You are Here: Home

# The Day the Big Bang became Religion

Announcements Posted on
1. Evidence of Cosmic background radiation is non existent? When you turn on a tv that has no channel and you get that fuzzy black and white dotted picture, what do you think that is? Dave?
2. (Original post by Okashira)
I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "time dependant". As for your question concerning where did the rest of the water go, it's all there, in the oceans. This whole landscape was shaped by the flood. The waters simply ran off the new elevations, into what is now the ocean.
Literally what I say. I'll explain a bit further if you want here:
Spoiler:
Show

Suppose you have a function of position and time: g(x,t). If it turns out that g(x,t)=h(x) for some h(x), we see that time doesn't affect it. That is, it is time independent(what we believe and have evidence for) in terms of radiation and the like. If, for instance, it was of the form g(x,t)=h(x)f(t), it depends on time, ie is time dependent. This is literally what you're asserting.

So, how are you planning to test if something depends upon time? You'd have to test at two different times, much further apart than any current tests have been done(as they've not picked up on anything). This would be impossible without taking hundreds of years. So, even if your idea had any merit, it'd be impossible in practice anyway.
Ok, so is your assertion that before the 'flood', the radius of the world was rather larger, but more uniform? And somehow tectonic motion was initiated by this flood?

(Original post by gateshipone)
I honestly would give up on this thread, it's actually written by someone who's clinically insane.
I fear you're correct.
3. (Original post by Slumpy)
Literally what I say. I'll explain a bit further if you want here:
Spoiler:
Show

Suppose you have a function of position and time: g(x,t). If it turns out that g(x,t)=h(x) for some h(x), we see that time doesn't affect it. That is, it is time independent(what we believe and have evidence for) in terms of radiation and the like. If, for instance, it was of the form g(x,t)=h(x)f(t), it depends on time, ie is time dependent. This is literally what you're asserting.

So, how are you planning to test if something depends upon time? You'd have to test at two different times, much further apart than any current tests have been done(as they've not picked up on anything). This would be impossible without taking hundreds of years. So, even if your idea had any merit, it'd be impossible in practice anyway.
What I'm going to test, is if I can speed up the decay rates within rock (in particular). Scientists believe rock has a measured rate of decay when it comes to chemicals within the rock. I'm going to test and see if I can make those certain chemicals they test for, leave at faster rates than in normal circumstances. They have measurements of rates of decay within rock. So that is what I'm going to test for. I don't think it's time dependent at all, that is unless those rates change naturally.

For example, I take a rock with a known date to it. (say its a 500 million year old rock according to radiometric dating) I put the rock under my experiment using conditions mentioned in the Bible, then afterward we test it again using the same method of dating. If it gives off a much older date than it did before, my experiment would be successful.

(Original post by Slumpy)
Ok, so is your assertion that before the 'flood', the radius of the world was rather larger, but more uniform? And somehow tectonic motion was initiated by this flood?

I'm not saying much right now as I'm still gathering information. Yet, yes, the world pre-flood had different conditions than the world today.
4. (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
Evidence of Cosmic background radiation is non existent? When you turn on a tv that has no channel and you get that fuzzy black and white dotted picture, what do you think that is? Dave?
Nah, Dave is more samey.
5. (Original post by Okashira)
What I'm going to test, is if I can speed up the decay rates within rock (in particular). Scientists believe rock has a measured rate of decay when it comes to chemicals within the rock. I'm going to test and see if I can make those certain chemicals they test for, leave at faster rates than in normal circumstances. They have measurements of rates of decay within rock. So that is what I'm going to test for. I don't think it's time dependent at all, that is unless those rates change naturally.

For example, I take a rock with a known date to it. (say its a 500 million year old rock according to radiometric dating) I put the rock under my experiment using conditions mentioned in the Bible, then afterward we test it again using the same method of dating. If it gives off a much older date than it did before, my experiment would be successful.

I'm not saying much right now as I'm still gathering information. Yet, yes, the world pre-flood had different conditions than the world today.
First I'd like to see some evidence that 'scientists' really believe what you're saying. I have no doubt conditions affect rates of absorption/decay, and also have no doubt that this being the case, people have tested and discovered this before. I mean, it's hardly a groundbreaking idea, is it? Are you talking about radioactive decay here, or what, because you seem to be switching between terminology at random.
With this in mind, what particular conditions do you want to test that were around in Genesis? How do you know that these conditions really are what were around then? In short, how will you add any sort of credibility to this?

What I said is an absolutely undeniable conclusion if what you've suggested is correct. And how can you be 'gathering information' without doing your experiments? Your claim essentially implies there is less than a 2.5km variance in the radius of the earth across the entire planet. You're attributing quite a lot to this 'flood' you have as yet, no evidence for.
6. I did start composing a rebuttal to this, but by the third sentence Occam's Razor was already blunt from over-use.
7. (Original post by Slumpy)
First I'd like to see some evidence that 'scientists' really believe what you're saying. I have no doubt conditions affect rates of absorption/decay, and also have no doubt that this being the case, people have tested and discovered this before. I mean, it's hardly a groundbreaking idea, is it? Are you talking about radioactive decay here, or what, because you seem to be switching between terminology at random.
With this in mind, what particular conditions do you want to test that were around in Genesis? How do you know that these conditions really are what were around then? In short, how will you add any sort of credibility to this?

What I said is an absolutely undeniable conclusion if what you've suggested is correct. And how can you be 'gathering information' without doing your experiments? Your claim essentially implies there is less than a 2.5km variance in the radius of the earth across the entire planet. You're attributing quite a lot to this 'flood' you have as yet, no evidence for.
I'm definitely talking about radioactive decay, or the best methods we have for determing the age of the earth, the decay rates they test for. This experiment will show that if the flood really did happen, this is the effect it would have had on the world, and why we test the age of the earth as being so old. This stuff ain't going to happen over night. I'm still putting things together. Still going over the science that we do know, and what it projects to us.

When I say gathering information, I mean gathering information in order to do the experiment. The information comes from what the Bible said, and known scienctific events. (Such as hydrothermal explosions)
8. (Original post by Okashira)
I'm definitely talking about radioactive decay, or the best methods we have for determing the age of the earth, the decay rates they test for. This experiment will show that if the flood really did happen, this is the effect it would have had on the world, and why we test the age of the earth as being so old. This stuff ain't going to happen over night. I'm still putting things together. Still going over the science that we do know, and what it projects to us.

When I say gathering information, I mean gathering information in order to do the experiment. The information comes from what the Bible said, and known scienctific events. (Such as hydrothermal explosions)
So, you are going to attempt to test if radioactive decay rates are affected by outside circumstances? And you feel nobody will have done this before? Like, before it got used as a universal way to age things?

So, currently you have no idea what your experiment will be, only that it's going to prove there was a flood? Can I point out once more that you're working the wrong way round.
9. (Original post by Slumpy)
So, you are going to attempt to test if radioactive decay rates are affected by outside circumstances? And you feel nobody will have done this before? Like, before it got used as a universal way to age things?

So, currently you have no idea what your experiment will be, only that it's going to prove there was a flood? Can I point out once more that you're working the wrong way round.
I have a feeling scientists didn't test if anything could effect those rates in light of Biblical conditions.

I have a good idea what the experiment will be, I only need the right ingredients for it. I need to determine how long to test for the desired change, and also set up the controls of my experiment. If I'm successful, would the results be canceled out simply because I started with a Biblical basis?
10. (Original post by Okashira)
I have a feeling scientists didn't test if anything could effect those rates in light of Biblical conditions.

I have a good idea what the experiment will be, I only need the right ingredients for it. I need to determine how long to test for the desired change, and also set up the controls of my experiment. If I'm successful, would the results be canceled out simply because I started with a Biblical basis?
Right. So what biblical conditions are you using? And how will you ensure they match 'biblical conditions'?
Edit; also, great. Let's work on feelings, instead of research.

The veracity of any experiment in which you start with your conclusion are pretty compromised, especially when it is as without substance as yours seems to be. I seem to recall it's considered fairly likely that there was at some point a large flood in earth's history. What makes you think you can further prove it was done the way you think, rather than just being e.g. less polar ice.
11. (Original post by Okashira)
I have a feeling scientists didn't test if anything could effect those rates in light of Biblical conditions.

I have a good idea what the experiment will be, I only need the right ingredients for it. I need to determine how long to test for the desired change, and also set up the controls of my experiment. If I'm successful, would the results be canceled out simply because I started with a Biblical basis?
Are Biblical conditions somehow unique? I'm curious to know exactly what conditions you intend to test.

Your motivation for doing an experiment doesn't alter it's validity, no.
12. (Original post by Slumpy)
Right. So what biblical conditions are you using? And how will you ensure they match 'biblical conditions'?
Edit; also, great. Let's work on feelings, instead of research.

The veracity of any experiment in which you start with your conclusion are pretty compromised, especially when it is as without substance as yours seems to be. I seem to recall it's considered fairly likely that there was at some point a large flood in earth's history. What makes you think you can further prove it was done the way you think, rather than just being e.g. less polar ice.
I listed some of the conditions concerning the superheated water. During the first weeks of the flood (perhaps longer), the water was very hot. I'm going to test an see if this kind of water will effect the radioactive decay of the rock, causing it to speed up.

The conclusion really is not set. I'm simply taking what the Bible says, and seeing if it has any effect on rock. This is of course would be the first step in seeing what effect an event such as the one mentioned in the Bible, would have on the world.

(Original post by mmmpie)
Are Biblical conditions somehow unique? I'm curious to know exactly what conditions you intend to test.

Your motivation for doing an experiment doesn't alter it's validity, no.
Their unique in that, I don't think we could come up with "outright" observable evidence to the world pre-flood. Just like in the Op with my references to the Big Bang a hundred billion years from now. Even though it would have happened, there would be no direct observable evidence for it. The only way we would know about it, is if there was an account about it. (Say this civilization somehow got their hands on one of our 100 billion year old science books )

In the same way, perhaps God did create this place with perfect laws. Yet the only way we can come to evidence for it, is to test His account.
13. (Original post by Okashira)
I listed some of the conditions concerning the superheated water. During the first weeks of the flood (perhaps longer), the water was very hot. I'm going to test an see if this kind of water will effect the radioactive decay of the rock, causing it to speed up.

The conclusion really is not set. I'm simply taking what the Bible says, and seeing if it has any effect on rock. This is of course would be the first step in seeing what effect an event such as the one mentioned in the Bible, would have on the world.
Sheer curiosity here, but do you have any reason whatsoever to think that heat would have an impact on radioactive decay? And better, why would you think that hasn't been tested?
14. (Original post by Slumpy)
Sheer curiosity here, but do you have any reason whatsoever to think that heat would have an impact on radioactive decay? And better, why would you think that hasn't been tested?
Not just heat, but also water, and the weight from the water all collasping on the rock. That is why I have an inclination that scientists didn't test it like this before.
15. (Original post by Okashira)
Not just heat, but also water, and the weight from the water all collasping on the rock. That is why I have an inclination that scientists didn't test it like this before.
Right. And why would this have any impact at all? I can't see this being relevant to the mechanisms of decay in any way.
16. (Original post by Okashira)
Not just heat, but also water, and the weight from the water all collasping on the rock. That is why I have an inclination that scientists didn't test it like this before.
Heat, pressure, chemical environment...

These have all be thought about before - I'd check the relevant literature if I were you. This is science, testing things for yourself is encouraged, but I very much doubt you'll find anything new.
17. Try watching from 50 mins not 51. You are one of those *ssholes he's talking about.

except you're godawful at physics

edit2 because I'm currently revising subatomic physics for finals and I thought this page deserved a response:
AHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHAH AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA HAAH
18. (Original post by Slumpy)
Right. And why would this have any impact at all? I can't see this being relevant to the mechanisms of decay in any way.
I'll see if it does.

(Original post by mmmpie)
Heat, pressure, chemical environment...

These have all be thought about before - I'd check the relevant literature if I were you. This is science, testing things for yourself is encouraged, but I very much doubt you'll find anything new.
I will, thanks.
19. (Original post by Okashira)
I'll see if it does.
Yes, but why? There are a million more useful things you could be doing, unless you have some real reason to believe it might have an impact.
20. Hi, I'm an atheist. Hello, I'm skeptical of the Big Bang.
At least I'm not a heretic because of it like I would be in a religion.

But the truth is, a lot of thought and experimentation has been put into the theory. Much of it most of us find hard to comprehend. The truth is, just because it doesn't answer everything, it answers what it so far has tried to answer. Creationism, however...

## Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
1. this can't be left blank
2. this can't be left blank
3. this can't be left blank

6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

4. this can't be left empty
1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

Updated: May 10, 2012
New on TSR

### Do you trust your uni?

Vote now - you could win an Apple Watch

Study resources
Useful resources

## Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines