1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt.
Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years.
3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because
- Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
- Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
- The Moon has a relatively small iro.n core.
- The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
- Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
- Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
- The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.
1. What unsubstantiated claim? The naked eye can see about 3000 stars. That's a fact.
Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky
2. Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
3. Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science. Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
4. We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains. This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
5. Is this from evolutionary thought? Then it's so wrong. Have to run. Will explain later.
I'll just answer point 2:
How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.
Hahaha. So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about. Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see). They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion. Hey, what's a few billion years among friends? The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions. Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.
- First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
- I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?
1. I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones. Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today. It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show. And what do we get? Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction. Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about. If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation. That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s. Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon. I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.
"... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."
A Young Moon
The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research
2. At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism. Usually, there is no overlap. The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water. Evolutionists do not have an explanation. The flood waters came from underneath the earth. There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction. The great flood also changed our lives for the worse. The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.
The Creationist Arguments
I don't know who first brought up the age of the Earth-moon system as a pro-creationist argument. But the first example I am aware of is Barnes (1982, 1984). Barnes says, "
It has been known for 25 years that the earth-moon system cannot be that old", and assuring us that "
Celestial mechanics proves that the moon cannot be as old as 4.5 billion years", goes on to quote the last sentence from Slichter's (1963) paper, "
The time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem" (in fact, Barnes should not have capitalized the "T" since this is a sentence fragment, not a full sentence, but in this case the oversight is inconsequential). It is noteworthy that Barnes is happy to quote a paper already 19 years old in 1982, and 21 years old in 1984, yet despite a research physics background, declines to bother researching anything post-Slichter. If he had, he would have found Lambeck (1980), a major work which clearly indicated the real nature of Slichter's dilemma (or even Stacey, 1977, which already showed the conflict between Slichter's theoretical dilemma and the paleontological evidence available at the time). And, of course, Kirk Hansen's 1982 paper predates Barnes' 1984 reiteration by two years, yet is ignored despite being recognized even then as a major step forward. Barnes shows the same kind of sloppy and lazy approach to "research" that permeates young-Earth creationism, although his is a particularly egregious case (as it also was for his arguments concerning Earth's magnetic field).
DeYoung (1992) offers his own model. Actually, he offers an equation. DeYoung asserts that the rate of change of the lunar distance as a function of time must be proportional to the inverse 6th power of the lunar distance (presumably because the lunar tidal amplitude is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance, and the tidal acceleration is proportional to the square of the amplitude, though DeYoung does not say this). He then runs some numbers in the equation, and concludes with remarkable poise that he has demonstrated a maximum possible tidal age for the Earth-moon system of 1.4 billion years. The same calculation can be found in Stacey (1977), with reference to more precise versions. They all get about the same answer as DeYoung, and there is no doubt but that what DeYoung did he did right. However, if you do the "wrong" problem, you may not get the "right" answer! As Stacey pointed out (Stacey, 1977, pages 102-103) it makes more sense to assume that the oceanic tidal dissipation was smaller in the past, which would have the effect of making the calculation that of a
minimum age, as opposed to the
maximum age proposed by DeYoung. But, of course, we are comparing DeYoung (1992) with Stacey (1977), a gap of 15 years (it's nice to see that DeYoung, like Barnes, is keeping up with the tempo of current research). That gap includes Lambeck (1980) and Hansen (1982) (wherein it was demonstrated that a 4.5 billion years age was compatible). Granted that DeYoung (1992) wrote before the 1994 papers of Kagan & Maslova or Touma & Wisdom, which are directly contradictory to his results. However, Hansen's (1980) results also directly contradict DeYoung, but come 12 years before. This observation does not inspire confidence in the value of DeYoung's one-equation model for the evolution of the lunar orbit. But, as made clear by Bills & Ray (1999), the constant of proportionality, which Stacey suggests is not constant, is in fact a ratio of factors that represent dissipation, and deformation. It is clear that neither of these can be constant, and once that is understood, we can see clearly that DeYoung simply did the wrong thing right, and curiously wound up with a correct form of the wrong answer.
Walter Brown (Brown, 1995) presents essentially the same model as DeYoung. I have seen only the
online technical note, but not the printed book. Unfortunate, for the equations do not appear on the webpage, despite being referenced as if they were there. However, Brown does offer the quick-Basic source code for his program that calculates the minimum age of the Earth-moon system. His equations are there, and he seems to be using the inverse 5.5 power of the radius rather than the inverse 6th power used by DeYoung (Brown's usage here is consistent with the equation given by Bills & Ray, 1999; whether one chooses to use the inverse 6 or inverse 5.5 power seems an issue of model dependence). Otherwise, Brown's approach appears to be quite the same as DeYoung's, and subject to exactly the same criticism. He ignores the time variability of dissipation and deformation. It is perhaps humorously ironic that both DeYoung and Brown fail, because they are implicitly making an improper uniformitarian assumption (the constancy of dissipation and deformation), which evolutionists have learned to avoid.
Conclusions
I don't know if there are other, "authoritative" creationist sources for the "speedy moon" argument. But if there are, it is unlikely that their arguments presented differ much from those seen here. I spent quite a bit more time reviewing the actual science of the Earth-moon tidal interaction because once it is well developed, the flaw in the creationist arguments becomes so obvious that it hardly seems necessary to refute them. The most remarkable aspect of this, I think, is the somebody like DeYoung, who certainly has legitimate qualifications (a PhD in physics from Iowa State University), would offer up such a one-equation model as if it was actually definitive. That kind of thing works as a "back-of-the-envelope" calculation, to get the order of magnitude, or a first approximation for the right answer, but it should have been clear to an
unbiased observer that it could never be a legitimate
realistic model. It is also of considerable interest that both DeYoung and Brown published their refutations of evolution only
after evolution had already refuted their refutations! Barnes didn't do all that much better, having overlooked Hansen (1982) for two years. My own conclusion is that my intuitive expectations have been fulfilled, and creation "science" has lived up to its reputation of being either pre-falsified, or easy to falsify once the argument is evident.
As for the
real science, remember that science is not a static pursuit, and the Earth-moon tidal evolution is not an entirely solved system. There is a lot that we know, and we do know a lot more than we did even 20 years ago. But even if we don't know everything, there are still some arguments which we can definitely rule out. A 10,000 year age (or anything like it) definitely falls in that category, and can be ruled out both by theory and practice.
The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System
This is the article I got this from it's heavily referenced.
Your article has 2 references.
This is an exert from a conference that 1 of those referenced autors attended
'During the question period, the first response was from John Baumgardner. He began by saying that as a committed Christian he was insulted by Dalrymple's characterization of creationists. He expressed his disappointment that the AGU had not invited speakers to present creationist arguments. His exchanges with Dalrymple became quite heated. This made me apprehensive that he would later come after me because in my presentation I would use a slide making fun of one of Baumgardner's sillier ideas — that giant whirlpools on the continents allowed dinosaurs and other large animals to survive until late in Noah's flood, thus explaining why their fossils occur high in the geologic column.'
Geologists Explain Evolution | NCSE
This is a short bio of the second referenced author, note where he works.
Dr. Danny R. Faulkner earned graduate degrees in physics and astronomy and taught at the University of South Carolina Lancaster for over 26 years. Dr. Faulkner is a member of the Creation Research Society and also serves as the editor of the
Creation Research Society Quarterly. He has written more than a hundred papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals.
The way I see it, in order for your worldview to be correct there has to be a massive scientific conspiracy to specifacly disprove a young earth. Entire branches of history, antropoligy, math, astronomy, chemistry, paleontoligy, astronomy, chemistry, bioligy, physics had to be falsified on purpose. Do you find that possible, logical or plausible? I personally think it way more logical that Creatonism is completly wrong.
4 was also in 1932 existing. So I would say in 1932 voted 12 Million people in Germany for Hitler. In this case about 6-7 milllion Christians voted for Hitler. 35 million people voted. If you are right and 90% were Christians then 31,5 million Christians voted. So about 20%-25% of all Christians (Protestants and Catholics) voted in 1932 for Hitler what means 75%-80% of the Christians were not for Hitler. Confused? Me too. But maybe it's a better confusion now.
that is Pope Pius XII shaking hands with H ....
