[ All underlined names are speakers otherwise they are subjects being spoken to or quotations]
Jay talking to someone else on the subject of the age of the earth. "no it did not and it’s only around 4.5 billion years old"
Matt Singleton: Jay Lutsky How did water get miles below the earth's surface if it was lava evaporating water until it form the hard surface?
If your model makes no sense we might be reminded of the fact that you are making a theory that commits the fallacy of induction.
Jay Lutsky
Jay Lutsky
The water that creationists refer to is actually hydroxide ions in ringwoodite
However we are talking about the age of the earth and to determine that we use methodological naturalism
Jay Lutsky: Matt Singleton all you have to do is present the physics that supports a 6000-10000 year old universe
Jay Lutsky: Matt Singleton all you have to do is present the physics that supports a 6000-10000 year old universe
Can you show how the physical laws of the universe have ever changed?
matt:
matt:
"The water that creationists refer to is actually hydroxide ions in ringwoodite"
So I have provided you info before and you ignore it.
You ignore the water found in wadseylite for instance.
"The results of this neutron single crystal diffraction study unambiguously demonstrate the method of hydrogen incorporation into the wadsleyite, which is qualitatively different from that of its denser polymorph, ringwoodite, in the wet mantle."
Matt Singleton:
"However we are talking about the age of the earth and to determine that we use methodological naturalism"
That's the problem. You can not prove that naturalism works outside of what we have observed.
You are committing the fallacy of induction.
You just make a bunch of ad hoc claims without evidence to support your claims and hope no one knows the difference.
Where do the laws of science come from? Because every effect has to have an explanation.
You do not have billions of years of record. You do not have millions of years of record and you do not have more than 10,000 years of record and I would go further to say less than that.
What you have is a series of estimations for which you can build a house of cards.
You can dazzle people with science words and numbers all day long but in terms of epistemology, you have a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
You want a perfect empiricism by the power of desire. You have not submitted to the authority of reality and so you can not claim your worldview to be real.
Millions of people have experienced God hundreds of prophets have claimed experiences with God and dozens of historians have written down these records.
No one has experienced the big bang, or star formation, or the earth's formation, or the Oort cloud, or the moon's formation, or the oceans formation, or the first cells, or Lyell's column at full scale, or the evolution of embryo's, or various missing links.
So there is not justification for claiming that physics can claim authority over the discussion of the past.
So then the more empirical model of determining the record of the past is history.
History answers the mysteries of origins with a Creator God. The Creator God is going to give a starting point to the universe and destroys the need for the house of cards approach.
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/.../the-historical-case...
https://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-historical-case-for-creator.html?fbclid=IwAR034-Ah3-KU9qD0QD-dx3F-8nXUDzQWrBbJgf0VFQx_JNrguWi1Z9xl4Ak
https://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-historical-case-for-creator.html?fbclid=IwAR034-Ah3-KU9qD0QD-dx3F-8nXUDzQWrBbJgf0VFQx_JNrguWi1Z9xl4Ak
Jay Lutsky
:
Matt Singleton and again with your pseudoscience bs
Jay Lutsky
Jay Lutsky
:
Matt Singleton wrote "Such as the first law of thermodynamics where matter can not be created nor destroyed.
Quantum physics allows for temporary violations of thermodynamics. It's called Heisenbergs uncertainty princple .
"Such as the law of gravity in having the universe squeezed into a pin hole and assuming that the gravity of the universe would stop for cosmic inflation."
The law of gravity deals with classical physics not quantum physics and is descriptive. It's not a theory like General Relativity. GR deals with gravity on the large scale and we have no theory of quantum gravity but we do have several hypothesis.
How would gravity stop inflation ?
"Such as boyle's gas law that says that gases when hested expand and such would contradict the required fusion to produce stars."
Boyles law deals with idea gasses (something we rarely see) Real gas theory says differently
"So you have to be lieve the laws changed while I believe God made the laws and they were not in place until the genesis week was finished."
How do you test for God scientifically ?
Jay Lutsky
Jay Lutsky
:
Matt Singleton your article on wadseylite still doesn’t help you .
It’s not liquid water and it’s under massive amounts of pressure .
Creationists like to claim this water is the fountains of the deep breaking open.
The problem with that is that this “water” is close to 400 miles below the surface. The energy to get it out of the minerals and force it to the surface in a short period of time as required by the flood means it would arrive as water molecules in lava.
Can you show a flood geology model that can be used to find oil and gas deposits while also not vaporizing the planet with massive amounts of energy?
Jay Lutsky
:
Matt Singleton I don't " believe" the laws of physics changed. Yec claims of a 6000 year old universe infer they have and we have no evidence for that.
However there is a difference between the "laws of physics" which are our current best model for how the universe works, and the true laws of physics, the underlying behaviour and nature of the universe.
We could quite easily encounter a situation that defies the laws of physics as we know them . We already know that our two best models, for large and microscopic scales, don't mesh with each other, so we must be missing something.
If we encounter such a situation , that wouldn't mean anything about the universe has changed - it just means that our ideas of how we thought it worked were wrong, and furthermore, always were wrong, although possibly only by a little bit. (For example Newton was wrong about the nature of gravity and mechanics, but he was so close to being right that we didn't notice it for centuries, and even now we still assume his model because it's close enough. Einstein will probably be discovered to have always been slightly wrong in the same way, but with an even smaller "slightly.")
Considering the "true" laws, it's not obvious what it would mean for them to change. No amount of experimental evidence can rule out a future encounter that breaks your theories, so in practice it's not really possible to distinguish between the true laws changing and you just being mistaken about what they were to begin with.
However none of them jive with yec claims. The universe and the Earth are billions of years old.
Matt Singleton:
Matt Singleton:
"How would gravity stop inflation ?"
1. inflation is anti-science ad hoc. you have no proof, besides the need for a smokescreen over your many errors.
If all the mass of the universe were the size of a pinhole then the force of gravity would go inwardly to which you would drool out an Amen because you have everyone invested in the legend of the blackhole.
2."How do you test for God scientifically ?"
I am not sure where that fit into the conversation I guess you just desperately threw it out there hoping to keep your sheep impressed.
Answer: We don't need to test for God scientifically because we have observed him historically. And science can not go into dr. brown's time machine to do experiments on the ancient past, thus it commits the inductive fallacy losing any credibility against the fact of creation.
3. "I don't " believe" the laws of physics changed."
"believe" must mean your cultic crazy superstitious beliefs. Other words you are LYING!!!!!!
You just brought up cosmic inflation which exceeds the speed of light. If the speed of light is not a constant you have lost your Entire cosmology!!! Not to mention if you hold a lighter for string theory!!
4. "there is a difference between the "laws of physics" which are our current best model for how the universe works, and the true laws of physics, the underlying behaviour and nature of the universe."
This probably sounds weird since you are excluding the terms cosmology and theory.
But I do make a distinction between "nature" the way things are behaving and physics the principles that dictate how things normally behave.
5."so we must be missing something.
If we encounter such a situation , that wouldn't mean anything about the universe has changed - it just means that our ideas of how we thought it worked were wrong, and furthermore, always were wrong, although possibly only by a little bit. (For example Newton was wrong about the nature of gravity and mechanics, but he was so close to being right that we didn't notice it for centuries, and even now we still assume his model because it's close enough. Einstein will probably be discovered to have always been slightly wrong in the same way, but with an even smaller "slightly.")"
This is your brain on naturalist propaganda...
Newton envisioned the universe that was made of ether and shrinking away till it collapses on itself.
Einstein has a universe supposedly an empty void expaning into and imagined nothing ness getting bigger all eternity.
THESE ARE NOT SLIGHTLY DIFFERING VIEWS, THESE ARE POLAR OPPOSITES!!!
btw, if you can not prove the existence of the multiverse, you are not going to prove that the outside of the universe is emptiness.
Meanwhile EINSTEIN RECANTED in his rejection in his notion of the void. The theory of special relativity denied the ether while his later work on general relativity recanted and admitted to an ether he called "Space-time" and this was to avoid the wrath of the electrical science community that had long verified the ether.
6. "No amount of experimental evidence can rule out a future encounter that breaks your theories, so in practice it's not really possible to distinguish between the true laws changing and you just being mistaken about what they were to begin with. However none of them jive with yec claims. "
" The universe and the Earth are billions of years old."
So naturalism can not possibly be verified scientifically
But YEC is bad, So lets just wish upon a star click our heels 3 times and believe in the power of hulkamania and repeat the antiGod mantra.
BRAVO!!!!
Jay Lutsky
:
Matt Singleton inflation makes predictions that are well observed.
Your claims about a black hole make no sense
You’re the imbecile claiming God did it so I’m asking how to test for God scientifically
Jay Lutsky
Jay Lutsky
:
Matt Singleton also it’s methodological naturalism not philosophical naturalism.
That’s a whole lot of word salad after the first two points
Apparently you didn’t understand what I meant by the laws of physics and the true laws of physics
The universe can expand faster than light and it doesn’t break any laws. Nothing in the universe can travel faster than light .
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/109-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/inflation/664-how-can-the-universe-expand-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-during-inflation-advanced?fbclid=IwAR25b-ZJU8G2twzaKGiN1ECY5dD1qOxlsUhxm41Uq8lDtHKWKSy-7sfStqU
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/05/11/ask-ethan-how-well-has-cosmic-inflation-been-verified/?fbclid=IwAR3yS5_cgXu4Oo7pjOdiVTimiTb-afU-hlQdlxNWdz5cRQMyyiNRBAkhvfQ&sh=347c10301d07
Jay Lutsky
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/109-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/inflation/664-how-can-the-universe-expand-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-during-inflation-advanced?fbclid=IwAR25b-ZJU8G2twzaKGiN1ECY5dD1qOxlsUhxm41Uq8lDtHKWKSy-7sfStqU
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/05/11/ask-ethan-how-well-has-cosmic-inflation-been-verified/?fbclid=IwAR3yS5_cgXu4Oo7pjOdiVTimiTb-afU-hlQdlxNWdz5cRQMyyiNRBAkhvfQ&sh=347c10301d07
Jay Lutsky
:
The real problem is that you’re probably using creationist material or even making things up.
That may work on your church audience but not on those who aren’t scientifically illiterate.
Matt Singleton:
" inflation makes predictions that are well observed."
Inflation has few predictions to work from since it is a theory about the past.
"Your claims about a black hole make no sense"
it makes perfect sense if you were informed. black holes have too much gravitational force to exist and yet you are a believer. However, the gravitational force is internal.
The "cosmic egg" would have internal force like a black hole because it is in a universe ruled by gravity. this contradicting the bang.
"You’re the imbecile claiming God did it so I’m asking how to test for God scientifically"
I am not claiming God did I am observing that God did.
Because over 36 ancient tribes from every continent have a sacred tradition of the creator God
Because Ancient traditions and ancient historians concur with the major teachings of the Jewish tradition.
Because the Worlds most renowned Hebraists agree to the original intent of the literal historical narrative of Genesis.
Because of the agreement Ancient texts in the Ta'anaach, the dead sea scrolls, the pseudopigrapha, aporcypha, talmud, the New Testament, the Ante-nicene church fathers, the quran all in agreement with the Creator God.
Because of the Compilation from Ancient historians Philo, Josephus, and Usher harmonizing the narrative of creation Showing the very simple Historical observation of the Creator God.
That is the fact and your speculations with a method not meant to Argue against the existence of God is impotent.
But if you want to make the pre-historic claims then you have the burden of proof!
Now with your links..
"First, it insisted that the Universe be consistent with General Relativity, and that is the theory of gravity that we should use as our framework for building any realistic model of the Universe."
The problem here is that General relativity contradicts special relativity. There is not an ether current capable moving the earth around the sun, but spacetime is a verification of the ether which should have provided it, so we are back to square one.
"The latter is forbidden by fundamental physical laws, but the former is allowed; that is, as long as you are not transmitting any information (like a light pulse), you can make something happen at a speed that is faster than that of light. The expansion of the Universe is a "growth" of the spacetime itself; this spacetime may move faster than the speed of light relative to some other location, as long as the two locations can't communicate with each other (or, in terms of light rays, these two parts of the Universe can't see each other). According to the theory of inflation, the Universe grew by a factor of 10 to the sixtieth power in less than 10 to the negative thirty seconds, so the "edges" of the Universe were expanding away from each other faster than the speed of light;"
Prove that the ether(spacetime) expanded. a red glare does not a universe expand.
Prove that the universe is not spinning, because a spinning universe could be confused as expanding.
The copernican principle which states there is not center of the universe is debunked by the pattern we call the "Axis of evil" which reveals a pattern and direction in the universe which debunks the nature of expansion.
"The real problem is that you’re probably using creationist material or even making things up."
All science is creationist material because the founders of nearly all the divisions of science were creationists on one level or another.
That may work on your naturalist church audience but not on those who aren’t scientifically illiterate.
