Mainstream science told us that we can know how old the universe by Hubble measurement. The term they use to tell age of cosmic event is Light Years. Come on; stop the crap of calling light years as measurement of time. Obviously the term are being used to mislead the general public. Light Year is a unit of distance NOT time. Their data telling us that the universe is Billion and billions of years old are unverifiable and obvious brainwashing.
They want to make us believe that the universe is very old so that they can justify the Big Bang theory, which states everything happen by chance and the formation of the universe took Billions and billions of years to happen. As you can see, they can’t make anything just appear instantly by Random/Chance in a very short time. So what they do is twist real science to fit their model of the universe. The longer the time frames, the better the chance of an accident to happen (Randomness). But what they are NOT telling us (in simple laymen terms) is that they had been wrong so far, and they are keeping it a secret, so they can get away from humiliations.
What Big Bang theorist wishes to achieved is to discredit the Bible that states “…and God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” There is no gap of billions and billions of years there…just a one sentence breath from God can make everything to happen.
Big Bang assumes, there was an original high concentration of energy somewhere in space. As far as I know it is impossible for anything to happen in a vacuum. Yes, it is still a vacuum space since air or any type of gas still non-existent. It is like this according to them, “In the beginning there was an original high concentration of energy …” NOW wait a minute! From where is that energy again?!
Since Science is reason, there must be a logical reason where did it come from?
It was just there. Ah Ok. Continue…
Suddenly this concentration decided to explode. WAIT A MINUTE AGAIN!!! Why did it explode?
My grade school science teacher told me in order for anything to explode; you at least must have a vibration and frictions…Sadly, we can’t find those things on BIG BANG science textbook…any details at all but just assumptions.
Ah! At this point I think there’s no reasons to continue since what you are going to tell me is another science fiction…from this explosion the cloud gas in some miraculous chance able to gather dust (from where this particle came we cannot tell) and after billions of years they form stars and planets and so forth….
I just can’t buy those stupid explanations if I were a scientist. Immaterial things; creating matter? That was ancient imaginations not factual science.
. Theory says the only elements made would be hydrogen and helium. Helium does not form molecules. So the only molecule that can be formed is molecular hydrogen. Molecular hydrogen is easily destroyed by UV light and usually needs dust grains to form. The dust grains require heavier elements. Since the stars make the heavier elements then they can’t exist, so the only material that can cool is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave the matter over 100 times too hot to collapse.Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level (1).1. Chown, M., "Let there be Light", New Scientist 157(2120) pp 26-30, Feb. 1998.
Maybe you start believing in a Spiritual Non-fiction explanation found in Genesis. Was it hard to believe that God created the heaven and the earth in just 6 days? But that was what you are telling in your Science Journals.
Science is just adding “billions” to seconds. That is deception as far as I’m concern.
Now let us examine how OLD earth really is…
Let me borrow some of your Scientist statement regarding the earth’s age according to what they have observed:
Evolutionist claim: diversity of species is developed through gradual processes over many generations.
If that is the case…then why an evolutionist like Robert Carroll would wrote this in his book,
, " Perhaps we should not be surprised that vertebrate paleontologists did not support the prevailing view of slow, progressive evolution but tended to elaborate theories involving saltation, orthogenesis, or other vitalistic hypotheses. Most of the evidence provided by the fossil record DOES NOT SUPPORT (my emphasis) a strictly gradualistic interpretation, as pointed out by Eldridge and Gould (1972), Gould and Eldridge (1977), Gould (1985), and Stanley (1979, 1982)."(1)
1. Carroll, R., "Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution", W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1988, p. 4.
The evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould stated, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been the persistent and nagging problem of gradualistic accounts of evolution."
The evolutionist Colin Patterson stated in response to a letter written concerning his book, "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I certainly would have included them…..I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which I can make a watertight argument"
Radiometric As Standard Physical Science?
Perhaps you have heard carbon dating when we want to estimate the age of fossils…how did it really work was really suspicious from the start. Let us read how this witchcraft was conducted.
Radioactive isotopes are unstable and spontaneously decays, emitting particles and / or wavelike radiation. It cannot be predicted exactly when, if ever, an unstable nucleus will decay, but a large group of identical nuclei decay at a predictable rate. This predictability of decay rate allows radioactivity to be used for estimating the age of materials that contain radioactive substances.
That was NOT science at all but GUESSING. This Age Measurement is nothing but pure speculations and even outright deceptions. There have been many valid experiments demonstrating the half-life of these nuclei can be altered under the correct conditions.
What evolutionist is doing is not science but Sorcery. They want us to accept what they think whether this had no basis or mere imaginations. Was these just like hypnotism.?
If an intelligent designer is rejected as non-science, then you must be able to explain the origin of life as random chance from lifeless material. – Patrick H. Young