Everything you said about the way in which things were created lawfully is exactly right as it occurred in creation; that is why it was lawful. The Second Law of Thermodynamics was a result of the fall.
Now, according to everything that is observable presently, there is neither explanation nor proof of what you said about the elements present at the beginning. That is called faith; it is unobservable and cannot nor has been reproduced.
About this fella named Alton Harp; I've still never studied about him, but I have studied this Red Shift. Incidentally, as it seems, I didn't consult him for what I said about what the Red Shift was showing. Now if this guy and I agree, great.
You said:"They claim that weaker chemical bonds (caused by faster-flying, low-mass electrons) are good for you. Hah!" You guys continue to prove the Bible, but refuse to read it. Your point on that thing was about aging. And if chemical bonds such as you proport are good for you and occured at the beginng; perhaps you should read how long people lived back then. Up to 900 years. Perhaps because they had good chemical bonds going for them? Perhaps :)
As for your 6000 year comment about going back. You're free to make use of whatever you want to make use of: no skin off anybody's teeth. But if you assume that all things are as they are today you will be wrong in every case you forecast. (Of course, you'll never know that and just continue moving along blindly.) The funny thing about scientists is that they are so pious about this stuff and all they are doing is a form of modeling. Science can only observe PRESENT phenomena. You have no idea and will not ever be able to KNOW what was going on then, but you look very smug doing what you're doing; hence the Biblical term for what we are discussing is "science falsely so called."
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:(KJV) Keep in mind, Science is word plagiarized from a King James Bible in Daniel 1:4.
You mean "nit-picking." I made my point. You seem to have nothing left to offer on the subject.
Now, according to everything that is observable presently, there is neither explanation nor proof of what you said about the elements present at the beginning. That is called faith; it is unobservable and cannot nor has been reproduced.
The Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory accounts for the observed abundances of the chemical elements in the universe better than any other. While still a theory, it's a theory that works. Sort of like the theory of gravity.
You said:"They claim that weaker chemical bonds (caused by faster-flying, low-mass electrons) are good for you. Hah!" You guys continue to prove the Bible, but refuse to read it. Your point on that thing was about aging. And if chemical bonds such as you proport are good for you and occured at the beginng; perhaps you should read how long people lived back then. Up to 900 years. Perhaps because they had good chemical bonds going for them? Perhaps :)
CDK advocates are reduced to spinning that having chemical bonds weakened by a factor of about 11 million across-the-board is somehow healthy. To me, that says that compounds which are now rock-stable would be subject to spontaneously decomposing. I can't imagine any sort of stable biology such as we have now in such an environment. You might as well try to have organisms swimming around inside the sun.
Science can only observe PRESENT phenomena. You have no idea and will not ever be able to KNOW what was going on then, but you look very smug doing what you're doing; hence the Biblical term for what we are discussing is "science falsely so called."
You're just appealing to ignorance. If it's futile to try to say what was going on before you were able to make direct observations--i.e, before you were born--that's evidence for discarding CDK and even the Bible itself.
You guys continue to prove the Bible, but refuse to read it. Your point on that thing was about aging. And if chemical bonds such as you proport are good for you and occured at the beginng; perhaps you should read how long people lived back then. Up to 900 years. Perhaps because they had good chemical bonds going for them? Perhaps :)
You're citing the Bible as proof of CDK. That's hopelessly backwards.
CDK is jury-rigged to get to the Bible story at all costs. Forgetting for a moment that you shouldn't be doing science that way in the first place, my main point is that CDK fails to attain its goal.
Setterfield et. al hoped that CDK would show "scientifically" that Adam was created into a viable Garden of Eden in which light was nevertheless flying very fast, radioactive materials were decaying rapidly, and the sun was cooking hydrogen into heavier elements rapidly, the sum of which tends to create a universe with a false appearance of age in the slow-light, slow-cooking later times.
That was the goal, and the announced success. However, upon closer examination, they don't have a theory that does that at all. Adam would either be cooked or blind. He's getting an alpha particle bombardment from the earth that just exacerbates the problem he's got with every molecule in his body being chemically unstable.
And you're answering me by quoting the Bible to show he was fine. Maybe, but you can't get there with CDK.
You and CDK have a problem with SN1987A. It's 150,000 light years away. We observed the propagation of light from the supernova to reflecting clouds at various distances from the source. What we observed confirms the standard picture of the distances involved and the invariant speed of light over at least the last 150K years. In other words, some huge part of the Large Magellanic Cloud didn't brighten all at once as it might have if light were flying at 11 million times the current speed. There were exactly the expected delays.
This blows a huge hole in the CDK cosmology. Note, for instance, that if you try to pretend the Magellanic Clouds are something smaller and closer than they appear, you create more problems than you answer. Now you have to say what the heck they are and why they look like small galaxies farther off. And now, given that the LMC is so close, you have to explain why the light sphere from that supernova expanded far more slowly than it should have. In other words, you're farther than ever from having a workable theory.
Or, go the other way. Say that the LMC is vastly farther away than standard cosmology would have it. If you move it ridiculously far out, those propagation delays make CDK sense. Now the light was really flying to cover the angular distances involved to those dust clouds as fast as it did. But how can we be seeing that? How did the light get to earth from so far off in so young a universe even with CDK? And what the heck is the LMC now if it's so far off and yet looks exactly like an ordinary wisp of galaxy much, much closer up?
I'd be interested in seeing you deal with 1987A. So far, your posts have reflected a (genuine? feigned?) lack of understanding of the problem posed by those observations of nature. Then you simply stopped answering.
However, there is one factor that negates this conclusion for both these features of SN1987A. Let us accept, for the sake of illustration, that c WAS equal to 10c now at the LMC at the time of the explosion. Furthermore, according to the c decay (cDK) hypothesis, light-speed is the same at any instant right throughout the cosmos due to the properties of the physical vacuum. Therefore, light will always arrive at earth with the current value of c now. This means that in transit, light from the supernova has been slowing down. By the time it reaches the earth, it is only travelling at 1/10th of its speed at emission by SN1987A. As a consequence the rate at which we are receiving information from that light beam is now 1/10th of the rate at which it was emitted. In other words we are seeing this entire event in slow-motion. The light-intensity curve may have indeed decayed 10 times faster, and the light may indeed have reached the sheets 10 times sooner than expected on constant c. Our dilemma is that we cannot prove it for sure because of the slow-motion effect. At the same time this cannot be used to disprove the cDK hypothesis. As a consequence other physical evidence is needed to resolve the dilemma. This is done in the forthcoming paper where it is shown that the redshift of light from distant galaxies gives a value for c at the moment of emission.I spent some time diagramming for myself what Setterfield is saying, imagining 11 million times c instead of 10. Yes, it sort of works so far as I can tell. The physical separation, not the time interval, between light pulses is conserved across these mythical jumps in c. So CDK, at least in this proposed test, is like the proposition that you have a little green elf behind you that vanishes whenever you turn around to look at it.By way of clarification, at NO time have I ever claimed the apparent superluminal expansion of quasar jets verify higher values of c in the past. The slow-motion effect discussed earlier rules that out absolutely. The standard solution to that problem is accepted here. The accepted distance of the sheets of matter from the supernova is also not in question. That is fixed by angular measurement. What IS affected by the slow motion effect is the apparent time it took for light to get to those sheets from the supernova, and the rate at which the light-rings on those sheets grew.
In other words, of what use is a bizarrely complicated, borderline-magical system which is designed to affirm one particular religion's creation myth and to as far as possible be irrefutable by observation?