Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Belief Follows Truth

The Truth: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

The idea that the universe began with a big bang is firmly entrenched in the minds of millions of Americans. But the so-called “science” isn’t nearly as settled as most people are led to believe. Many scientists—even atheistic, naturalistic ones—know there are big problems with the idea. And the new images from the James Webb Space Telescope haven’t helped those who cling to the big bang.
According to a news report quoting one physicist (who does not believe the big bang happened,
To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”
Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. Answers In Genesis.

As predicted, the big bang never existed in the first place. Truth remains the truth, God, Yahweh, still lives and His Word is still truth. Everyone here knew this scientific truth would come. Praise the Lord for His established truth.
What is the TRUTH about the age of the Earth, sun, galaxy, etc? How can we find out??

[sep][sep][center]CLOCKS[/center][sep][sep]
Visit any limestone cave. Stalactites grow at a rate of about 1mm per 10 years. So a 10 meter stalactite has been growing about 100,000 years. And close examination of cross sections shows the year by year layering (where rainfall is seasonal). These stalactites can be found all over the world. The ages are corroborated by radiometric carbon dating.

Tree rings are clocks. The oldest living tree goes back about 4800 years. But wood from dead trees can contain records of volcanic events, thus extending the record back much farther.
[quote] Originally developed for climate science, the method is now an invaluable tool for archaeologists, who can track up to 13,000 years of history using tree ring chronologies for over 4,000 sites on six continents.[/quote]The ages are corroborated by radiometric carbon dating (establishing age by measuring ratios of radioactive vs stable isotopes).

Seasonal snowfall on glaciers accumulates to form countable layers. Greenland ice sheet layers can be counted back about 110,000 years. The ages are corroborated by radiometric dating. Other glaciers go back as far as 700,000 years, but on those the older data is mostly radiometric dating.

Salt flows from rocks into lakes and the ocean. If no salt left the ocean, that would give an age of 50 million to 70 million years. However, various geologic processes cause salt to leave the ocean at about the rate it's entering, so 50 million to 70 million years becomes a minimum estimate of the age of the earth.

Layering of sedimentary rocks - such as in the Grand Canyon - forms a series of clocks. These layers correspond to different stages in the evolution of life on the planet. The layers can be dated by positional order (bottom layer formed first), sedimentation rate, age of fossils found in the layer, and of course, radiometric dating. There are five main isotope pairs used for dating sedimentary rocks as well as the 'fissile track' method; you can read about it all here:
https://australian.museum/learn/minerals/shaping-earth/radioactive-dating/


Then there's all the fossils of extinct animals found in the rock layers. They're not exactly a clock, but they are an indicator of the vast amounts of time over which evolution occurs.

Of course outer space offers many clocks. Accumulation of craters on airless bodies like the Moon forms a clock. Shells of glowing gas left over from novas and supernovas form clocks (the Lambda Orionis Ring is about 1 million years old). The redshift of light from galaxies billions of light years away form clocks. The Hubble expansion of the universe forms a clock. The frequency shift of big bang radiation to form the cosmic microwave background is a clock.

No one clock is perfect, but they all corroborate each other pretty well, and they ALL give life FAR MORE than 6000 years to evolve.

If you argue "God hid those dinosaur bones (and all the isotopes used for dating) in the rocks" I can't disprove it. If you argue "God built all those layers into the glaciers and into stalactites, made the nova remnants appear millions of years old, etc." I can't disprove it. But you've got to ask yourself, why would God put all these inter-corroborating clocks all over the Earth and all thru the galaxy if they were all false???
Carazaa · F
@ElwoodBlues Obviously he has, or he has other measurements🙂
@Carazaa I eagerly await your presentation of countervailing evidence.
Carazaa · F
@ElwoodBlues Ill find some of his research tomorrow!
Pikachu ·
...Um...even in your own quote it states that they're finding that the galaxies are [i]older[/i] than they thought.
So you know...NOT 6,000 years old✌️
Pikachu ·
@GodSpeed63

Pay attention:

[quote]the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small[u][b][i][c=800000] and surprisingly old[/c][/i][/b][/u].[/quote]

Unless you think by "surprisingly old" they meant "far, far, far ,FAR younger than previous estimates".....
DocSavage · M
@GodSpeed63
[quote] Don't start an argument you can't finish, [/quote]

You alway do. You still owe me a light year
DocSavage · M
@GodSpeed63
[quote] Read it again, Pikachu, it doesn't say that.[/quote]
Guess again chuckles, if you knew what a light year is, you would know Pikachu got it right , you and god got it wrong. As usual.
DocSavage · M
So, was that a flat, disc earth, on a fixed foundation, with a big crystal dome over it. With the sun and the moon spinning around the top of it.
Or are we talking a globe, like the rest of the solar system ?
Belief followed lies for a long time. Because that’s what the Bible told them to believe. You would figure Yahweh would know better if he actually built the thing. Sounds like your god is taking all the credit, without even looking at the work.
SW-User
Shouldn't proof precede truth? I think you forgot that part.
DocSavage · M

Closest you’re gonna get to getting Yahweh involved in it.
Where’s the lame ass video from YouTube?
Entwistle · 56-60, M
In the beginning of what?
Zeusdelight · 61-69, M
In reality, pure science and pure religion are both seeking truth.

Both are asking the big questions as many small questions.

There is no need for this type of argument, just as there is no need for science lovers to argue about the existence of God. There is no proof either way, just a lot of emotional baggage and so-called proofs being thrown around.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Zeusdelight [quote]there is no need for science lovers to argue about the existence of God. There is no proof either way,[/quote]

Why do you say that since God already proved Himself to mankind?
Zeusdelight · 61-69, M
@GodSpeed63 If He has done that there is no need for Faith.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
spjennifer · 56-60, T
Gob bot post, season 2 episode 36, SOSDW 😖
Virgo79 · 61-69, M
I can hear the hairs raising🍿
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
DocSavage · M
@BlueSkyKing
Take my wife, please !
Pikachu ·
@GodSpeed63

[quote]how can I reason with you[/quote]

How can Bleach reason with you if you call an [i]astrophysicist[/i] a bad source on [i]astrophysics[/i] ? 🤣👏👏👏

You could not announce any more clearly that your mind is closed to anything you don't already agree with.
Sad, i call that.

 
Post Comment