A question about the evolutionary age stated about coal seams?

The fault is in the Evolution/100 million year idea.

The Big Dud

The Big Bang has not met the requirements to be classified as a scientific Theory due to lack of supporting evidence. In the scientific community a method is used to produce a step-by-step process to explain an observation. These are the most common steps; Observation, Question, Hypothesis, prediction, experiment, analysis, decision. When an experiment is proven to be 100% reliable it becomes a scientific Law. This method being referred to is known as the Scientific Method. As Antonio Zamora explains ”The scientific method requires that theories be testable. If a theory cannot be tested, it cannot be a scientific theory”. One might reply to this statement, just because scientist haven’t found proof for the big bang doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. In regards to this logic, if scientists produce documented, testable proof using the accepted scientific method, that the Big Bang is possible, then one can claim the Big Bang to be a scientific Theory.

The idea of the Big Bang is described in the textbook The Unity and Diversity of Life “This Incredibly hot, dense state lasted only for an instant. What happened next is known as the Big Bang, a stupendous, nearly instantaneous distribution of matter and energy throughout the universe.” Scientists have yet to create something out of nothing. According to this big bang idea, between 14 and 18 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was smashed into a tiny space. This dot spun faster, and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe, and everything in it. This claim cannot be proven; observed, or tested by the scientific Laws provided by scientist, at best the Big Bang is a Hypothesis. Scientific Laws hold a much higher authority than a theory, due to the fact that a scientific Law has been proven 100% true, and tested time, and time again. According to Ross E. Koning a college professor at Eastern Connecticut State University “The scientific method is based upon evidence rather than belief. This distinguishes science from faith. A scientist is suitably skeptical of anything but good evidence”.

In the First Law of Thermodynamics: matter cannot be created or destroyed. In the beginning to the Big Bang, there is nothing present to explode, and zero energy to explode it. There are zero observations, or documented test results for spontaneous generation, let alone matter from nothing. Expecting to have matter, and energy just show up, when none is present is like taking an absolutely empty box, and after billions of years, or any other amount of time, expect to open that box, and inside have a operational world in all its complexity. Spontaneous generation something out of nothing, used to support the Big Bang is in direct conflict with the first scientific Law of Thermodynamics.

Lets examine the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Everything tends towards disorder. In the Big Bang we have a huge universe-creating explosion. Nothing orderly has ever come from a random matter explosion of any magnitude. Explosions are anything but orderly, the larger the explosions the more random the matter distributions become. If a person made a claim that thousands of bricks were set in motion by a tornado, which ultimately resulted in the orderly design, and complexity of this Spokane Falls Community College school building, people would think he was crazy. To take the point of complexity a little further, this well-designed school-building students attend is far inferior to the human eyes function; let alone the precision of the planetary orbits.

Another scientific Law is Conservation of angular momentum: According to the definition in Word Book “Objects executing motion around a point possess a quantity called angular momentum. This is an important physical quantity because all experimental evidence indicates that angular momentum is rigorously conserved in our Universe: it can be transferred, but it cannot be created or destroyed”. This spinning ball of matter, which supposedly created the earth, stars, and planets, would all need to spin in the same direction as the single object it exploded from. However their are two planets in our immediate space, Venus, and Uranus that spin backwards. Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but also travel backward around their own planets. Even NASA’s scientists on their website ponder the many differing orbits of planetary bodies in our amazing universe.

Some newly discovered planets follow unusual orbits. Most planets travel around their stars on nearly circular paths, like those of the planets in our solar system. But a planet around the star 16 Cygni B follows an extremely elliptical orbit. It travels farther from its star than the planet Mars does from our sun, and then draws closer to the star than Venus does to our sun. If a planet in our solar system traveled in such an extreme oval, its gravity would disrupt the orbits of the other planets and toss them out of their paths.

The reason for this paper is not to push any agenda, or to now tell you I have all the right answers. The reason for this paper is to examine what we are being told by many mainstream scientists, using their own methods, models, and proven Laws. When using proven scientific evidence, along with scientific Laws in a precise, but simple order, the Big Bang holds no more ground than a belief. There is no supporting evidence to classify the Big Bang as a scientific Theory. Please refer back to the first quote stated by a member of the scientific community ” The scientific method requires that theories be testable. If a theory cannot be tested, it cannot be a scientific Theory”. To me science is evolving, and dynamic. I imagine a student writing a paper 1500 years ago on the flawed theory held that the earth is flat, and being scoffed at by that days mainstream scientific thinkers. True thinkers, and scientist should always be willing to examine what they believe to be true, and why they hold that idea to be true or false. They should also be wiling to fix a mistake if found. Nobody likes to be told what to think, and how to think it, especially when it doesn’t make logical scientific sense.

"Fifty millennia is at the absolute limit of the capacity of the C-14 test. The difference in C-14 content between two carbon-containing samples -- one of which is 50 millennia old and the other is many millions of years old -- is minimal. The sample of oil did indeed come from plants that were alive millions of years ago. By now, essentially all of the C-14 atoms would have decayed so that none could be detected. However, very small amount of contamination could generate an apparent age of 50,000 years for the sample. Oil is typically "found within a matrix of sand or shale." The rocks will have some radioactivity which could have created new C-14, contaminated the sample, and produced the results indicated."

it fairly is between the stupidest questions you have asked. There are such thick coal seams because of the fact evolution is actual and so is the multi-billion 12 months historic previous of the earth. those coal seams have been laid down as a effect of flowers develop over many thousands and thousands of years, often in swamp-like aspects. because of the fact the flowers grew and died it formed thick layers that have been finally coated by technique of alternative deposits. This technique repeated numerous circumstances so there have been generally different layers separated by technique of diverse components. That on my own shows it might desire to not have been formed by technique of a single journey such because of the fact the mythical biblical flood. by using the years, those layers have been compressed into much less thickness because of the fact the coal formed. that is, in certainty, impossible that the mandatory quantity of flowers to style all of those seams might have existed all on the comparable time. the quantity of plant cloth latest at one time might have had to have been numerous hundreds of ft severe so as be compressed to style each and all of the seams at some places. Even you, as ignorant as you're, might desire to have the skill to comprehend that. the only element that has been crunched is your stupidity.

Can you cite the source of your information, please?

Creationists typically like to do novel party tricks using Carbon 14 dating in scenarios where any scientist will tell you Carbon 14 dating isn't to be used. That's why I'm intrigued to know the source of your information. (I have a few ideas about the source, but just want to make it official.)