Why creationists are wrong using astronomy

Why creationists are wrong using astronomy

Images from wikicommons and NASA

Category:

Education

Tags:

• creationists
• astronomy
• evolution
• rational
• bible
• genesis
• light

[baredd79]

All creatonist do NOT believe the Earth is just 6 thousand years old.

[nirvaaa]

Genesis is quite clear about how the earth was created and the time scale in which this took place. It is also very clear about what it thinks took place between the time of genesis and Jesus.

[BoyintheMachine]

Don't fool me with your devil science! The bible reads that the sky is a solid dome to which the sun, moon, and stars were attached. There ain't no outerspace. That's an illusion by the devil to fool sinner science believers. (Sarcasm)

[MaryKMurtha]

it doesn't literally say 6,000 years anywhere in the Bible. Calculations from the time of Adam and Eve to the time Christ was born was $4,000 years. Since it has been a little over 2,000 years since the Birth of Christ...4,000 yrs + 2,000 years= 6,000 yrs.

[Greatrik777]

why do evolutionist seem to take for granted that people who beleive in a creator must be beleiving what the bible says,i think we've been intelligently designed and so is the bible, its nothing but an instrument to manipulate and control people. Nobody knows for sure where we're from and yet evolutionist agressively preach their own bible of evolution with no better proof than the bible has.

[Mayhamsdead]

@MaryKMurtha Indeed. Point ?

[Mdebacle]

@chadwick0091

I doubt there is any verifiable method to use radiometric fossil dating. The early attempts to use Carbon-14 produced such ridiculous results that fudge factors had to be invented.

The case of KBS Tuff started out as 200 million years, worked its way to 2.6 million, eventually to 1.6 million.

I think they make up dates to match fossils.

More impotantly is the Colorado Plateau:"with no smaller folds, no overturned strata, no major thrust-faults "

All strata are one event.

[chadwick0091]

@Mdebacle i'm not talking about humans or estimating the date of "The Great Fossilzation." i'm talking about individual fossils. dinosaurs bones and fossils, insect fossils such as leptofoenus pittfieldae, or plant fossils such as cryptospores. how are we going to date those fossils without radiometric dating?

[Mdebacle]

@chadwick0091

[how to date fossils]

To estimate the date of The Great Fossilization, we must estimate how long it took for 3 reproducing couples to become 6 billion. This would require 31 doublings of the population. Assuming the human population doubled (on average) every 150 years, that would start 4650 years ago. The rate was much faster in the early years.

Another example of a hostile witness for the opposition is JWOOLFDEN . COM The Colorado Plateau was deosited right where we see it

[chadwick0091]

@Mdebacle okay, first of all, you never answered my question, which was: how do you propose we date fossils then? secondly, after reading the article you gave me, i came across another article refuting the one you gave me. and here's the best part....IT WAS WRITTEN BY A CREATIONIST!!!

[Mdebacle]

@chadwick0091

Read article 'The World's a Graveyard' on AiG

Then conclude that most fossils are from one event.

[chadwick0091]

@Mdebacle what? okay??? sooo how do you propose we date fossils then?

[Mdebacle]

@chadwick0091

radiometric.

Relativity or variable speed of light would mess up radiometric calculations.