific progress out of fear of being eviscerated by those of us with brains and the drive to help humanity through progress. In other words, I want to silence you because you stand in the way of the advancement of humanity.
joshTheGoods 3 years ago
Gravitational time dilation.
Fail:
IF it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. There is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law, but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe.
GregQzag 3 years ago
A classic cut and past from talk origins. I responded to this comment in my video. This only shows that you dont even have the respect of watching the whole video. Please go watch it again for the response.
kut77less 3 years ago
The Earth is NOT , nor ever has been the center of the Solar System. The Earth is NOT, nor ever was the center of the Milky way Galaxy. The Earth is NOT, nor ever has been the center of the Local Super Group. The Earth is NOT, WAS NOT, NEVER WAS NOR EVER WILL BE the CENTER of the UNIVERSE.
GregQzag 3 years ago
watch part 3 then, but you already watched. Can you prove that are earth is not near the center of the unvirse
kut77less 3 years ago
What this means is that the star the astronomers saw explode NEVER existed. The super nova NEVER happened. This seems to suggest that God created the illusion of the universe and not the universe itself.
Basically your saying GOD LIED.
GregQzag 3 years ago
Kut77less I have TRIED to tell you that useing that Light Created in transit excuse is CrAP. (CReation Astronomy Propoganda)
Let me give you an illustration. Astronomers looking through their telescopes see a super nova explosion a billion light years away. (Super nova is when a star explodes and sends its material spewing out into space.) What exist now, at this moment, are the random bits of the old star which, allegedly, is the condition God actually created six thousand years ago.
GregQzag 3 years ago
You didnt even watch the video. I claimed that this is a proposed solution. I dont think this is the solution and I dont even use that argument, so when I say propose I mean someone offered it as a solution.
kut77less 3 years ago
"The center of the universe"
Stopped right there.
pasikoo 3 years ago
"Stopped right there."
watch part 3 then
kut77less 3 years ago
No, the effects of such huge gravitational time dilation should be still observable, no matter what. The effects of big bang are observable, cosmic microwave background radiation, cooling and expansion of universe.
And we know that billions of years have passed on Earth, the distribution of radioactive isotopes, all long half-life isotopes are here, all short half-life isotopes are missing (those that are not produced on Earth, that is).
Saukko31 3 years ago
"No, the effects of such huge gravitational time dilation should be still observable, no matter what. "
You really should not comment if you dont know what you are talking about. According the John harnnets time dilation model we should not see light to the blue shift. We cant observe the time dilation today is because the universe is now bigger, and this is observed by the red shift. I have already pointed this out in my video
kut77less 3 years ago
"The effects of big bang are observable, cosmic microwave background radiation, cooling and expansion of univers"
These things all fit in the model that I presented
kut77less 3 years ago
"And we know that billions of years have passed on Earth, the distribution of radioactive isotopes, all long half-life isotopes are here, all short half-life isotopes are missing (those that are not produced on Earth, that is)."
This is because of accelerated nuclear decay that happened during creation week and the flood. We have evidence of polonium radio halos and helium diffusion
This also ha nothing to do with cosmology
kut77less 3 years ago
I did not say about time dilation itself, but it's effects. We should see extremely young earth and solar system, we don't. Very little craters, no matter has the planet or moon geologically active.
It was determined from geology alone in 1700's that the Earth was millions of years old at minimum.
Accelerated nuclear decay would also increase the released heat and radiation, enough to melt the surface of Earth.
Polonium halos and helium diffusion? Repeatedly explained by scientists.
Saukko31 3 years ago
"Accelerated nuclear decay would also increase the released heat and radiatio'
Please Creationist scientist have explained this before then even went to look for the evidence General Relativity If accelerated decay had occurred at the same time as a rapid stretching of space, that would get rid of the excess heat. So accelerated nuclear decay could have occurred as long as it was accompanied by a rapid expansion of space. String theory, m-theory, and Kaluza-Klein theory
kut77less 3 years ago
Classic copy-paste from Creationwiki.
This "rapid expansion" should be visible in the spectrum of light of nearby stars. Expansion rate should be huge but even then it would only affect free, not bound particles, it would not cool down Earth.
Saukko31 3 years ago
We do observe the red shift
Btw You should read the article by Eugene Chaffin that deals with this. This was actually a study which was published in RATE 1. Which was before there experiments.
kut77less 3 years ago
RATE? Hah, please show a research which is also confirmed by actual scientists. RATE was flawed.
Again, light from the stars reaching Earth today should have been affected by such huge expansion, we don't see anything like it.
Saukko31 3 years ago
"RATE? Hah, please show a research which is also confirmed by actual scientists. RATE was flawed."
Of course it is. Any creationist organization in your eyes will always be flawed
The expansion of space causes galactic red shift and it has a tendency to cool things off. If Earth was experiencing a rapid expansion of space during an accelerated decay event it would remove the excess heat quite effectively. A local rapid expansion could result from time dilation.
Please refer to the article
kut77less 3 years ago
Like any "evilutionist" in your eyes? If they would show us sound evidence, then it would be accepted.
Even if such expansion had occurred, it would not have cooled Earth.
"Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling Mechanism" by Glenn Morton and George L. Murphy.
Saukko31 3 years ago
"Like any "evilutionist" in your eyes? "
Sorry for my spelling I was in a hurry
"If they would show us sound evidence, then it would be accepted."
No it contradicts there view that the earth is old
Can you give me a pm to that link that would be greatly appericated.
kut77less 3 years ago
And even other creationists criticised RATE.
Saukko31 3 years ago
Yes I know it was a friendly question because he was concerned with the data. This is good for creationist to be criticize each other. This will help for better accuracy among creationist You are talking about Keith Wanser and others
kut77less 3 years ago
(what just happened? I responded to another user that had posted identical messages than yours)
If the evidence is sound, it would be accepted, whether or not it contradicts previous views.
pm send. again.
Saukko31 3 years ago
"(what just happened? I responded to another user that had posted identical messages than yours)"
That was my lame brother no logging out his account so I used is account by accident so I just removed it. sorry
kut77less 3 years ago
No problem.
Saukko31 3 years ago