No. That would mean plank's constant is not a connstant as well. The velocity of light = frequency x wave length and Energy = frequency x plank's constant. And other problems which would make this universe not to exist as it does.
Isn't Big Bang Bad Science?
Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by church mouse guy, Jun 22, 2018.
Page 3 of 5
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
So I am wondering if you accept or deny the existence of a global flood 4300 years ago?
It will be the fire next time.
2 Peter 3:3-7 (KJV) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. -
So I am wondering if you accept or deny the existence of a global flood 4300 years ago? The 4300 years ago I reject. Correlated carbon 14 dating requires the flood to have been before that. Dating a post flood tree older than that.
Flood fossils common to both sides of the Atlantic. The graduated dating of igneous rock from the trench to the coast. At about 300 to 200 million years ago.
Then there is the one strata dated at 65 million years.
Who in the creation science field has provided what you would accept as good science?
As to the speed of light, what science is there for it to have changed? Remember the velocity of light is a constant where it is equal to frequency times wave length in a vacuum. -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Your dating methods are flawed because you have no proof that they are uniform. The bottoms of the oceans are new and do not contain enough sediment to support your statements scientifically.
-
The reported dating of said rocks is what we got. How they are dated is often hidden for the average reader. And the science is more often then not, not understood.
So unless you got specific data, it is your word against a reported dating. If you want to argue the reported dating is not scientific, fine. But what then is the science you got?
(Dating of organics such as trees against counting the tree rings.) Carbon dating was discovered by Willard F. Libby in the 1950's. I have in my hand a copy of the second edition of his book, dated 1955, "Radiocarbon Dating." Today carbon dating is very accurate. They use mass spectrometers to identify and count atoms. Something Libby did not have when he wrote his book. -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Here is an article about helium that is just one of many problems associated scientifically with your dating methods, which you cannot confirm have always been at current rates since you have no evidence beyond recent history--you probably admit that.
Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay -
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
The Big Bang isn't science. It's philosophy. Theoretical physicists and astronomers aren't trying to understand their observations honestly (for the most part). they're attempting to explain their observations according to unguided, random naturalistic forces. That is a philosophical constraint, not a constraint based on observation.
When Hubble discovered that light from distant galaxies is equally red-shifted, it seemed to mean that the distant galaxies were moving away from the earth at an equal rate, and that seemed to suggest that the earth was located in the center of that phenomenon.
Well we can't have that, because that would mean the earth is in a special or favored location in the universe, and that would mean there is a mind and purpose behind our existence. So how do we explain it? All of 3d space is expanding! Like raisins in a muffin all move away from each other as the bread is baked because the dough is expanding, so we observe all other bodies moving away from us at equal rates because space is expanding.
We can't test that hypothesis. It's not even the simplest answer, but it's the favored answer, because those who govern the institutions of science prefer a naturalistic explanation.
…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs...such a favored position is intolerable….Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape . . .So, it's philosophy, not science.
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/paper.pdf (p.40)
Page 3 of 5