Speaking of jtp, this latest collection of posts is no better than usual. He swooped in and started posting about atheist world views (derogatorily, for example, referring to a "common ancestor" as slime), without even reading the opening post so he could see what it was about. This ignorance was betrayed later on when he asked what pamphlet Omen was talking about. More of the same till he started talking about the Big Bang in response to another poster. His comments were patently ridiculous, informed by his religious belief, rather than any real understanding of the science involved. Here's some examples of his posts on this subject followed by my rebuttals of those posts (which he'll likely not respond to and certainly not admit he could possibly be wrong about).
Now we get down to brass tacks! My opinion, view, experiences, is that the universe operates using the same physics (based on Einstein, Newton, etc.) in our immediate proximity. That the BBT and that non-BBT scientists claim are only theories. That all agree that the physics that we can observe, measure, replicate (sound like the scientific method to anyone?) were different in order to support any theory beyond a 6000 year old universe. But, I guess dark matter and dark energy (more faith there than a creator) could be plausible.
His implication here is that outside of 6,000 light-years, physics operates under different rules, even though 6,000 light-years is less than a tenth the diameter of the Milky Way. In other words, most of our galaxy is outside this 6,000-year "bubble" yet from every observation we've made, it operates under the same physical laws as our purely-local part of the galaxy. He also makes a fairly common snide comment about science needing more faith than a creator.
There are two physicists (New Zealand and Israel) that believe contrary to Hubble who stated: "that we cannot let the universe be less than 6000 years old". These physicists state that anything observed (scientifically, based on actual observations) outside our relatively calm 6000 light year bubble we are in (aka: we are close to the center of the universe) is an observation of creation or the BBT at 6000 years old. This is totally contrary to Hubble and the primary axiom and the BBT. I know, I know, this is not allowed.
First off, I suspect quote mining from jtp about Hubble (assuming it's not just made up of whole cloth), since he only quoted a tiny little snippet and didn't even cite his source. Second, his statement about these so-called physicists shows that those scientists are suspiciously ignorant about astronomy. If those "physicists" truly believe the absurdity that there is a 6,000 light-year "bubble" of relatively calm conditions around us, even though the diameter of the Milky Way alone is almost 100,000 light-years, then I must question their credentials. There is no way a reputable physicist would make such a fundamental error about distances. And that also contradicts other observations we've made, such as Andromeda (at an approximate distance of 2.5 million light-years) gradually approaching us as evidenced by its blueshift. In other words, they're off by at least three orders of magnitude for how wide the relative bubble of calm space must be.
So why again does the universe appear to be expanding?
Have you looked at "heat death" of the universe? Also, a few weeks ago I discussed observations that all nucleotide mutations were deleterious. Gotta read a lot of stuff besides my posts. We are evolving to death just like the sun is gonna burn out, just like the universe is gonna burn out. The Bible explains this, but, if you don't believe it' well then so be it.
Here, he makes an unsupported claim about the heat death of the universe, even though this is currently expected to be at least a trillion years from now (by comparison, the whole lifetime of the universe up until now is barely 1% of that figure), and attempts to compare it to the provably false claim that nucleotide mutations are all deleterious. We can demonstrate that some nucleotide mutations are in fact beneficial, and most are neutral (have no effect). Also, I would be very interested to see where, exactly, the Bible explains that we are evolving to death, that the sun will burn out, that the universe will burn out, and also what time-scale it suggests for this.
It's more than two scientists. So you think that in all Christendom there are only two? I know, I know, if you believe the universe was created (even though the same science and observations support that theory, your an idiot). You're beliefs will be attacked not your science. I get it! Your side rules the day....for now.
He claims it's more than two scientists, even though he didn't see fit to give us actual names on the "physicists" he cited before. He also makes a strawman accusation, that Dante thinks there are only two Christians who are scientists, which Dante never said. As for me, I don't think those two people he cited are actual scientists. There are Christian scientists, but they're smart enough not to make such a basic and blatant mistake about astronomical distances. They also know better than to try to twist the evidence to fit their beliefs, as jtp so clearly does.
Clearly, jtp fails once again at science. But since he's only interested in whatever lets him maintain his pet beliefs, I doubt he'll really care. Doesn't matter how often his ideas are shown to be wrong, as long as he believes in them.
