How old is the Earth?

[Gamer4Fire]

I had a conversation recently with a Young Earth Christian (YEC). This is an individual that wholeheartedly believes that this planet is only six thousand (6000) years old. And this seemed so counter-intuitive, especially since he was also going to college.

Most scientists believe the Earth to be about four and a half billion years old, and I have no reason to disagree with them. I want to know if you disagree with this age and why. All of the physical evidence seems to point to four and a half billion. What evidence do you have that the number is different.

Scope: The topic will only cover material that discusses how old the Earth is and the associated disciplines that corroborate your view. Posts that move beyond the scope of this topic should be re-posted as their own thread.

 

[Crimson King]

Creationist and YECs will never be swayed. They believe the earth is very young and that it appears old to scientist because god made it look this way.

Why would god waste his time fooling humans?

 

[AltF4]

Not just the Earth. Creationists usually believe the entire universe was created only a couple thousand years ago.

There's not going to be much debate here. If you believe that, you do so despite all logical evidence, so no logical reasoning will sway them.

 

[cF=)]

Why would god waste his time fooling humans?

...to only receive a bunch of thanatophilic believers in his paradise full of Kool aid fountains and unicorns.

Are we supposed to debate the veracity of the radiocarbon dating system here?

 

[AltF4]

Or the universal background microwaves?

 

[Gamer4Fire]

This is a discussion, not a debate. I want to know what evidence there is for a young Earth that doesn't conflict with modern science.

 

[AltF4]

Not unless you count scripture as evidence... which you shouldn't.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

If scripture can be backed up with outside evidence, why shouldn't we consider it? But, no, just scripture wouldn't be enough.

 

[Blackadder]

This is a discussion, not a debate. I want to know what evidence there is for a young Earth that doesn't conflict with modern science.

...Magic? I dunno.
Seriously, that's pretty much what Creationists bang it on. God got bored, made the universe, and "Saw that it was good".

What else is their to this thread? Creationists think the Earth is young, with disregard for what Science says, for the most part.

EDIT:
SWF user Egruntz has asked that I post this on his behalf. Yes, I know it's bending the rules a little, but I'm a softie, and would feel bad refusing.
So give me an infraction or two. Besides, I feel it'll give us all something to debate on. I won't make a habit of this.
The following rant is NOT what I think:

Egruntz:
You asked why Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. I have not looked further into this, but these are the notes that I took when studying this subject. I don't know if all of it's true, but this is what most Christians think.

If you go through the Bible and add up the dates, you will find out that the Bible dates add up to about 6000 years to total human history. If scripture isn’t enough evidence to support the age of the Earth being 6000 years, then the only other way to gain evidence is to disprove the other theories (this case, being Evolution).

There are six different meanings to evolution. Out of those six, only 1 has truly been observed. The six different types are:

Cosmic evolution – the origin of time, space, and matter. (Big Bang)
hemical evolution – the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution – origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution – origin of life.
Macro-evolution – changing from one kind to another.
Micro-evolution – variations within kids.

Only micro-evolution has been truly observed. The other five are all religious beliefs (evolution being the belief). First, let’s talk about the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory states that all matter existing formed into a compressed, supposedly “smaller than a period on this page”. This dot begun to spin, and as it spun it got faster and faster, until the point where it eventually exploded, giving us our universe.

Did you know that the word “universe” comes from two Latin words?

”Uni” meaning “single”
and “verse” meaning “spoken”
“Let there be light,” anyone?

Going back to the Big Bang theory, there is a physics law called the Conservation of Angular Momentum. To give an example of what this law says, think about kids on a merry-go-round. The merry-go-round is spinning 100 mph clockwise. If the kids on the merry-go-round were to fly off, they’d be spinning clockwise as they soar through the air. This is the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.

The Big Bang theory says that all of the matter was spinning until it eventually exploded. This would mean that all of the scattered material would be spinning in the same direction, correct? Isn’t it odd then, that Uranus, Venus, and Pluto spin in the opposite direction as the rest of the planets? There are also six or so moons that spin backwards, a few even revolve around their planet backwards. Now, there’s something wrong with that.

Continuing on, remember that Evolutionists believe that the Earth is millions of years old. According to the Bible, 6000 years ago, God made Earth. 4400 years ago, there was the flood (Noah’s flood). This flood left only 8 living people on the Earth.

From 4400 years ago until now, the word’s human population has grown by 6 billion. For 4400 years, that population growth curve seems just about right. If the world were to be three million years old, our population would be 150,000 people per square inch. If you’d ask me, that’s pretty crowded!

The Sahara Desert is the largest desert in the world. It grows four miles per year. Researchers have found that the Sahara desert is four thousand years old. If the Earth was millions of years old, why is it that the oldest desert on Earth is only four thousand years old? Well the answer is quite simple: it’d be kind of hard for a desert to grow underneath a gigantic flood.

Going further on, let’s talk about some super novas and the like. Astronomers have observed that about every thirty years a star “dies” and explodes into a super nova. If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than three hundred super novas? There should be several hundred million of them. Are the stars wrong, or the evolution theory?

Evolution states that the transformation from a red giant to a white dwarf star takes billions of years. Here are some records of the white dwarf Sirius:

Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2000 B.C. described Sirius as a red star.
Cicero, in 50 B.C., stated that Sirius was red.
Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars.
Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 A.D.
Today it is a white star-binary.
Evolution says it should take billions of years for this to happen, while it obviously doesn’t; actually, it happens in a few thousand years.

Finishing, let’s talk about the moon. As the moon revolves around the Earth, it gradually moves farther away. Each year the moon moves outward 1.5 inches. If the Earth, along with its moon, was millions of years old, our moon would be much farther from us than what it is.

And these are just a few of the many facts that help disprove Evolution. All of this information came from Dr. Kent Hovid’s (AKA: Dr. Dino’s) video called “Age of the Earth”. I recommend that you watch his video for more information on the matter.

So, you have my belief and my reasoning. The Earth is 6000 years old.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Egruntz:
If you go through the Bible and add up the dates, you will find out that the Bible dates add up to about 6000 years to total human history. If scripture isn’t enough evidence to support the age of the Earth being 6000 years, then the only other way to gain evidence is to disprove the other theories (this case, being Evolution).

Humans predate written history, and written history is older than the bible. Historical documents in China are a thousand years older than the material in the bible.

There are six different meanings to evolution. Out of those six, only 1 has truly been observed. The six different types are:

Cosmic evolution – the origin of time, space, and matter. (Big Bang)
hemical evolution – the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution – origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution – origin of life.
Macro-evolution – changing from one kind to another.
Micro-evolution – variations within kids.

Only micro-evolution has been truly observed. The other five are all religious beliefs (evolution being the belief).

These theories are scientific theories not simple beliefs. They are based on large amounts of observed data and often corroborated with experimentation.

First, let’s talk about the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory states that all matter existing formed into a compressed, supposedly “smaller than a period on this page”. This dot begun to spin, and as it spun it got faster and faster, until the point where it eventually exploded, giving us our universe.

Did you know that the word “universe” comes from two Latin words?

”Uni” meaning “single”
and “verse” meaning “spoken”
“Let there be light,” anyone?

I don't see how the etymology of the word can be used to prove the age of the Earth. We have plenty of mislabeled things.

Going back to the Big Bang theory, there is a physics law called the Conservation of Angular Momentum. To give an example of what this law says, think about kids on a merry-go-round. The merry-go-round is spinning 100 mph clockwise. If the kids on the merry-go-round were to fly off, they’d be spinning clockwise as they soar through the air. This is the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.

If the children were spinning independent of the merry go round, they would spin as they flew from a right angle of the tangent of the point they were let go, in a straight line, not in a curve.

The Big Bang theory says that all of the matter was spinning until it eventually exploded. This would mean that all of the scattered material would be spinning in the same direction, correct? Isn’t it odd then, that Uranus, Venus, and Pluto spin in the opposite direction as the rest of the planets? There are also six or so moons that spin backwards, a few even revolve around their planet backwards. Now, there’s something wrong with that.

If you took astronomy then you'd learn that the motion of a spinning object in space has everything to do with the way it was formed. There is nothing in the laws of physics which preclude an object to have one specific spin over another, unless acted upon by other forces.

Continuing on, remember that Evolutionists believe that the Earth is millions of years old. According to the Bible, 6000 years ago, God made Earth. 4400 years ago, there was the flood (Noah’s flood). This flood left only 8 living people on the Earth.

Four and a half billion years old, actually.

From 4400 years ago until now, the word’s human population has grown by 6 billion. For 4400 years, that population growth curve seems just about right. If the world were to be three million years old, our population would be 150,000 people per square inch. If you’d ask me, that’s pretty crowded!

Where did you get this data? The human population of the Earth has gone through significant upswings and downswings through human history. Due to war, disease or technological development and better medical techniques. There isn't a specific mathematical curve that denotes human population growth.

The Sahara Desert is the largest desert in the world. It grows four miles per year. Researchers have found that the Sahara desert is four thousand years old. If the Earth was millions of years old, why is it that the oldest desert on Earth is only four thousand years old? Well the answer is quite simple: it’d be kind of hard for a desert to grow underneath a gigantic flood.

The oldest desert on Earth is in Antarctica, not Africa. And the Sahara hasn't always been a desert.

Going further on, let’s talk about some super novas and the like. Astronomers have observed that about every thirty years a star “dies” and explodes into a super nova. If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than three hundred super novas? There should be several hundred million of them. Are the stars wrong, or the evolution theory?

What?

Evolution states that the transformation from a red giant to a white dwarf star takes billions of years. Here are some records of the white dwarf Sirius:

Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2000 B.C. described Sirius as a red star.
Cicero, in 50 B.C., stated that Sirius was red.
Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars.
Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 A.D.
Today it is a white star-binary.
Evolution says it should take billions of years for this to happen, while it obviously doesn’t; actually, it happens in a few thousand years.

Again, what?

Finishing, let’s talk about the moon. As the moon revolves around the Earth, it gradually moves farther away. Each year the moon moves outward 1.5 inches. If the Earth, along with its moon, was millions of years old, our moon would be much farther from us than what it is.

Why are you assuming that the Terra and Luna were formed at the same time? The theory of the Moon's formation puts it quite a bit after the formation of the Earth.

And these are just a few of the many facts that help disprove Evolution. All of this information came from Dr. Kent Hovid’s (AKA: Dr. Dino’s) video called “Age of the Earth”. I recommend that you watch his video for more information on the matter.

So, you have my belief and my reasoning. The Earth is 6000 years old.

You should really take a class on astronomy. You'd find out a whole bunch of cool nifty things about the Sol system and our universe.

 

[Rici]

Also, Dr. Kent Hovid says that there should not be false information in the school books, since he thinks that teaching kids the theory of Evolution is lying to them. That and the books are payed by tax money and we don't want to waste our money on spending false information now, do we?

Funny thing is, our so called Dr. is now doing jail time for not paying his taxes, and his degree is fake. So now he is lying to the kids about him being a Dr. AND he is complaining about books being made of HIS tax money, what he didn't pay. Hypocrite, anyone?

 

[AltF4]

You have more patience than I, Gamer4Fire. I stopped after

scripture isn’t enough evidence to support the age of the Earth being 6000 years, then the only other way to gain evidence is to disprove the other theories (this case, being Evolution).

The entire premise is wrong right there.

For apparently not knowing anything about science, that guy sure did write a lot. Usually inane responses are brief. That guy kept the bs flowing for a long time.

 

[Digital Watches]

A lot of this guy's assumptions seem to stem from some pretty flawed conclusions in general, but since G4F refuted most of them, I'll stick to the ones he didn't make much comment on.

As far as the "supernova" argument goes, the fact that we haven't documented every supernova to ever occur doesn't mean that they didn't. No one's claiming that modern science knows everything, and to claim that this is ample reason to start explaining things with religious mysticism is utter nonsense.

As far as Sirius' color goes, my astronomy isn't very good, but even if all of your information is correct, and ignoring the possibility of simple human observational error on the part of our (significantly less technologically advanced) predecessors in this field, you don't seem to account for the fact that there's no way of knowing when exactly in the star's life the ancient Egyptians saw it. It may well take billions of years for a red star to turn white (Could someone bring up some facts on this? Again, I'm pretty weak in astronomy knowledge), but they didn't have the star classification system we have now, and even if they did, there's no reason to discount the possibility that they saw it near the end of its time as a "red" star (At least on a cosmological scale).

 

[Xsyven]

Wow. I have a test about geologic time tomorrow. It's basically the concept about a rock's halflifes and stuff. Evidence from this points to the 4.5b mark, and whatnot.

I don't want to go on about it, because it makes me want to shoot myself. I just thought it was weird that this was being discussed as I study it for a final.

 

[Indigo4]

I guess it comes down to an issue of faith. Me personally? I'm a creationist, but I won't deny fact. I believe that God made this Universe long long ago, but only "recently" made Earth inhabitable with humans. It's hard to think of humans as beings who have lived here for more than 6000 years, because we'd be much more advanced IMO. But this planet has to be ancient. So here's my theroy about what happened.

The Earth and the universe were created by God billions of Earth years ago. The Earth then was primative and had all the dinosaurs, sea creatures like trilobites, and all your other rather primitave beings that God made at that time. But then, a meteor struck, and destroyed all these things, and made the world an uninhabitable place. Whether that meteor was sent by God, or simply allowed by him, I don't know. But moving on. So the meteor destroyed the life of the planet. After the cooling of the planet, God decided to create humans. And I believe this to only be about 6000 or so years ago. Thus the story of the 7 days of creation, which I believe to be 7 actually Earth days rather than the 1000 some speculate, comes into play.

So, Gamer4Fire, I guess what I'm trying to say is this. Humans are new beings, (Around 6000 yrs old) but this planet has seen quite a lot. (Billions of years.) Here's a source that supports religion AND science in harmony, and if you picture what I said about the meteor, and see this source as a Post-meteor account of the worlds "Rebirth," then it all makes sense!

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/sevncrea.htm

Thoughts? :]

 

[cF=)]

Thoughts? :]

My 3 million years old ancestor disagrees.

-- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article645643.ece

 

[Digital Watches]

I guess it comes down to an issue of faith. Me personally? I'm a creationist, but I won't deny fact. I believe that God made this Universe long long ago, but only "recently" made Earth inhabitable with humans. It's hard to think of humans as beings who have lived here for more than 6000 years, because we'd be much more advanced IMO. But this planet has to be ancient.

See, here's where, in my opinion, the whole thing kind of falls apart. Don't worry about it too much, most arguments for young earth or intelligent design fall apart in the same way.

What is your criteria? What is your basis for this assumption? If you're not quite clear on what I mean, I'll quote it more specifically.

It's hard to think of humans as beings who have lived here for more than 6000 years, because we'd be much more advanced IMO.

The thing is, you're drawing an arbitrary conclusion from nothing. What is it that makes you think that human technology should be more advanced? Can you bring up a reputable archeological study that shows that human technology, under our current timescale, didn't progress at all, or slowed to a grinding snail's pace, for some long period of time for no sensible reason? Even then, your explanation for this phenomenon is largely insufficient. The only reason a god doing it is "more likely" than, for example, humans coming in from another dimension and altering their memories so as not to remember their origin, is that a lot of people believe it (Textbook Argumentum ad Populum, a classical logical fallacy). Because when it comes down to it, every argument made for a religious theory over a scientific one will inevitably boil down to either that, or the fact that it can't be overtly disproven (which my theory, which I spent all of ten seconds coming up with, can't either).

And I'm not saying that religions can't possibly come up with valid explanation for things, but I am saying that an explanation is NOT valid or feasible just by virtue of being religious, which is an assumption that many people are more than willing to make in debates such as this.

So when you say "I think that if humans were here for more than 6000 years, our technology would have progressed further than it has now," without even a breath of explanation for why this assumption isn't just random, it's no better than Michael Behe and the like saying "This natural phenomenon is irreducibly complex, therefore must have been overtly designed." It's an argument based on something which is not a given, not proven, not even observed or explained, but is still somehow thought to be better than just saying "It's true because I said so," even though that's basically all it is.

 

[AltF4]

The Earth and the universe were created by God billions of Earth years ago. The Earth then was primative and had all the dinosaurs, sea creatures like trilobites, and all your other rather primitave beings that God made at that time. But then, a meteor struck, and destroyed all these things, and made the world an uninhabitable place. Whether that meteor was sent by God, or simply allowed by him, I don't know. But moving on. So the meteor destroyed the life of the planet. After the cooling of the planet, God decided to create humans. And I believe this to only be about 6000 or so years ago. Thus the story of the 7 days of creation, which I believe to be 7 actually Earth days rather than the 1000 some speculate, comes into play.

The Earth was not created directly in the big bang. Neither our Sun. The sun is a second (or third, we're not sure) generation star. After the bang itself, the first group of stars coalesced. They lit up, burned out, and exploded. The remnants of these stars formed the planets and future stars. (The heavier elements formed by the first stars made the planets, the left over gases coalesced again into more stars)

That's not a terrible summation of things.

 

[Indigo4]

cF=), I got a 404 error when I clicked on your link. If you have another similar, please post.

Digital watches, I apologize for not giving more of a reason. Ok, well, how should I put this? I feel that if humans had been here for much longer than that, then there would at least be more evidence of human achivement. I realize time wears away all things, but there are still pyramids and Mayan temples of old times, and that was only a few thousand years ago. I would also think more writings or such would have existed as well. And if we had been here for billions of years, or however long, I base the argument of our progress on human intelligence. I mean, just around 5000-6000 years ago (Around the origin of when I believe humans appeard) The wheel was invented. Simple invention, albeit, but nonetheless, important. If in the very beginning of human achievement the wheel was created, and it took us only 6000 years to get where we are now, think of the possibilities of 1 billion years, even just 1 million. And while some may bring up the issue of neanderthals being much older than 6000 years, I would possibly go as far to say that they did indeed live with the dinosaurs in the period before the meteor, possibly as a "First attempt," for lack of better wording. But I don't believe they were humans. Possibly similar, but not quite. After the metoer and the cooling, God made humans, and the things we find are simply from before the meteor. And while Pangea seperated by rifts, I wonder if the meteor was possibly a catalyst for it's seperation. But that's a whole other argument. So I guess I'll answer your question with a question: If humans actually evolved from a single cell, as evolutionist believe, when did a human...become a human, and have we quit evolving yet? Is a neanderthal a human in your opinion, or as I said, something completley different?

I understand many feel that religion is simply a fairy tale, and that anyone who follows it discredits science. I don't. I fully believe the universe it very, very old. The cycles of stars, as AltF4 brought up, is proof in a simple form that our universe has indeed seen a lot. Fossils alone on Earth are a photograph of a much earlier time. MUCH MUCH earlier. I'm not denying the age of the Earth. However, I do find the big bang theroy hard to believe. Everything on Earth has signs of intellegent design, from the complexity of the human brain to the simplicity of a blade of grass. It all seems so...planned, which is why I believe humans were created, and only recently, because as I brought up above, I think we'd be much more advanced had we been here longer. So...I hope that's a better explanation of how I think. Sorry, I need to quit being so vauge. -.-()

 

[Digital Watches]

I think part of the problem here is that you're mistaken on the current prevailing scientific theory on how long humans have been here, because modern humans as we know them have only really been around for 200,000 years according to DNA evidence. Now, allowing for a necessity to bolster the population after the initial species was recognizable, a phase in which survival is valued, and probably a few kinks as far as ice ages and such, and the theories that some biologists and evolutionary psychologists are coming up with as far as further evolution of the human species to produce things like new tools and art, then it becomes a lot more plausible that the alleged first great human invention falls around 4000 BCE in Mesopotamia (Point of interest: Mesopotamia is the first recorded large human civilization.)

 

[AltF4]

I've always had a theory that we as humans have stopped our own evolution through modern medicine. I mean, the weak don't die anymore. If someone has weak bones, today they can still procreate and give their condition to their children. We've sort of stopped natural selection in ourselves, you know?

 

[cF=)]

Evolution is the process of adapting to an environment over time through biological mishaps. Perhaps having everybody reproducing will hinder some of the changes (physical force for example), but I'm born without wisdom teeth and will probably cary this gene to the next generation. It's still evolution imo.

 

[gtkdltk007]

If you have ever been invovled in Judaism then you would know this - the fossils in teh ground and old material that is claimed by scientists to be billions of years old, was actually a test by God, placed in there on purpose, and made to look like such, so that the people of the Earth's faith could be tested.

Now, even though I;m Jewish, one can never be too skeptical. This is only one more theory about how Old the Earth is and WHY it is this way. So, according to Judaism, the calendar year is how old the Earth is.

But that doesn't mean I totally agree with this. I have my doubts.

 

[Mediocre]

So, according to Judaism, the calendar year is how old the Earth is.

You're saying the world began when Christ was born, after the writing of the Old Testament?

Somehow, I'm a little skeptical.

 

[adumbrodeus]

cF=), I got a 404 error when I clicked on your link. If you have another similar, please post.

Digital watches, I apologize for not giving more of a reason. Ok, well, how should I put this? I feel that if humans had been here for much longer than that, then there would at least be more evidence of human achivement. I realize time wears away all things, but there are still pyramids and Mayan temples of old times, and that was only a few thousand years ago. I would also think more writings or such would have existed as well. And if we had been here for billions of years, or however long, I base the argument of our progress on human intelligence. I mean, just around 5000-6000 years ago (Around the origin of when I believe humans appeard) The wheel was invented. Simple invention, albeit, but nonetheless, important. If in the very beginning of human achievement the wheel was created, and it took us only 6000 years to get where we are now, think of the possibilities of 1 billion years, even just 1 million. And while some may bring up the issue of neanderthals being much older than 6000 years, I would possibly go as far to say that they did indeed live with the dinosaurs in the period before the meteor, possibly as a "First attempt," for lack of better wording. But I don't believe they were humans. Possibly similar, but not quite. After the metoer and the cooling, God made humans, and the things we find are simply from before the meteor. And while Pangea seperated by rifts, I wonder if the meteor was possibly a catalyst for it's seperation. But that's a whole other argument. So I guess I'll answer your question with a question: If humans actually evolved from a single cell, as evolutionist believe, when did a human...become a human, and have we quit evolving yet? Is a neanderthal a human in your opinion, or as I said, something completley different?

I understand many feel that religion is simply a fairy tale, and that anyone who follows it discredits science. I don't. I fully believe the universe it very, very old. The cycles of stars, as AltF4 brought up, is proof in a simple form that our universe has indeed seen a lot. Fossils alone on Earth are a photograph of a much earlier time. MUCH MUCH earlier. I'm not denying the age of the Earth. However, I do find the big bang theroy hard to believe. Everything on Earth has signs of intellegent design, from the complexity of the human brain to the simplicity of a blade of grass. It all seems so...planned, which is why I believe humans were created, and only recently, because as I brought up above, I think we'd be much more advanced had we been here longer. So...I hope that's a better explanation of how I think. Sorry, I need to quit being so vauge. -.-()

There is actually, there are cave paintings and the like.

The fact is there is human and there is Human.

There are individuals close enough to us genetically to be homo-sapiens and then there are those that are essentially equivalent to us without all our knowledge as a background.

Of course it's difficult to draw exactly where the distinction is, because for a long time, humans were just trying to survive, they had little better then the bare minimum, and they simply couldn't create much culture, they lacked the time to consider it. At a certain point, that changed, and we started to see religion, and actual evidence of culture.

You see, when you're literally starving to death, it's difficult to create a piece of art, let alone a castle.

...Magic? I dunno.
Seriously, that's pretty much what Creationists bang it on. God got bored, made the universe, and "Saw that it was good".

What else is their to this thread? Creationists think the Earth is young, with disregard for what Science says, for the most part.

EDIT:
SWF user Egruntz has asked that I post this on his behalf. Yes, I know it's bending the rules a little, but I'm a softie, and would feel bad refusing.
So give me an infraction or two. Besides, I feel it'll give us all something to debate on. I won't make a habit of this.
The following rant is NOT what I think:

Egruntz:
You asked why Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. I have not looked further into this, but these are the notes that I took when studying this subject. I don't know if all of it's true, but this is what most Christians think.

If you go through the Bible and add up the dates, you will find out that the Bible dates add up to about 6000 years to total human history. If scripture isn’t enough evidence to support the age of the Earth being 6000 years, then the only other way to gain evidence is to disprove the other theories (this case, being Evolution).

There are six different meanings to evolution. Out of those six, only 1 has truly been observed. The six different types are:

Cosmic evolution – the origin of time, space, and matter. (Big Bang)
hemical evolution – the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution – origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution – origin of life.
Macro-evolution – changing from one kind to another.
Micro-evolution – variations within kids.

Only micro-evolution has been truly observed. The other five are all religious beliefs (evolution being the belief). First, let’s talk about the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory states that all matter existing formed into a compressed, supposedly “smaller than a period on this page”. This dot begun to spin, and as it spun it got faster and faster, until the point where it eventually exploded, giving us our universe.

Did you know that the word “universe” comes from two Latin words?

”Uni” meaning “single”
and “verse” meaning “spoken”
“Let there be light,” anyone?

Going back to the Big Bang theory, there is a physics law called the Conservation of Angular Momentum. To give an example of what this law says, think about kids on a merry-go-round. The merry-go-round is spinning 100 mph clockwise. If the kids on the merry-go-round were to fly off, they’d be spinning clockwise as they soar through the air. This is the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.

The Big Bang theory says that all of the matter was spinning until it eventually exploded. This would mean that all of the scattered material would be spinning in the same direction, correct? Isn’t it odd then, that Uranus, Venus, and Pluto spin in the opposite direction as the rest of the planets? There are also six or so moons that spin backwards, a few even revolve around their planet backwards. Now, there’s something wrong with that.

Continuing on, remember that Evolutionists believe that the Earth is millions of years old. According to the Bible, 6000 years ago, God made Earth. 4400 years ago, there was the flood (Noah’s flood). This flood left only 8 living people on the Earth.

From 4400 years ago until now, the word’s human population has grown by 6 billion. For 4400 years, that population growth curve seems just about right. If the world were to be three million years old, our population would be 150,000 people per square inch. If you’d ask me, that’s pretty crowded!

The Sahara Desert is the largest desert in the world. It grows four miles per year. Researchers have found that the Sahara desert is four thousand years old. If the Earth was millions of years old, why is it that the oldest desert on Earth is only four thousand years old? Well the answer is quite simple: it’d be kind of hard for a desert to grow underneath a gigantic flood.

Going further on, let’s talk about some super novas and the like. Astronomers have observed that about every thirty years a star “dies” and explodes into a super nova. If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than three hundred super novas? There should be several hundred million of them. Are the stars wrong, or the evolution theory?

Evolution states that the transformation from a red giant to a white dwarf star takes billions of years. Here are some records of the white dwarf Sirius:

Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2000 B.C. described Sirius as a red star.
Cicero, in 50 B.C., stated that Sirius was red.
Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars.
Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 A.D.
Today it is a white star-binary.
Evolution says it should take billions of years for this to happen, while it obviously doesn’t; actually, it happens in a few thousand years.

Finishing, let’s talk about the moon. As the moon revolves around the Earth, it gradually moves farther away. Each year the moon moves outward 1.5 inches. If the Earth, along with its moon, was millions of years old, our moon would be much farther from us than what it is.

And these are just a few of the many facts that help disprove Evolution. All of this information came from Dr. Kent Hovid’s (AKA: Dr. Dino’s) video called “Age of the Earth”. I recommend that you watch his video for more information on the matter.

So, you have my belief and my reasoning. The Earth is 6000 years old.

Kudos to black adder for actually getting some opinion out here on this for us to hack at, even if it isn't his own. I see no issue with allowing debaters to post things created by others on the site, assuming they pre-screen them for consistency with the rules, and a certain level of intelligence.



Now on to the post itself, I think the key issue that hasn't really been brought up is not so much the inaccuracy of the points, which of course is true, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

While if we were to accept these points as adversely effecting the current scientific theory, we don't jump to the conclusion that it all just "happened". The scientific method is to reject the current null hypothesis and come up with one that better explains the evidence we have.

So while if we were to accept these things as evidence evolution, it might disprove evolution, but it doesn't prove young earth creationalism.

In order for creationalism to be the new null, you need evidence that young earth creationalism is actually what occurs and synergizes with observed scientific phenomenon, of which there is none. That is the Achilles Heel of the argument, because without that, even if this was correct, a better theory of evolution would replace it.




Now, a few points that irked me.

There are six different meanings to evolution. Out of those six, only 1 has truly been observed. The six different types are:

Cosmic evolution – the origin of time, space, and matter. (Big Bang)
hemical evolution – the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution – origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution – origin of life.
Macro-evolution – changing from one kind to another.
Micro-evolution – variations within kids.

Only micro-evolution has been truly observed. The other five are all religious beliefs (evolution being the belief). First, let’s talk about the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory states that all matter existing formed into a compressed, supposedly “smaller than a period on this page”. This dot begun to spin, and as it spun it got faster and faster, until the point where it eventually exploded, giving us our universe.

Correction, 1 and 4 haven't been directly observed, hence they are the most fluid of theories. But the understanding that the Earth is over a billion years old doesn't require either.

Chemical evolution is just a reaction that can be done in a lab, I have friends who do that sort of thing and can tell me the exact conditions which it occurs. By "coincidence" such conditions occur naturally.

Stellar and planetary evolution is seem at varying stages throughout the universe, granted we haven't seen it continuously on one system, but we've seen enough between different planets and stars to know what occurs by observing celestial bodies at the end of stages.

Macro and micro evolution are the same thing on different scales. Micro-evolution is merely the single steps that eventually conglomerate into the mile that is macro-evolution, thus it's a false distinction. The only possible barrier is speciation (a new species diverging from an established one), and Darwin observed that when he wrote the Origin of Species, so it's nothing new.

So yes, variations within kids build up until you end up with a new species, and this is most evident when you a single species geographically separated, and thus have different mutations which separate the groups over time.

Going back to the Big Bang theory, there is a physics law called the Conservation of Angular Momentum. To give an example of what this law says, think about kids on a merry-go-round. The merry-go-round is spinning 100 mph clockwise. If the kids on the merry-go-round were to fly off, they’d be spinning clockwise as they soar through the air. This is the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.

My physics teacher would probably throttle you if he heard that.

No, you're describing a weakening of the centrifugal force (assuming you mean they'd soar farther out, if not, well then you're describing what happens if the force remains), not it ending.

A little basic understanding, at any given time, the kids' momentum is a straight line, that is the angular momentum being preserved. What happens is that another force acts on them to keep them spinning, constantly pushing the kids inwards, making it appear that they have circular momentum, such a force doing this is call centrifugal force.

Were that force to stop suddenly (since it's the merry-go-round itself in this case, were it to disappear) the momentum that the kids had would just stay the same as it was the moment it disappeared, meaning straight lines. You can test this yourself, get a ball on a string, spin it around, hard, and just let go completely, it'll fly basically in the direction it was going (gravity still messes with it, but if it's going down this won't be an issue).

The Big Bang theory says that all of the matter was spinning until it eventually exploded. This would mean that all of the scattered material would be spinning in the same direction, correct? Isn’t it odd then, that Uranus, Venus, and Pluto spin in the opposite direction as the rest of the planets? There are also six or so moons that spin backwards, a few even revolve around their planet backwards. Now, there’s something wrong with that.

The forces leftover from the big bang aren't the only forces in the universe, there's also gravity, celestial bodies exploding, etc. Any force could cause a chain reaction that would induce a backwards spin.

Continuing on, remember that Evolutionists believe that the Earth is millions of years old. According to the Bible, 6000 years ago, God made Earth. 4400 years ago, there was the flood (Noah’s flood). This flood left only 8 living people on the Earth.

From 4400 years ago until now, the word’s human population has grown by 6 billion. For 4400 years, that population growth curve seems just about right. If the world were to be three million years old, our population would be 150,000 people per square inch. If you’d ask me, that’s pretty crowded!

Assuming the flood is begging the Question....

Ok, so the problem with that assumption is that the population growth has never been consistent. The modern growth curve only started to appear in the industrial revolution because of the consistent food supply, at many points it was actually negative.

Going further on, let’s talk about some super novas and the like. Astronomers have observed that about every thirty years a star “dies” and explodes into a super nova. If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than three hundred super novas? There should be several hundred million of them. Are the stars wrong, or the evolution theory?

30 years? Erm, no. Not even all stars are capable of it, let alone every star every 30 years. That occurs at the end of a star's life cycle, which is billions of years, and only for a select few.

Evolution states that the transformation from a red giant to a white dwarf star takes billions of years. Here are some records of the white dwarf Sirius:

Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2000 B.C. described Sirius as a red star.
Cicero, in 50 B.C., stated that Sirius was red.
Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars.
Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 A.D.
Today it is a white star-binary.
Evolution says it should take billions of years for this to happen, while it obviously doesn’t; actually, it happens in a few thousand years.

Those points in recorded history are at the relative end of it's time as a Red Giant, it had already been at that stage a long time before people had been observing it. Actually such observations strengthen the point because they allow views of different times in a star's life.

 

[Eor]

You're saying the world began when Christ was born, after the writing of the Old Testament?

Somehow, I'm a little skeptical.

I think he's talking about the Hebrew Calender, which is our years + 3760

 

[Jihnsius]

There are six different meanings to evolution. Out of those six, only 1 has truly been observed. The six different types are:

Cosmic evolution – the origin of time, space, and matter. (Big Bang)
hemical evolution – the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution – origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution – origin of life.
Macro-evolution – changing from one kind to another.
Micro-evolution – variations within kids.

Only micro-evolution has been truly observed. The other five are all religious beliefs (evolution being the belief). First, let’s talk about the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory states that all matter existing formed into a compressed, supposedly “smaller than a period on this page”. This dot begun to spin, and as it spun it got faster and faster, until the point where it eventually exploded, giving us our universe.

Actually, of those six, five of those have been observed. Not physically through our senses, but they've been proven to be possible mathematically and scientifically.

Did you know that the word “universe” comes from two Latin words?

”Uni” meaning “single”
and “verse” meaning “spoken”
“Let there be light,” anyone?

Did you know that at the time of Latin being one of the primary languages on the planet that evolution was unheard of and everyone relied on religion for reasoning?

Going back to the Big Bang theory, there is a physics law called the Conservation of Angular Momentum. To give an example of what this law says, think about kids on a merry-go-round. The merry-go-round is spinning 100 mph clockwise. If the kids on the merry-go-round were to fly off, they’d be spinning clockwise as they soar through the air. This is the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.

The Big Bang theory says that all of the matter was spinning until it eventually exploded. This would mean that all of the scattered material would be spinning in the same direction, correct? Isn’t it odd then, that Uranus, Venus, and Pluto spin in the opposite direction as the rest of the planets? There are also six or so moons that spin backwards, a few even revolve around their planet backwards. Now, there’s something wrong with that.

Take into consideration that angular momentum only applies to groups in a closed system. All planets that orbit their respective stars backwards are not the closed system, but the star system itself is.

"angular momentum of an object rotating about some reference point is the measure of the extent to which the object will continue to rotate about that point unless acted upon by an external torque."

The external torque in the case of individual planets can be said to include the rest of the universe, all tangible and intangible states. To take it down a metalevel, let's take a look at that example of the merry-go-round. In theory, without any friction, if you were to spin it it would continue spinning until something were to interrupt it. If you look at the inverse, too, spinning that merry-go-round would cause the Earth to spin in the opposite direction at the opposite velocity. This is how it works, except the mass of the merry-go-round is so minute to Earth that the negative velocity you apply to the planet is so insignificant that it's unnoticeable. With friction (as in the real world where angular velocity applies), the ground and air (and everything that interact between the two objects) would eventually cancel out the velocity applied.

Continuing on, remember that Evolutionists believe that the Earth is millions of years old. According to the Bible, 6000 years ago, God made Earth. 4400 years ago, there was the flood (Noah’s flood). This flood left only 8 living people on the Earth.

From 4400 years ago until now, the word’s human population has grown by 6 billion. For 4400 years, that population growth curve seems just about right. If the world were to be three million years old, our population would be 150,000 people per square inch. If you’d ask me, that’s pretty crowded!

Let's do a little bit of math. Say there are two people alive at time A, male and female that are of age to reproduce (let's just estimate that 15 years is how long they live before they can reproduce.) They have two children, one male and one female. The population is now 4. 15 years pass and two more children are born. The population is now 6. At this rate, within 4400 years, the total population of Earth would be around 600. That isn't very reasonable, but then again that's linear - not a curve. Let's do a curve. For every female 15 years of age, they create three children - two female and one male. Starting at 3 people (for conveniences sake,) each female has three children each, two of which are female (four in total.) Thus, every 15 years the population doubles. At this rate, within 500 years the population would already be over the population we have today. From these numbers we can conclude that no matter which equation you can think of, there's no way to possibly explain the amount of people on the planet starting 4400 years back.

The Sahara Desert is the largest desert in the world. It grows four miles per year. Researchers have found that the Sahara desert is four thousand years old. If the Earth was millions of years old, why is it that the oldest desert on Earth is only four thousand years old? Well the answer is quite simple: it’d be kind of hard for a desert to grow underneath a gigantic flood.

What researchers are you listening to? As far as current science entails, the Sahara has existed for over 100,000 years. Mind, it has only been a dry area for around 50,000 years.

Going further on, let’s talk about some super novas and the like. Astronomers have observed that about every thirty years a star “dies” and explodes into a super nova. If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than three hundred super novas? There should be several hundred million of them. Are the stars wrong, or the evolution theory?

Actually, it's more close to every 50 years per galaxy. And what do you mean less than three hundred supernovae? You mean happening right now? If so, then there's really no way to determine how many are happening right now. If you mean since the beginning of the universe, then how would you possibly know that? How would any of us know that other than estimations?

Evolution states that the transformation from a red giant to a white dwarf star takes billions of years. Here are some records of the white dwarf Sirius:

Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2000 B.C. described Sirius as a red star.
Cicero, in 50 B.C., stated that Sirius was red.
Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars.
Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 A.D.
Today it is a white star-binary.
Evolution says it should take billions of years for this to happen, while it obviously doesn’t; actually, it happens in a few thousand years.

"Today, Sirius A is bluish white. The possibility that stellar evolution of either Sirius A or Sirius B could be responsible for this discrepancy has been rejected by astronomers on the grounds that the timescale of thousands of years is too short and that there is no sign of the nebulosity in the system that would be expected had such a change taken place. Alternative explanations are either that the description as red is a poetic metaphor for ill fortune, or that the dramatic scintillations of the star when it was observed rising left the viewer with the impression that it was red. To the naked eye, it often appears to be flashing with red, white and blue hues when near the horizon.[40] Also, not all ancient observers saw Sirius as red. Sirius is the standard star for the color white in ancient China, and multiple records from the 2nd century BC up to the 7th century AD all describe Sirius as white in hue."

Finishing, let’s talk about the moon. As the moon revolves around the Earth, it gradually moves farther away. Each year the moon moves outward 1.5 inches. If the Earth, along with its moon, was millions of years old, our moon would be much farther from us than what it is.

Rounding everything up for your sake here: the moon is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. At 1.5" per year, that'd be about 6.8 billion inches. 600 million feet. 120 thousand miles. Surprise! The moon is 250 thousand miles away. Did you even check your math?

And these are just a few of the many facts that help disprove Evolution. All of this information came from Dr. Kent Hovid’s (AKA: Dr. Dino’s) video called “Age of the Earth”. I recommend that you watch his video for more information on the matter.

So, you have my belief and my reasoning. The Earth is 6000 years old.

Not a single thing you said was fact. Check your reasoning and try again.

 

[Jeremy Feifer]

Egruntz:
You asked why Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old.

I'm a Christian and I'd like to see/know why exactly "Christians" believe that. I mean nowhere in the Bible doest it say how old the earth is.

Genesis 1
The Creation
1(A)In the beginning (B)God (C)created the heavens and the earth.
2The earth was [a](D)formless and void, and (E)darkness was over the surface of the deep, and (F)the Spirit of God (G)was moving over the surface of the waters.

3Then (H)God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

4God saw that the light was (I)good; and God (J)separated the light from the darkness.

5(K)God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And (L)there was evening and there was morning, one day.


Notice the bible didn't say "one day" till after god put light on the planet. Heaven was around when earth was still just nothing, we don't know how long the earth laid around until God added light. Thats all I'm saying.

 

[Florida]

Oh goodie, I'm able to post now.

Erhm, I'd just like to say that most of those things I've "posted" I now know to be completely false. I realize that the tape I took notes on for this is over 5 years old, and has been disproved by many scientists. Also I know Dr. Dino's current position in life (jail), and know him to be a hypocrite.

However, I still believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. His theories against Evolution were complete nonsense, yes, but his theory relating with the Bible is still something worthy to me. What I was trying to say in my first "post", is that the Christians that do believe the Earth is 6000 years old got it from the Bible.

Track the dates of human history in the Bible, and you'll get just about 6000 years worth. And if you believe in God, you most likely believe in the Bible. "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth," and you go on from there.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ok, the inevitable "Is God real?" debate is highly off-topic. There are two potential topics to get into.

1. Is the scientific prospective which we have been covering pretty well.
2. Is the religious prospective, which a few people on the board probably are qualified to answer in regards to what has been brought up so far, but I happen to have a good bit of expirience in this area, so I'll cover it.



Since the debate about whether there is a God is completely off-topic I ask that you all understand that this assumes a deity, and do not attack it based simply on that merit. Simply realize that this post is not applicable if the Christian Bible is not true. This is understood implicitly and you may safely ignor it.

However, I still believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. His theories against Evolution were complete nonsense, yes, but his theory relating with the Bible is still something worthy to me. What I was trying to say in my first "post", is that the Christians that do believe the Earth is 6000 years old got it from the Bible.

Where?

I would love to see the Biblical justification for young earth creationism, because I have done considerable study of the Bible and have yet to find anything that justifies such a conclusion.

I do find verses which say directly to the contrary, for instance Romans 1:20, "For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable."

In other words, the attributes of the universe are the results of God's work and bear witness to his power. I'm sure you know how it is commonly used, but this also gives the understanding that by denying the attributes of the universe, you are denying the work of the one who made the universe, therefore denying God.

Science seeks to understand these attributes, and to deny what it has discovered of the universe (without of course, proof that the universe has different attributes from the workings of the universe itself) is implicitly denying God.

Track the dates of human history in the Bible, and you'll get just about 6000 years worth. And if you believe in God, you most likely believe in the Bible. "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth," and you go on from there.

Might I ask where precisely this came from?


Furthermore, you are assuming that humans have been around since the beginning of Earth. But really, the Bible doesn't state that. It it gives a very general statement that is akin to "a period of time" in the original Hebrew, even though many modern Bibles translate it as "day". The closest translation would probably be "era" since era has no set period of time, however even it still is not correct since it implies that the time was longer then say, a day.


In addition, the wording says "there was light." Not "God made light", he simply spoke it into existence. The Douay Rheims Bible gives it as "And light was made". It did not spring into existence at that period, instead it's an imperfect tense term meaning that it occurred sometime in the past, not only did God make light for then, but he made it exist (or have the potential to exist) for all eternity prior and after he had spoken it into existence. At that point, "light" was implanted in the timeline.

How specific instances of light came to exist is of course, covered by the laws of the universe covering light which came into being when God spoke light into existence, but the point is, when God spoke it into existence, light always existed as either potential or itself.

The same logic follows for all creation, the when God spoke them into existence, they became implanted into the timeline with accompanying universal laws, always having the potential to exist.



PS. Not going to go into the assumption that most people are Christians beyond the fact it's not true....

 

[Jeremy Feifer]

Track the dates of human history in the Bible, and you'll get just about 6000 years worth. And if you believe in God, you most likely believe in the Bible. "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth," and you go on from there.

Your exactly right when saying "Track the dates of human history in the Bible, and you'll get just about 6000 years worth"...but the question isn't how long have humans been around?, but rather how old is the earth? I'm a Christian and I'm not knocking you, its just if your going to use the bible, use it right. Do not twist scriptures.

 

[AltF4]

Science seeks to understand these attributes, and to deny what it has discovered of the universe (without of course, proof that the universe has different attributes from the workings of the universe itself) is implicitly denying God.

I couldn't agree more. If you believe in god, then you believe that god made science. Why would you then deny the findings of science? God clearly made the universe so that it obeys certain laws, science is trying to discover these laws. Why try to fight against it?

 

[cF=)]

I couldn't agree more. If you believe in god, then you believe that god made science. Why would you then deny the findings of science? God clearly made the universe so that it obeys certain laws, science is trying to discover these laws. Why try to fight against it?

Religion and science could work hand in hand, but the Genesis disagree with evolution. From this point, you either believe one or the other since they are mutually exclusive. I wouldn't mind if someone told me God created physics, but it won't make me discredit the ingenuity some people had to research all their lives in order to make science evolve (Newton and calculus for exemple). That's what I find wrong with religion, human beings have no importance by themselves, they are part of a divine scheme.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Religion and science could work hand in hand, but the Genesis disagree with evolution. From this point, you either believe one or the other since they are mutually exclusive. I wouldn't mind if someone told me God created physics, but it won't make me discredit the ingenuity some people had to research all their lives in order to make science evolve (Newton and calculus for exemple). That's what I find wrong with religion, human beings have no importance by themselves, they are part of a divine scheme.

Erm, two easy posibilities.

1. Metaphor

2. Primative attempt to discribe something they lacked the language to discribe properly at the time.


Either or both are pretty easy to argue, but neither conflicts with modern scientific understanding.

 

[Erimir]

If scripture isn’t enough evidence to support the age of the Earth being 6000 years, then the only other way to gain evidence is to disprove the other theories (this case, being Evolution).

If! Ha! If! He says that as if it's debatable.

At any rate, disproving scientific theories about the age of the Earth does not prove Creationism. It could just as easily prove that Hindu accounts of the creation of the earth are correct.

There are six different meanings to evolution. Out of those six, only 1 has truly been observed. The six different types are:

Cosmic evolution – the origin of time, space, and matter. (Big Bang)
Chemical evolution – the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution – origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution – origin of life.
Macro-evolution – changing from one kind to another.
Micro-evolution – variations within kids.

The latter two are biological evolution. The rest are not related to "evolution" in the sense Hovind is talking about it. Although one could refer to the development of galaxies and such as "evolution" it has no real relation to biological evolution other than the fact that they are both kinds of development (you might as well link it to the the evolution of the automobile by that standard).

There are a few problems with the last two anyway. Macro and microevolution, when used by scientists, refer to evolution above or below the level of speciation. Kinds have nothing to do with it.

Which reminds me. Hovind has no definition of kind. There is no scientific criteria of what a "kind" is. Creationists tend to use "kind" as meaning "any category of organisms that is useful at the moment". Domesticated dogs are a kind, if necessary. If it is more convenient at another time, then dogs and wolves are. And at another time, all canids (dogs, wolves, jackals and foxes) are a kind.

Only micro-evolution has been truly observed.

Speciation has been observed. Larger changes are evident in the fossil record.

First, let’s talk about the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory states that all matter existing formed into a compressed, supposedly “smaller than a period on this page”. This dot begun to spin, and as it spun it got faster and faster, until the point where it eventually exploded, giving us our universe.

I haven't heard anything about spinning being an integral part of Big Bang theory, not to mention most of what you say following that has no relevance to the spin of the universe.

Did you know that the word “universe” comes from two Latin words?

”Uni” meaning “single”
and “verse” meaning “spoken”
“Let there be light,” anyone?

The Latin root "vers" does not mean "spoken". It means "turn, rotate, roll or change". This meaning can be seen in "reverse", for example. Not that it has any relevance.

The Big Bang theory says that all of the matter was spinning until it eventually exploded. This would mean that all of the scattered material would be spinning in the same direction, correct? Isn’t it odd then, that Uranus, Venus, and Pluto spin in the opposite direction as the rest of the planets? There are also six or so moons that spin backwards, a few even revolve around their planet backwards. Now, there’s something wrong with that.

That would suggest that the universe as a whole would be spinning in a particular direction, if anything. It does not suggest that every individual piece of the universe must be spinning in the same direction. The Milky Way rotates, but the rotation of Pluto or Venus has nothing to do with that.

Finishing, let’s talk about the moon. As the moon revolves around the Earth, it gradually moves farther away. Each year the moon moves outward 1.5 inches. If the Earth, along with its moon, was millions of years old, our moon would be much farther from us than what it is.

The amount the moon moves away from the earth does not remain constant over time. Earth's gravity becomes weaker the farther away the Moon gets from the Earth, therefore you would expect it to drift at an accelerating rate as it gets farther away. In other words, the Moon would not have been drifting away as quickly long ago.

And these are just a few of the many facts that help disprove Evolution.

The Moon and such has nothing to do with evolution.

I mean, just around 5000-6000 years ago (Around the origin of when I believe humans appeard) The wheel was invented. Simple invention, albeit, but nonetheless, important. If in the very beginning of human achievement the wheel was created, and it took us only 6000 years to get where we are now, think of the possibilities of 1 billion years, even just 1 million.

Human progress has been accelerating. The difference in human progress between 500 BCE and 500 CE is not a huge one. The difference between 500 CE and 1500 CE is much larger. And the difference between 1500 CE and 2000 CE is larger still. In other words, human progress was very, very slow for a long time. And considering that there are still hunter-gatherer societies to this day shows that technological progress is not an inevitability. It was perfectly possible for people to go through the entire past 6000 years with no "progress" at all.

So in other words... your assumption is completely wrong.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Erimir- His points have already been disproved by adumbrodeus, Jihnsius and myself. We don't need more people to do so. I know that it is glaringly wrong, but it has already been said (multiple times).

Please contribute in a more substantial way that doesn't involve repeating everyone else.

 

[Erimir]

That was not all just repeating. For example, nobody else had pointed out the fact that Hovind conflates astronomy with evolution, as if there's any inherent relation between the two. Nobody had criticized the concept of "kind". And nobody had pointed out that human progress has been accelerating over even the past few centuries and the existence of groups that have, to this day, not taken part in this "progress."

 

[Xzax Kasrani]

since the beggining of time >=P but it depends maybe a billion years?

 

[Gamer4Fire]

My point was that he was already discredited pretty well, not that all his arguments had been refuted to completion. The repetition and additional information wasn't necessary.

Do you have any information on how the Earth could be six thousand years old?

 

[Xzax Kasrani]

And if the Dinosaurs our over a million years old then hows its only six hundred thousand
years old?