Lets just assume that your creationists agree on max age 25,000 years. What about fossils? Radio metric dating? Expansion of the universe/ Size?
Fossils: Noah's flood.
Radio-metric dating: Too many assumptions to be reliable. I posted a link to AIG's "Problems with the dating methods." Perhaps you can google search. This is the kind of the stuff they don't teach you in science class.
Expansion of the universe: God created it in situ. I recently heard scientists are baffled by how fast the universe is expanding because it doesn't make sense in their calculations. So, they are obviously mistaken about something anyway.
Skeptic, have you read my post where I explain why the link and research you provided with respect to the radio-metric dating scheme is not reliable? The reason why they don't teach this in science class is because this is the textbook example of how not to do research. I hope you understand that. The research itself was discredited by the researches itself by admitting that they used the wrong model on the wrong data/sample, which makes conclusions drawn from it likely invalid.
As for your note on the expansion of the universe and scientists being baffled by how fast the universe is expanding. Could you perhaps please provide a link of where you've read this? I think that you are probably a little bit confused with respect to the matter here, but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong
. I think you are referring to the growth spurt scientist call inflation right after the BB. Einstein's special relativity theory states that no object in space can travel faster than light. While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other
, it places no theoretical constraint on changes to the scale of space itself
, i.e. no contradictions. It is thus possible for two objects to be stationary or moving at speeds below that of light, and yet to become separated in space by more than the distance light could have travelled.
"To better visualize the theory, astronomers often illustrate the expanding universe as a loaf of raisin bread rising in the oven. The raisins are galaxies and the rising dough represents space-time. As the dough expands, the raisin galaxies find themselves farther apart from each other, even though they are not moving relative to the dough between them. Now let’s imagining that there’s a beetle in the loaf and it starts crawling toward a faraway raisin. The beetle represents anything within space, such as baseballs, spaceships or photons. When the beetle burrows through the bread, he is moving relative to the dough, and all the other raisins. The speed of light limits how fast the beetle can travel, but not how quickly the bread can rise. So, while the speed of light remains an unbreakable barrier for those of us within the universe, it can’t limit the expansion of space-time itself.". Reference of this example: http://scienceline.org/2007/07/ask-romero-speedoflight/
meh. If he hadn't, someone else would have.
That renders everyone useless, then.
"Eh Mozart wasn't that good. if it wasn't him, someone else would have wrote all that stuff."
Or a famous scientist you guys all like: "Eh, Einstein deserves no praise. if he hadn't did the stuff he did, someone else would have."
I said your wrong beliefs are wrong because there is demonstrable evidence to the contrary. You believe things that were proven wrong centuries ago. Your beliefs are nearly as outdated as believing in the four elements.
I haven't heard of this. Proof of my beliefs being proven wrong "centuries ago"?
Maybe you could, you know, look it up? Preferably from a source that has actual information and not AiG.
The most they have is speculation and imagining. Some of the stuff makes sense, but you can not assume a planet forming will act the SAME WAY for 5 million years just because you observed it for a hundred years. To me, that is pure silliness. I don't know how someone can believe it with a straight face.
With respect to this I would like to say the following. According to the bible/creationists/supporters/whatever you wish to call them, earth/the universe must be between 4000-6000 years old. Now, I already mentioned this in my previous post. You mention speculation and imagining. We now have GPS to observe the earth, which leaves speculation out of the question. The GPS has indeed shown that earth plates move now with roughly 2 cm in 4 years. I already stated that the seperation of the continents alone would take >6000 years. Well, your argument so far is that we can't know what we can't observe. Let's look at the bible for now. Does the bible have a reference of the continents being 'one' once?
Genesis 1:9-10 states: “Then God said, ‘Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place
, and let the dry land appear;’ and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas.”
It could thus be argued that there is Biblical support for dry land being 'one place' once.
What biblical reference could there be for the division of the 'dry land'? Let's say you would argue that the rate at which we see continents drifting nowadays does not account for extreme geological catastrophic events on a huge scale. I will give you the benefit of the doubt then
. So suppose we assume that this could be the reason for the split up, is there any biblical reference for it? Of course the flood model and apologetics suggest that this also includes heavy volcanic erruption (which could have accelerated the rate at which continents spread) due to the following verse: “all the fountains of the great deep were broken up” (7:11). They suggest that the force and magnitude of the Global Flood, coupled with the ensuing volcanic and geologically cataclysmic activity, would certainly supply adequate causes for accelerated rates of continental drift. (Reference: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1729
Now, here's my problem with this. I will not give you the argument, 'who says that what's in the bible is also true then', because I feel I will not be able to discuss with you at all, as I know that to you
, the bible is true
, and there stops any ground for discussion, because I do not hold it to be true. Therefore, I would like to point you to the following.
"Using the Bible, well-documented historical events, and some math, we find that the flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC". (reference: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/
). Now, what are some of the claims of the flood?
1) Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made
2) The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
Let’s first start with Genesis 1:1, where it says that God created the heavens and the earth and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. I.e. the amount of water created or existing was mentioned right there and there is no biblical reference for assuming that the amount back then is different from the amount now. God has not mentioned anything with respect to the amount being more/less, apart from there being division with respect to water. Also, if it mentions rain as its tool for flooding, implicitly we can assume your god created the ‘atmosphere’ as well, otherwise rain could not fall.
So, how much water is there on earth? We can find that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_distribution_on_Earth
. Note that this is not speculation and imagining as the calculations are actually confirmed.
It is obvious that most of Earth's water is in the oceans, so let's look at rain. Rain is atmospheric water condensing and falling. The atmosphere contains about 13,000 km3 of water. If all of this water were to rain out of the atmosphere at the same time, it amount to about 2.5 cm of rain planetwide, i.e. one inch. If we were to look at the rate at which the rain fell? We all know that rain comes from clouds. The distance from the clouds to the sky is around 8.8 km. Forty days times 24 hours per day is 960 hours. Divide 8,800 meters (8.86 km) by 960 and you find a rainfall rate of about 9 meters per hour. That's 28.8 feet per hour. Rain at that rate would sink any boat you could name. Looking at the measurements of Noah’s Ark, the Ark itself was 13.716 m high. The Ark would not stand a chance against rainfall of 9 meters per hour.
God talks about the face of the entire earth. Earth radius: 6378 km, this is generally accepted and measured. Earth surface area: 511,185,932 km2 (simple geometry). Distance to the clouds is 8.86 km
., so the watervolume covering the earth’s surface would be 4,500,000,000 km3, which is 3 times the total amount of water in the earth’s oceans! This means the atmosphere around 1656 AM or 2348 BC would need to contain 346.154 times more water as it does today. Suppose it does, what happened to the rest of the water?
Even if this flood caused volcanoes and other geographical disasters, how is it possible that apologists say that the rate has increased over the entire earth, yet now suddenly it has decreased? If the earth is 6000 years old and around 1656 AM or 2348 BC the continents broke up, then by no means can de distance we observe nowadays by GPS be explained through the flood nor volcanic erruption. If this were true, given that the bible gives history of the earth, other floods would have to be occurred as well, as such an increase in rate would cause severe tsunami’s, even worse than the description of the flood, yet the bible mentions no other? By that time Noah was 600 years old, we find Genesis 9:29 it says "All the days of Noah were 950 years and he died.". He, others, and generations should not have survived if this increase of the plate movements was so sudden and so high
, as to cause what we observe now today. Also, GPS recorded the continents 2cm in 4 years, roughly. What could account for a sudden decrease in this rate then, while apologist claim that there is an increase?
I have not used information you could accuse of being speculative or imagining. I have used simple arithmetic, geometry, and measured information to show you that, even as a believer, you should be more open to argumentation on other grounds. I could also argue differently with you, yet I am trying my best to stay within the context of the bible and using measurable and observable facts to demonstrate my point.
I would happily like to explain to you the claim with respect to planet formation. However, I am afraid my reply would not be of any value to you, since you do not support the scientific method behind it, given that it could not be observed nor measured for sure. If you are, however, open to the possibility, do let me know