YET MORE PROOF for Instant Creation of Earth (God Is Right!)

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Evidence that the earth is not 6000 years old

There is lots of evidence. Please start another thread, as it’s not nice to hijack Sack’s, and be specific about what exact evidence will convince you that it is not 6000 years old.

 

[Hydra009]

YET MORE PROOF for Instant Creation of Earth (God Is Right!)

Does non-instant creation of Earth mean God is wrong?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

So Sack, aren’t you going to defend your OP assertion in light of this refutation? You are finally putting forth an assertion with some kind of scientific merit and a source. Why aren’t you defending your assertion? Do you concede that you were mistaken and that the halo argument is flawed?

Sack, I’d like to ask you an honest question and I’d appreciate an honest answer.

Is there any evidence that can be provided to you that will make you believe that you are not correct in your assertion that the earth is only 6000 years old?

In case you missed them, I’m still waiting for an answer on these Sack. Thanks.

 

[CatholicRsl]

People who make rational leaps like this are trying to have it both ways. They want the slow, elegant, and fool-proof measure of the scientific process, but are not willing to see it all the way out once they think they find results that please them. Its not about finding results that matches your belief system, its about formulating a theory that matches your results.
The thing about supposed "scientists" like the ones looking for verification of a young Earth is that they will never be willing to falsify their hypothesis. When they reach a hole in the tracks they'll just bridge it with "Godidit". They are not scientists, they in fact undermine the entire scientific community.

 

[RoboMastodon]

I would like some.

-Radiometric dating methods from Uranium-235/Lead-206, Uranium-238/Lead-206, Potassium-40, Rubidium-87, Samarium-147, Thorium-232, Rhenium 187, Lutetium-176 all agree on an approximate 4.6 billion year old earth (or all they all, each with different half-lifes, equally in error).
-Light from galaxies farther than a few billion light-years away indicate the universe is older than a few billion years.

 

[JoshDanger]

Also Josh, each belief system (evolution & creationism) starts off with a presupposition. You accuse creationists of being biased at the outset regarding a young earth, and then turn around and say that evolutionists are NOT biased. Truth is, evolutionists start out with the belief that God did not create the earth. That is a presupposition. A bias. Evolution starts off with the theory that the earth is old. That is a presupposition and a bias.

I'm not one to try and read the minds of past biologists, but I can say with some certainty that no evolutionary biologists has started with the hypothesis that "God did not create the earth."

 

[dad]

-Radiometric dating methods from Uranium-235/Lead-206, Uranium-238/Lead-206, Potassium-40, Rubidium-87, Samarium-147, Thorium-232, Rhenium 187, Lutetium-176 all agree on an approximate 4.6 billion year old earth (or all they all, each with different half-lifes, equally in error).

Basically, is this not simply saying that, if there were time, at the known rate of decay, this is how long it would take or did take to decay? This assumes that there always will be this decay, rather than, one day, there will be no rate of decay, as the bible indicates in us, and the sun, etc. lasting forever. So, bravo in men's ability to realize how fast we are decaying, and the universe around us, it means nothing for the future, or far past, as you must well know, and could not begin to prove, cause it just ain't so!

-Light from galaxies farther than a few billion light-years away indicate the universe is older than a few billion years.

Light in our universe we know also has a speed, or rate, at which it can travel, however light has been recorded in the bible like the stuff that predated the sun's creation, that need not be restricted to the properties of our present light. Only by assuming light is only the kind we now have in our physical universe, and always will be, could we arrive at your believed old ages! Adam saw the stars, it didn't take long ages to get here, so we know it was different then. If you reject the bible, then you are welcome to believe what you will, but could not prove in any way that today's physical universe light you perceive was always all there was. So all you have on offer here, in present speeds, and decay rates, is present rates and speeds, and a baseless belief it must need apply to a future and far past, just cause you say so, and want it to, but in utter absense of any scientific evidence!

 

[Dexx]

Evolution starts off with the theory that the earth is old. That is a presupposition and a bias.

Every scientist is certainly biased to one degree or another. They are human after all. However there are so many cross-verified evidences for the Earth being old that i dont think bias matters. An objective examination of the evidence will lead anyone to conclude that either the Earth is very old, or God miraculously made it to look that way.

 

[CaptainVirtuous]

I would like some.

Dinosaurs

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

In case you missed them, I’m still waiting for an answer on these Sack. Thanks.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Loudmouth]

Only by assuming light is only the kind we now have in our physical universe, and always will be, could we arrive at your believed old ages!

Every piece of empirical, scientific evidence we have points to the constancy of the characteristics of light. It is a presupposition that light of a different kind ever existed.

If you reject the bible, then you are welcome to believe what you will, but could not prove in any way that today's physical universe light you perceive was always all there was.

I don't reject nor accept the Bible. I am still waiting for the verification of it's claims.

As to the Po haloes, do you have any comments?

So all you have on offer here, in present speeds, and decay rates, is present rates and speeds, and a baseless belief it must need apply to a future and far past, just cause you say so, and want it to, but in utter absense of any scientific evidence!

What we have is same decay rates across the entire universe. We have a constant measure of light from stars 160,000 light years away using simple trigonometry. Or are you going to argue that sin, cos, and tan have changed over time?

 

[nvxplorer]

I agree with you dad. We have no proof that the speed of light has remained constant from the beginning. In fact, I assert that its speed was one one-hundreth what it is today, making the universe over over a trillion years old in actuality.

 

[dad]

Every piece of empirical, scientific evidence we have points to the constancy of the characteristics of light. It is a presupposition that light of a different kind ever existed.

It is a presupposition that light of a different kind never existed! Can you prove it? We see light in the bible being there before sunlight, and we see stars made for Adam to see, that we now know are far away. The bible supports my idea, not yours. What proof do you have? None. So what if it was constant since the split?

I don't reject nor accept the Bible. I am still waiting for the verification of it's claims.

As to the Po haloes, do you have any comments?

I hope they do slam evo foundations, but must admit I don't know much about them. I am all for all the creationist stuff I have read for years, if it works. The reason I tried to come up with more powerful arguements, is because I was losing debates (well, stalemating, which I consider a loss). I felt they were missing something key.

What we have is same decay rates across the entire universe. We have a constant measure of light from stars 160,000 light years away using simple trigonometry. Or are you going to argue that sin, cos, and tan have changed over time?

No. We can measure things like supernova 1987, and find decay, just like here, if I remember correctly from some cosmo pros I talked to. The split covers the whole universe. One reason it will be a wonderful shocker to see the true heavens revealed, or the new heavens, and earth- when the merge comes. Oh, and as for light speed. yes, we know it does travel that speed. But what preceeded it, in the merged universe was unrestricted by speed as we know it. The light from the stars got here right away, pretty well. The light we have now is a different one, I say, one that needs to exist in our physical only universe.

 

[dad]

I agree with you dad. We have no proof that the speed of light has remained constant from the beginning. In fact, I assert that its speed was one one-hundreth what it is today, making the universe over over a trillion years old in actuality.

Well, a point from you finally. Sorry, I have to break the news to you that science is likely right here. The speed was constant since it came to be. If my calculations are correct, about 3400 years ago. Before that, in the merged universe, light, being spiritual, travelled instantly, or pretty close.

 

[nvxplorer]

Well, a point from you finally. Sorry, I have to break the news to you that science is likely right here. The speed was constant since it came to be. If my calculations are correct, about 3400 years ago. Before that, in the merged universe, light, being spiritual, travelled instantly, or pretty close.

It can't be proved either way, dad. Therefore my assertion is no more or less valid than yours.

 

[dad]

It can't be proved either way, dad. Therefore my assertion is no more or less valid than yours.

Your belief, that is not science, nor the bible, that it actually travelled slower is not valid. The scientific research into the speed of light shows us that it was constant. I have to agree with science, although would be pleasantly surprised if creation science was right, and there was some big change in PO light.

 

[nvxplorer]

Your belief, that is not science, nor the bible, that it actually travelled slower is not valid. The scientific research into the speed of light shows us that it was constant. I have to agree with science, although would be pleasantly surprised if creation science was right, and there was some big change in PO light.

Thank you.

 

[dad]

Thank you.

You are welcome. Dis you really think I doubt real scince?

 

[Kripost]

And evolutionists are willing to falsify their hypothesis on a regular basis? Do evolutionists not say, "nature did it" when they reach a hole in the tracks? In doing these things (or NOT doing these things), don't evolutionists undermine the entire scientific community?

It's kinda like when Jesus said "pluck out the log in your own eye first."

Actually, the age of planet Earth has less to do with evolution and more to do with geology.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is a presupposition that light of a different kind never existed! Can you prove it?

"Proof" requires positive evidence. There is no positive evidence for a different kind of light, therefore it is a presupposition to claim that it did.

We see light in the bible being there before sunlight, and we see stars made for Adam to see, that we now know are far away. The bible supports my idea, not yours. What proof do you have? None. So what if it was constant since the split?

And if other people's creation myths say something different how am I supposed to incorporate it?

Before Bible claims can be accepted they need to be verified with evidence. No such verification exists, therefore belief in these claims is presupposition.

No. We can measure things like supernova 1987, and find decay, just like here, if I remember correctly from some cosmo pros I talked to. The split covers the whole universe. One reason it will be a wonderful shocker to see the true heavens revealed, or the new heavens, and earth- when the merge comes. Oh, and as for light speed. yes, we know it does travel that speed. But what preceeded it, in the merged universe was unrestricted by speed as we know it. The light from the stars got here right away, pretty well. The light we have now is a different one, I say, one that needs to exist in our physical only universe.

So you agree that all existing empirical evidence points to the constancy of the physical laws as they exist now?