If God's Flood was only a regional flood...

[Damaged Eagle]

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

^^^^^

Has no clue about what General Relativity says about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Maybe.

^^^^^

Another one with no clue as to what General Relativity states about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[james bond]

taz is living proof that the progressive militant atheists have no intellectual capacity to think about how man lived his life thousands of years ago. taz is a wonderful example of the CSI effect, they think that everything that happened in the past, happened instantly. There was no learning required, man was just born smart, and knew everything. In other words, like most progressives, he is an intellectual cripple.

You couldn't have gotten more wrong if you tried. Not surprisingly.

PS I'm agnostic.

Pfft. Today's agnostic is the same as atheist in my book. The difference is they are just too afraid or ignorant to admit it.

This is the S & T section, so I provided the creation science while you provided practically nothing. Not only are you ignorant about religion being an agnostic, you are ignorant about science.

What I've discovered is the atheist scientists were extremely frustrated by the fine tuning facts and had to resort to implausible ideas. They couldn't explain how uniform temperatures could exist in an big bang "explosion." (You've been avoid that question for pages now!) However, they found a couple of stories and went with it. Yesterday's questionable science has become today's bad science. They've become flat earthers.

Just look at your main argument that creation science isn't real science. Nothing can be further from the truth. It's observational science and modern science. It has been demonstrated throughout history and many are some of the greatest scientists of all time..

Creation science isn't backed up by real facts and real science. Are you one of those who think that the Grand canyon was carved all at once by god's floodwaters? Because the geologic facts don't bear that out.

>>Creation science isn't backed up by real facts and real science.<<

You may as well admit to atheism and being WRONG. Atheists are usually wrong.

As for the Grand Canyon, are you going to take the damned atheist tour A, B or C or the Christian one ?

Here's mine
Grand Canyon—Nine Days Below the Rim

Your link isn't a scientific one, so you fail EPICALLY!

Not I, because I take the real geology tour. This vid will go over your head because of the lies you believe and your lack of gray matter, but maybe it will knock some sense into you.



Not I, but you could fail EPICALLY as you do not know the power of water. I already mentioned that floods kill the most people out of all the catastrophes. You could die very easily in a local flood, so imagine the power of a global flood.



You're like this brainless IDIOT.

 

[Taz]

Multiple universes are predicted by math. Nothing says that other universes don't have different laws, more dimensions...

You can't have worlds in this universe that work by different laws of this one, ok, but who knows what's beyond our universe or what might have existed before the BB.

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Did the flying spaghetti monster create that also?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

CERN does.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

I know what CERN is, but please quote a relevant passage where they say that our universe has a boundary.

 

[Taz]

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

^^^^^

Has no clue about what General Relativity says about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The you'll be able to quote a real scientist (and a link) who explains why the universe has a boundary. It's ok, I'll wait.

 

[Taz]

You couldn't have gotten more wrong if you tried. Not surprisingly.

PS I'm agnostic.

Pfft. Today's agnostic is the same as atheist in my book. The difference is they are just too afraid or ignorant to admit it.

This is the S & T section, so I provided the creation science while you provided practically nothing. Not only are you ignorant about religion being an agnostic, you are ignorant about science.

What I've discovered is the atheist scientists were extremely frustrated by the fine tuning facts and had to resort to implausible ideas. They couldn't explain how uniform temperatures could exist in an big bang "explosion." (You've been avoid that question for pages now!) However, they found a couple of stories and went with it. Yesterday's questionable science has become today's bad science. They've become flat earthers.

Just look at your main argument that creation science isn't real science. Nothing can be further from the truth. It's observational science and modern science. It has been demonstrated throughout history and many are some of the greatest scientists of all time..

Creation science isn't backed up by real facts and real science. Are you one of those who think that the Grand canyon was carved all at once by god's floodwaters? Because the geologic facts don't bear that out.

>>Creation science isn't backed up by real facts and real science.<<

You may as well admit to atheism and being WRONG. Atheists are usually wrong.

As for the Grand Canyon, are you going to take the damned atheist tour A, B or C or the Christian one ?

Here's mine
Grand Canyon—Nine Days Below the Rim

Your link isn't a scientific one, so you fail EPICALLY!

Not I, because I take the real geology tour. This vid will go over your head because of the lies you believe and your lack of gray matter, but maybe it will knock some sense into you.



Not I, but you could fail EPICALLY as you do not know the power of water. I already mentioned that floods kill the most people out of all the catastrophes. You could die very easily in a local flood, so imagine the power of a global flood.



You're like this brainless IDIOT.

Throwing up 3 random videos that don't explain your point prove what exactly?

And what is it with all the name calling? Are you 12 years old?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Another one with no clue as to what General Relativity states about the nature of the universe.

But I'm sure you can tell us, right?

No. You and ding have grifted all of your talking points from YEC websites.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Multiple universes are predicted by math. Nothing says that other universes don't have different laws, more dimensions...

You can't have worlds in this universe that work by different laws of this one, ok, but who knows what's beyond our universe or what might have existed before the BB.

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Did the flying spaghetti monster create that also?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

CERN does.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

I know what CERN is, but please quote a relevant passage where they say that our universe has a boundary.

Don't hold your breath. He has no idea what he is talking about. Ding reads YEC blogs, then copy pastes material fr other places.

For instance, here is the original of his latest talking point...you know, the new support he literally "just found" for a belief he has held for decades ( in itself absurd, when you think about it):

Creation.com

 

[james bond]

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

^^^^^

Has no clue about what General Relativity says about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The you'll be able to quote a real scientist (and a link) who explains why the universe has a boundary. It's ok, I'll wait.

Hahahaha. It doesn't matter since you won't get it anyway. Can you explain why evo thinkers do not think there is a boundary? No.

Thus, you won't be able to understand something that is equally complex.

One evidence of a bounded universe is excess redshift in quasars (farthest away from earth). One example is Galaxy NGC 4319 and the nearby quasar Markarian 205 which have very different redshifts (cz = 1,700 km/s and 21,000 km/s respectively). However, looking at photos from Hubble, we can see that they are connected. If the universe was expanding infinitely as evos hypothesize, then their redshifts would be the same. Creation scientists think that it has to do with curved spacetime since this is observational science. You can read "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science" by Halton Arp (Not a creationist afaik, but a scientist who uses observational science and uses what he observes to formulate a hypothesis. He doesn't find existence of dark matter and doesn't believe the universe is expanding.).

 

[james bond]

Pfft. Today's agnostic is the same as atheist in my book. The difference is they are just too afraid or ignorant to admit it.

This is the S & T section, so I provided the creation science while you provided practically nothing. Not only are you ignorant about religion being an agnostic, you are ignorant about science.

What I've discovered is the atheist scientists were extremely frustrated by the fine tuning facts and had to resort to implausible ideas. They couldn't explain how uniform temperatures could exist in an big bang "explosion." (You've been avoid that question for pages now!) However, they found a couple of stories and went with it. Yesterday's questionable science has become today's bad science. They've become flat earthers.

Just look at your main argument that creation science isn't real science. Nothing can be further from the truth. It's observational science and modern science. It has been demonstrated throughout history and many are some of the greatest scientists of all time..

Creation science isn't backed up by real facts and real science. Are you one of those who think that the Grand canyon was carved all at once by god's floodwaters? Because the geologic facts don't bear that out.

>>Creation science isn't backed up by real facts and real science.<<

You may as well admit to atheism and being WRONG. Atheists are usually wrong.

As for the Grand Canyon, are you going to take the damned atheist tour A, B or C or the Christian one ?

Here's mine
Grand Canyon—Nine Days Below the Rim

Your link isn't a scientific one, so you fail EPICALLY!

Not I, because I take the real geology tour. This vid will go over your head because of the lies you believe and your lack of gray matter, but maybe it will knock some sense into you.



Not I, but you could fail EPICALLY as you do not know the power of water. I already mentioned that floods kill the most people out of all the catastrophes. You could die very easily in a local flood, so imagine the power of a global flood.



You're like this brainless IDIOT.

Throwing up 3 random videos that don't explain your point prove what exactly?

And what is it with all the name calling? Are you 12 years old?

Don't feign more ignorance. You're the one who brought up the Grand Canyon. I'll take it to mean you conceded once again since you have another stupid reply.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

^^^^^

Has no clue about what General Relativity says about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The you'll be able to quote a real scientist (and a link) who explains why the universe has a boundary. It's ok, I'll wait.

Hahahaha. It doesn't matter since you won't get it anyway. Can you explain why evo thinkers do not think there is a boundary? No.

Thus, you won't be able to understand something that is equally complex.

One evidence of a bounded universe is excess redshift in quasars (farthest away from earth). One example is Galaxy NGC 4319 and the nearby quasar Markarian 205 which have very different redshifts (cz = 1,700 km/s and 21,000 km/s respectively). However, looking at photos from Hubble, we can see that they are connected. If the universe was expanding infinitely as evos hypothesize, then their redshifts would be the same. Creation scientists think that it has to do with curved spacetime since this is observational science. You can read "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science" by Halton Arp (Not a creationist afaik, but a scientist who uses observational science and uses what he ome bserves to formulate a hypothesis. He doesn't find existence of dark matter and doesn't believe the universe is expanding.).

As any astute observer has by now come to suspect, you are a fraud and have no idea what you are talking about. The Hubble telescope settled this already, showing the quasar to be much further away than the Galaxy in question.

But you didn't know that, because you don't get your science news from science journals. You get it from young earth creationist nonscientists, who have no tether to honesty. And then you embarrass yourself by regurgitating their talking points, which you clearly don't understand anyway.

 

[Taz]

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

^^^^^

Has no clue about what General Relativity says about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The you'll be able to quote a real scientist (and a link) who explains why the universe has a boundary. It's ok, I'll wait.

Hahahaha. It doesn't matter since you won't get it anyway. Can you explain why evo thinkers do not think there is a boundary? No.

Thus, you won't be able to understand something that is equally complex.

One evidence of a bounded universe is excess redshift in quasars (farthest away from earth). One example is Galaxy NGC 4319 and the nearby quasar Markarian 205 which have very different redshifts (cz = 1,700 km/s and 21,000 km/s respectively). However, looking at photos from Hubble, we can see that they are connected. If the universe was expanding infinitely as evos hypothesize, then their redshifts would be the same. Creation scientists think that it has to do with curved spacetime since this is observational science. You can read "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science" by Halton Arp (Not a creationist afaik, but a scientist who uses observational science and uses what he observes to formulate a hypothesis. He doesn't find existence of dark matter and doesn't believe the universe is expanding.).

Real scientists can’t find a boundary and have evidence that the universe is expanding. It’s not what anyone believes, it’s facts.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

^^^^^

Has no clue about what General Relativity says about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The you'll be able to quote a real scientist (and a link) who explains why the universe has a boundary. It's ok, I'll wait.

According to Einstein space-time is curved...

Gravity as Curved Space: Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

...Which means if you can go fast enough you'll meet your tail end as you go forward...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Taz]

Creation science isn't backed up by real facts and real science. Are you one of those who think that the Grand canyon was carved all at once by god's floodwaters? Because the geologic facts don't bear that out.

>>Creation science isn't backed up by real facts and real science.<<

You may as well admit to atheism and being WRONG. Atheists are usually wrong.

As for the Grand Canyon, are you going to take the damned atheist tour A, B or C or the Christian one ?

Here's mine
Grand Canyon—Nine Days Below the Rim

Your link isn't a scientific one, so you fail EPICALLY!

Not I, because I take the real geology tour. This vid will go over your head because of the lies you believe and your lack of gray matter, but maybe it will knock some sense into you.



Not I, but you could fail EPICALLY as you do not know the power of water. I already mentioned that floods kill the most people out of all the catastrophes. You could die very easily in a local flood, so imagine the power of a global flood.



You're like this brainless IDIOT.

Throwing up 3 random videos that don't explain your point prove what exactly?

And what is it with all the name calling? Are you 12 years old?

Don't feign more ignorance. You're the one who brought up the Grand Canyon. I'll take it to mean you conceded once again since you have another stupid reply.

If you want to believe nonsense, go for it, a fantasy world is all you have.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Another one with no clue as to what General Relativity states about the nature of the universe.

But I'm sure you can tell us, right?

No. You and ding have grifted all of your talking points from YEC websites.

What's a YEC website Mr CNN?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Taz]

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

^^^^^

Has no clue about what General Relativity says about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The you'll be able to quote a real scientist (and a link) who explains why the universe has a boundary. It's ok, I'll wait.

According to Einstein space-time is curved...

Gravity as Curved Space: Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

...Which means if you can go fast enough you'll meet your tail end as you go forward...

*****CHUCKLE*****

What does that have to do with a boundary for the universe?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

^^^^^

Has no clue about what General Relativity says about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The you'll be able to quote a real scientist (and a link) who explains why the universe has a boundary. It's ok, I'll wait.

According to Einstein space-time is curved...

Gravity as Curved Space: Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

...Which means if you can go fast enough you'll meet your tail end as you go forward...

*****CHUCKLE*****

What does that have to do with a boundary for the universe?

It means the universe has limits which at this time reach out fifteen billion light years and no more. That means nothing exists, not even vacuum or space-time exist, outside that bubble that comprises the universe. The universe all curves in upon itself. So if you leave point A looking to get as far away from it as you can it's very possible that you'll end up back at point A.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[ding]

Multiple universes are predicted by math. Nothing says that other universes don't have different laws, more dimensions...

You can't have worlds in this universe that work by different laws of this one, ok, but who knows what's beyond our universe or what might have existed before the BB.

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Did the flying spaghetti monster create that also?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

CERN does.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

I know what CERN is, but please quote a relevant passage where they say that our universe has a boundary.

So you don't understand that space time has a curvature?

Or that boundaries are implicit in the big bang model?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Another one with no clue as to what General Relativity states about the nature of the universe.

But I'm sure you can tell us, right?

No. You and ding have grifted all of your talking points from YEC websites.

What's a YEC website Mr CNN?

*****CHUCKLE*****

It's what you areoomong at in your other tab right now: "young earth creationist". Next time, open a third tab and use Google to find the answerr yourself to your basic questions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It means the universe has limits which at this time reach out fifteen billion light years and no more. That means nothing exists, not even vacuum or space-time exist, outside that bubble that comprises the universe.

It does not mean that. You are making things up, now.