Young Earth Debate

[Coonehh]

Can you summarise the contents of the video for us?

Note that the age of the Earth is generally determined using uranium-lead dating methods, not Carbon-14.

half hour of limitations of carbon dating, lol





rock layers, lol....actually mocking rock layers....

maybe instead, go to 9:40 here and watch first principles play themselves out and see what liquids do in free fall

[gbr_micah]

it just cant be you really think that fossils are Millions of years old really ?? it would be dust there would not be anything left
you must believe that we all evolved from a pool of goo

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

[gbr_micah]

https://youtu.be/TVuVYnHRuig

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html

[gbr_micah]

In order for us to take what you've said and linked for us seriously, you need to demonstrate why Kent Hovind should be taken seriously and why we should believe his assertions about young earth creationism that fly in the face of scientific consensus on the topic.

[Eddie Bravo]

Whatever you believe in, it will require a little faith. Like the Big Bang. That’s just as whacky as noah’s Arc.

[gbr_micah]

Only if you choose to believe something beyond any reasonable doubt, and that's not what scientists are doing. Astrophysicists tentatively accept the Big Bang Theory because the available evidence points in that direction. They are not proclaiming to be absolutely certain about it. Believing in a young earth requires faith because the available evidence does not suggest that's the case.

[lattamoney]

In order for us to take what you've said and linked for us seriously, you need to demonstrate why Kent Hovind should be taken seriously and why we should believe his assertions about young earth creationism that fly in the face of scientific consensus on the topic.

I Believe what I believe because its Biblical why do you believe the earth is so old because some one told you this in school

[lattamoney]

there is no Evidence of a Big Bang you are just buying in to their bulll shit

[SebG]

there is no Evidence of a Big Bang you are just buying in to their bulll shit

Where does the Bible refute the possibility of a Big Bang? I don't think it does.

But, science doesn't care what we think. Science relies on observations and measurements of the natural world. It's as simple as that.

The age of the Earth has been determined scientifically using uranium-lead radioisotope dating. It's easy to say that nuclear decay is bullshit, but then you still have to be able to explain nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

The Bible doesn't include information on the science of the atom, nor the science of computer chips.

Would you agree that the Bible has too many contradictions and is incomplete on too many points to be used scientifically?

[gbr_micah]

This is an argument from ignorance. Your lack of knowledge on the topic does not justify claiming the theory is false. Here is some evidence for the Big Bang:

1. The universe is continually expanding. Here is an explanation of it from the National Center for Supercomputing Applications:

http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyb...ExpandUni.html

2. There is a cosmic microwave background that astrophysicists knew should exist if such a massive explosion had taken place, so they hypothesized exactly what it would be like, looked for it, and found it. Here's an explanation of it from the European Space Agency.

http://sci.esa.int/planck/51551-simp...ing-to-planck/

3. Because it takes so long for light from other galaxies to reach us, we can see "snapshots" of different galaxies that formed at different times. Hubble realized that there is a clear pattern of how galaxies formed and behaved differently over time, which is consistent with what should happen after an event like the Big Bang. This has been exhaustively tested through computer simulations, and has been irrefutably proven. To deny this piece of evidence in particular is to deny reality. Here is an explanation of this from Laura Sales at Harvard.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~lsales/...orphology.html


4. The chemical makeup of the universe is consistent with a universe in which an event like the Big Bang took place. Here is an explanation from astrophysicists at UCLA:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/%7Ewright/BBNS.html



These are not just ideas that scientists "like" so they stick to them; they are exhaustively tested, and if they failed, they would be thrown out and the search for evidence would continue. Accepting the prevailing explanation for the formation of the universe based on astrophysics does not require faith like believing the creation story of the bible. It's not even in the same ballpark.

What evidence do you think exists for a young Earth?