Scientist 'Make Up' Evidence to suit their needs.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

I've seen this in action several times. To be perfectly clear from a Biblical point of View the Earth is about 5801 Years old, however most simply say 6,000 years because it's a nice rounded figure and much easier to remember since it will never change in a persons life-span. 

 

However back to the original point it seems like most of modern cosmetology is made up of stuff that simply does not exist in reality nor is scientifically verifiable nor is it real in appearance, form or reality essentially many mainstream scientist are guilty of what they accuse religion of doing which is saying certain things are no doubt true when there is simply no evidence to back-up their claims.

 

These are the most vital weak points of Science falsely so called. 

 

1. Big Bang Theory, the universe simply does not have enough matter nor energy to create a bang that would create a universe. Besides 100% of the Universe is electrical and electricity will not travel through empty space... (which I should say is an axiom because there is no such thing as empty space because all space is 'something')

 

2. Evolution, there simply is not any record of evidence indicating evolution from one species to another. Many species have been found in all layers of strata but as always evolutionist ignore data that doesn't suit their idolatry.

 

3. Relativity, there is nothing to support this view. Ions are the building blocks of everything that exist. The modern definition of Ions is incorrect as Ions can be charges with a negative, positive or neutral charge. This view is problematic for Atheist due to the fact that if Ions can be measured as a 'Quantum' meaning all encompassing source that is both the Alpha and Omega which is smallest and greatest energy sources that exist. If relativity is to believed there can not be any Quantum Physics. Thus since Quantum Physics are indeed proven as true, relativity is proven false which brings me to my next point.

 

4. Heliocentricity, This deals with the theory of the Universe, the theory of Origins. If the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun and is independent of the rest of the Universe and the galaxies the Bible is falsified. this theory is too complicated to go over in great detail here but physically it is impossible for the Earth to be rotating or revolving around the Sun. Look here for more information on this http://fixedearth.com/

 

5. Carbon Dating, This method has proven false in at least 50% of cases with often up to a 500% window of error. This means Carbon dating truly is not more accurate then throwing a pair of dice when it comes to dating practicably anything. 

 

Remember Science is simply observations. Facts are facts and theories are stories about what someone thought might have happened. Theories can only be proven with evidence. Fabricated evidence does not count! So it is very apparent that indeed the Universe is very young indeed and also very, very small. (Less then 2 light hours thick)

 

1. There's not enough energy in the universe? energy is conserved in interactions, almost by definition there is enough energy. The universe is not 100% 'electric'. There are four fundamental forces in the universe, the electromagnetic force is one.

 

2. Finding mammals in the pre-cambrian? by all means, share with us.

 

3. ions are atoms that have an extra electron or two compared to protons (or vice versa, in which case they are often referred to as cations). They are not the fundamental building blocks of things.

 

Maybe you should tell me, what do you think relativity is and why do you think it is wrong? Relativistic corrections go into your GPS system. The most spectacular evidence that Relativity is true though are given by nuclear weapons which work because of the relativistic mass-energy relation. Relativisty, special and general, is incredibly well tested and established empirically on multiple fronts.

 

The most advanced quantum mechanics we have has relativistic corrections in it.

 

4. So the fact that we have actually been in space and seen this entire system is irrelevant to you? How about the guys who went to the moon, or was that a conspiracy in your estimation?

 

5. no. Besides which, there are other radioactive isotopes we can use to do dating.

 

 

1. I've seen energy decay until it escapes our Universe. In fact if Modern Cosmetology is to be believed only about 8.8% of the original energy is left in our Universe. The Universe can not be both expanding and decaying at the same time but yet they say that the Universe is 156 Billion light years thick but only 13.77 Billion light years old.

 

2. There is pretty much nothing fossilized in the Precambrian except deep sea creatures but would you settle for Dinosaur and Human footprints found together? http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/footprints.htm

 

3. I really shouldn't be talking about things nobody knows about except an elect few. http://www.holoscience.com/wp/ Has a good crash course in the Electric Universe Cosmetology Model. Satellites use software tricks to correct for differences in GPS triangulation but it's all based on a static Earth model. Quantum Mechanics is still not advanced enough yet to get down to calculating individual electrons and neutrons working together in what I call Ions (Technically the only thing in existence beside Ions is Neutrons)

 

4. We have seen the system. Even I have seen the system. I know how it works and all is consistent with a Geocentric Earth model. However remember that Geocentric does not mean flat as some mockers like to suggest.

 

5. Doesn't matter which element is used because all elements are breaking down like I posted in number 1. Equilibrium has not yet reached it's Climax and under best estimations it would only take 30,000 years to reach equilibrium from the formation of the Earth. This problem is ignored by Scientist as it's 'Unthinkable' to them. 

 

All questions have answers, feel free to ask me some if you desire as I have been studying science intently for many years. 

 

1. Energy doesn't decay, it changes forms.It's all there, in different forms. So you're seeing it decay and escape our universe, dare I ask where and how?

 

2. Those are widely not regarded as human made footprints.

 

3. what? Advanced quantum mechanics is relativistic. What you call 'ions' is just wrong. GPS uses general and special relativistic corrections. That's a fact. Did you share how you think nukes work?

 

4. No, that model is not consistent with what we've seen. If geocentrism were true, they would not have to account for the movement of earth, relative to the sun, when sending out various probes.

 

5. Radioactive isotopes decay via the weak force, at rates that can be studied experimentally extremely carefully, as well as modeled theoretically.

[Ninevite]

This discussion is getting wierd.

 

What kind of human footprints are made by something that is not human?

[alphaparticle]

This discussion is getting wierd.

 

What kind of human footprints are made by something that is not human?

A print about the size + erosion, which it turns out to most likely be based on the intracicies of the shape.

[Ninevite]

 

This discussion is getting wierd.

 

What kind of human footprints are made by something that is not human?

A print about the size + erosion, which it turns out to most likely be based on the intracicies of the shape.

 

 

So was there ever a conclusion to what it actually was? I thought the prints had been proven to be a hoax.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

This discussion is getting wierd.

 

What kind of human footprints are made by something that is not human?

A print about the size + erosion, which it turns out to most likely be based on the intracicies of the shape.

 

 

So was there ever a conclusion to what it actually was? I thought the prints had been proven to be a hoax.

 

 

This is what I discovered: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/17/science/fossils-of-man-tracks-shown-to-be-dinosaurian.html

[Ninevite]

Interesting article, Alpha...

 

The last time anyone had mentioned those prints, my dad had found that it was a hoax. I guess it pays to take a closer look.

[Sculelos]

 

 

 

I've seen this in action several times. To be perfectly clear from a Biblical point of View the Earth is about 5801 Years old, however most simply say 6,000 years because it's a nice rounded figure and much easier to remember since it will never change in a persons life-span. 

 

However back to the original point it seems like most of modern cosmetology is made up of stuff that simply does not exist in reality nor is scientifically verifiable nor is it real in appearance, form or reality essentially many mainstream scientist are guilty of what they accuse religion of doing which is saying certain things are no doubt true when there is simply no evidence to back-up their claims.

 

These are the most vital weak points of Science falsely so called. 

 

1. Big Bang Theory, the universe simply does not have enough matter nor energy to create a bang that would create a universe. Besides 100% of the Universe is electrical and electricity will not travel through empty space... (which I should say is an axiom because there is no such thing as empty space because all space is 'something')

 

2. Evolution, there simply is not any record of evidence indicating evolution from one species to another. Many species have been found in all layers of strata but as always evolutionist ignore data that doesn't suit their idolatry.

 

3. Relativity, there is nothing to support this view. Ions are the building blocks of everything that exist. The modern definition of Ions is incorrect as Ions can be charges with a negative, positive or neutral charge. This view is problematic for Atheist due to the fact that if Ions can be measured as a 'Quantum' meaning all encompassing source that is both the Alpha and Omega which is smallest and greatest energy sources that exist. If relativity is to believed there can not be any Quantum Physics. Thus since Quantum Physics are indeed proven as true, relativity is proven false which brings me to my next point.

 

4. Heliocentricity, This deals with the theory of the Universe, the theory of Origins. If the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun and is independent of the rest of the Universe and the galaxies the Bible is falsified. this theory is too complicated to go over in great detail here but physically it is impossible for the Earth to be rotating or revolving around the Sun. Look here for more information on this http://fixedearth.com/

 

5. Carbon Dating, This method has proven false in at least 50% of cases with often up to a 500% window of error. This means Carbon dating truly is not more accurate then throwing a pair of dice when it comes to dating practicably anything. 

 

Remember Science is simply observations. Facts are facts and theories are stories about what someone thought might have happened. Theories can only be proven with evidence. Fabricated evidence does not count! So it is very apparent that indeed the Universe is very young indeed and also very, very small. (Less then 2 light hours thick)

 

1. There's not enough energy in the universe? energy is conserved in interactions, almost by definition there is enough energy. The universe is not 100% 'electric'. There are four fundamental forces in the universe, the electromagnetic force is one.

 

2. Finding mammals in the pre-cambrian? by all means, share with us.

 

3. ions are atoms that have an extra electron or two compared to protons (or vice versa, in which case they are often referred to as cations). They are not the fundamental building blocks of things.

 

Maybe you should tell me, what do you think relativity is and why do you think it is wrong? Relativistic corrections go into your GPS system. The most spectacular evidence that Relativity is true though are given by nuclear weapons which work because of the relativistic mass-energy relation. Relativisty, special and general, is incredibly well tested and established empirically on multiple fronts.

 

The most advanced quantum mechanics we have has relativistic corrections in it.

 

4. So the fact that we have actually been in space and seen this entire system is irrelevant to you? How about the guys who went to the moon, or was that a conspiracy in your estimation?

 

5. no. Besides which, there are other radioactive isotopes we can use to do dating.

 

 

1. I've seen energy decay until it escapes our Universe. In fact if Modern Cosmetology is to be believed only about 8.8% of the original energy is left in our Universe. The Universe can not be both expanding and decaying at the same time but yet they say that the Universe is 156 Billion light years thick but only 13.77 Billion light years old.

 

2. There is pretty much nothing fossilized in the Precambrian except deep sea creatures but would you settle for Dinosaur and Human footprints found together? http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/footprints.htm

 

3. I really shouldn't be talking about things nobody knows about except an elect few. http://www.holoscience.com/wp/ Has a good crash course in the Electric Universe Cosmetology Model. Satellites use software tricks to correct for differences in GPS triangulation but it's all based on a static Earth model. Quantum Mechanics is still not advanced enough yet to get down to calculating individual electrons and neutrons working together in what I call Ions (Technically the only thing in existence beside Ions is Neutrons)

 

4. We have seen the system. Even I have seen the system. I know how it works and all is consistent with a Geocentric Earth model. However remember that Geocentric does not mean flat as some mockers like to suggest.

 

5. Doesn't matter which element is used because all elements are breaking down like I posted in number 1. Equilibrium has not yet reached it's Climax and under best estimations it would only take 30,000 years to reach equilibrium from the formation of the Earth. This problem is ignored by Scientist as it's 'Unthinkable' to them. 

 

All questions have answers, feel free to ask me some if you desire as I have been studying science intently for many years. 

 

1. Energy doesn't decay, it changes forms.It's all there, in different forms. So you're seeing it decay and escape our universe, dare I ask where and how?

 

2. Those are widely not regarded as human made footprints.

 

3. what? Advanced quantum mechanics is relativistic. What you call 'ions' is just wrong. GPS uses general and special relativistic corrections. That's a fact. Did you share how you think nukes work?

 

4. No, that model is not consistent with what we've seen. If geocentrism were true, they would not have to account for the movement of earth, relative to the sun, when sending out various probes.

 

5. Radioactive isotopes decay via the weak force, at rates that can be studied experimentally extremely carefully, as well as modeled theoretically.

 

 

Hi alpha. I'll try to answer your questions.

 

1. Perhaps my interpretation is faulty. But how can the Universe be both 156 Billion light years thick and 13.77 Billion light years old?

 

2. My bad, they look human to me, However even if you don't believe in that evidence cogs of some weird machine were in rock that was dated 400 million years old. And there is many more cases this is not isolated to a single event but many! http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/45033/400-million-year-old-machine/

 

3. Perhaps I'm not even talking about Quantum Mechanics. I'm simply talking about the most simple relation between electrons and neutrons in what I call Ions, nothing more, nothing less sorry for the confusion. 

 

4. As Albert Einstein said, it's all relative to where you are presently located and they don't have to account for either movement of the Sun nor the Earth...

 

5. Yes Radioactive Isotopes do decay at steady rates but the rate has not always been the same as the rate is still getting slower over time, very few people know that information as they don't exactly want most people to know that rock can grow millions of years in age in a few years if we are talking about carbon dating years. Carbon dating simply does not reflect observed reality so it can't really be used as evidence. 

 

Thanks for your questions... if you have anymore or any different questions I will do my best to answer them. 

[nebula]

 

 

3. I really shouldn't be talking about things nobody knows about except an elect few. http://www.holoscience.com/wp/ Has a good crash course in the Electric Universe Cosmetology Model. Satellites use software tricks to correct for differences in GPS triangulation but it's all based on a static Earth model. Quantum Mechanics is still not advanced enough yet to get down to calculating individual electrons and neutrons working together in what I call Ions (Technically the only thing in existence beside Ions is Neutrons)

3. what? Advanced quantum mechanics is relativistic. What you call 'ions' is just wrong. GPS uses general and special relativistic corrections. That's a fact. Did you share how you think nukes work?

 

3. Perhaps I'm not even talking about Quantum Mechanics. I'm simply talking about the most simple relation between electrons and neutrons in what I call Ions, nothing more, nothing less sorry for the confusion. 

 

Sculelos, I hope you are picking up the inconsistencies in your argumentative approach?

 

Your initial statement comes across as if you are speaking as an expert to people who know little on the subject matter. (Except that you keep calling cosmology "cosmetology, which is a huge error. Also, you claimed that Quantum Mechanics studies electrons and neutrons and ions. And who ever heard of electrons and neutrons working together?)

 

Your response to afterwards then admits you don't these details.

 

 

The point is, please do not make such statements as the one put in bold type. It weakens your defense.

[nebula]

 

5. Yes Radioactive Isotopes do decay at steady rates but the rate has not always been the same as the rate is still getting slower over time, very few people know that information as they don't exactly want most people to know that rock can grow millions of years in age in a few years if we are talking about carbon dating years. Carbon dating simply does not reflect observed reality so it can't really be used as evidence. 

 

But carbon dating is not used to determine the age of rock. Carbon is found in organic matter, not inorganic matter. Rock is inorganic matter, so no one would used a test for carbon decay on rock.

[neil_]

   There's not enough energy in the universe?    

 

 

That’s quite funny. Because of the very name of the standard cosmological model…

 

 

 

  The universe is not 100% 'electric'.    

 

 

Agreed. However, ironically, most of the real matter is, by far, by VERY far, plasma. Yet the universe is taught in schools as gravitational…

 

 

 

    There are four fundamental forces in the universe, the electromagnetic force is one.   

 

 

And the weakest of them all, by many orders of magnitude, is gravity. And yet they teach this universe as being gravitational…

 

 

 

   Finding mammals in the pre-cambrian    

 

 

I think that was the point Sculelos was trying to make. Regardless, there was no cambrian. What evolutionists call cambrian (fossil) explosion is actually evidence of the Flood.

 

 

 

  Relativistic corrections go into your GPS system.     

 

 

Actually, GPS proves Einstein wrong (both special and general relativity).

 

 

 

 GPS uses general and special relativistic corrections. That's a fact. 

 

 

Actually, it’s a fact that that’s a lie.

 

 

 

 The most spectacular evidence that Relativity is true though are given by nuclear weapons 

 

 

Actually, relativity has nothing to do with the nukes. Moreover, those working at the nukes made huge efforts to keep Einstein away from there. Theoretical science (Einstein) has many times nothing to do with real (applied) science (nukes).

 

 

 

  Relativisty, special and general, is incredibly well tested and established empirically on multiple fronts. 

 

 

Perhaps you should also visit the sites proving each and every test of Einstein’s relativity wrong, not just those claiming it’s true. Wouldn’t that be scientific of you? And you should start with MMX itself.

 

By the way, would you agree that if what you said above is true, then there wouldn’t be any more tests of Einstein’s relativity? Because I can give you examples how top space agencies are still testing Einstein general relativity. Moreover, they are also testing ALTERNATIVE theories of gravity. Tell me, what does THIS say to you?

 

 

 

 The most advanced quantum mechanics we have has relativistic corrections in it.   

 

 

QM clearly contradicts general relativity. Also the special relativity. Moreover, careful study shows that spacetime doesn’t exist in the micro world either (just as was shown it doesn’t exist in the macro world).

 

 

 

  4. So the fact that we have actually been in space and seen this entire system is irrelevant to you? 

 

 

“Being in space” has nothing to do with heliocentrism. Instead has everything to do with geocentrism. I think you’re lost in reference frames - just as JDavis.

 

 

 

   No, that model is not consistent with what we've seen. If geocentrism were true, they would not have to account for the movement of earth, relative to the sun, when sending out various probes.    

 

 

Sorry, but you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

 

 

   5. no. Besides which, there are other radioactive isotopes we can use to do dating.   

 

 

Yes. Besides, each and every time you try to prove old age for a fossil (biological evolution) or a rock (geological evolution), you prove chemical evolution wrong. Are you even aware of that? Moreover, without chemical evolution, you don’t have geological & biological evolution. Are you aware of this too?