Which of these 5 evidences of a young earth (thousands of years old, not millions or billions) is the hardest to defeat?

I think all 5 of these are very strong, especially the 5th option.

  • Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
    Vote A
  • Meteroites
    Vote B
  • Earth's rotation
    Vote C
  • Comets disintegrate too quickly
    Vote D
  • Too few supernova remnants
    Vote E
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
212

Most Helpful Girl

Most Helpful Guys

  • The video start off quite badly. It says Science is in part based on observation (which is true), but then goes on to say that the Bible claims to be the testimony of the Creator himself. While this is what many people believe, it is still an assumption that the Bible is in fact the book of God. Religion is also called Faith for a reason, many people have faith that the Bible is the word of God, but they can't know this for certain.

    In any case, here are my comments on each theory:

    A. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
    I'll come right out and say it, I am no astronomer. I do not have a theory that solves this problem. However, just because scientists do not understand how this is possible, does not mean there is some higher power that made it to be this way.
    In the past, humans had no explanation for what thunder was. Each time a thunderbolt strikes, it makes a huge, epic sound with a flash of light. It is no wonder that people in the past attributed such an awesome power to a God, like Zeus for example. They couldn't explain what thunder is, so they came up with their own explanation: Zeus must have done it.
    In short, just because we don't have a valid explanation, does not mean God must have done it.
    This argument holds true for all of his 5 points. The lack of evidence, is not evidence in and of itself.

    B. Meteorites
    The video creator says: "No meteors have ever been found in the deeper, older [layers] of the Earth". That may very well be the case, but no one can claim that there are NO meteors in that deep layer either. Sure, we haven't found any, but the Earth is rather huge. Just because we haven't found any, doesn't mean there aren't any at all.

    C. Earth's rotation
    With this point, he assumes a whole bunch of things. He assumes Lord Kelvin's theory is 100% true, and uses that as proof that the Earth cannot be as old as people claim. But Lord Kelvin's theory is just that, a theory. We come back to my first argument: just because we don't have a valid theory yet, doesn't mean that God made the Earth. If you want to claim the Earth is young, you have to proof it, instead of trying to disprove the old Earth theory.

    D. Comets disintegrate too quickly
    Our current methods of observation, even the Hubble Telescope, can only see a minuscule fraction of the entire galaxy. It is no wonder that we cannot observe where these comets come from. So, neither old earth or young earth theories can use this fact, since we can only speculate where the comets come from.
    However, the video creature states this perfectly fits with a young earth theory. How can he know this? He just assumes it.
    Let's give an example. There's a hole in the ground, and I decide to drop a golf ball in there. After 10 seconds, it comes right back up and I catch it. Every time I drop it in there, it comes back up after 10 seconds. Two guys, let's call them Steve and Bill, are puzzled by this. Steve says: "" maybe there is something down that blows it back up, some sort of air current". Bill replies: "NO! This fits much better with some sort of trampoline-like thing being down there! It must be a trampoline!".

    Neither Bill nor Steve have any idea what is actually down there, but Bill acts as if his theory MUST be true, just because it fits better.

    E. Too few supernova remnants
    He actually gives us the counterargument to this point in his own video. In the beginning, he is talking about the craters on the moon. The amount of carters would indicate that the moon is quite old, but he notes that for that theory to work, we have to assume that the rate of cratering has always been the same as it is now.
    The exact same counterargument applies to the supernova remnant argument. Who is to say that the rate of supernovas has been the exact same for all time? He says himself that he based the rat of supernovas on recent observations, but like I said, why should that rate be the same across all time? Isn't it logical that young stars don't go supernova?

    0|0
    0|0
    • Even so, the past can't be observed. You have to rely on uniformitarianism.

    • Show All
    • 6d

      You didn't ask whether the earth is young or old, you asked which of the 5 arguments is strongest. I think they are all quite weak and I explained why. I have never said that the Earth is old for a fact.

      Like I said, if you want to counter my arguments in my original answer, you are more than welcome to, but you are now talking about something else entirely.

    • 6d

      Even if all are weak, 1 has to be strongest.

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 1

  • They're all easy to dismiss provided you have a brain capable of distinguishing scientific fact from complete rubbish.

    1|2
    0|0
    • Evolution is not scientific fact. Scientific means observable, testable and repeatable. None of those 3 can be done scientifically.

    • Show All
    • 6d

      You're right, I am.

    • 6d

      How many of the 3 are you?

What Guys Said 10

  • F, none of the above.
    learn how things works. Science might not have answer to everything, but it's god damn good regarding predictability and testability.

    0|1
    0|0
    • 6d

      Not as good as the Bible is.

    • Show All
    • 6d

      Avoiding answer it is. You see? Call me a prophet now. And bow down before my powers, or god will strike you down.
      Science has the results. It has testable, repeatable predictions.
      Religion has produced exactly none of that. Nothing is based on it. Even simple stuff, like roads, are products of science. What is product of religion? Except of fundamentalism and wars? Brainwashing, yeah, that's right.

    • 3d

      Wrong. God is greater than science and you are a fool who thinks that naturalism is the way the world should think.

      You're mad because I don't play by the 'atheist's' rules.

      Evolution is not science no matter how many times you say it. It's a religion. Science means to know. You can't know that the big bang happened even if you have evidences indicating it. There's no way to be 100% certain about anything including your own existence. If God doesn't exist, then nothing exists. God is a necessary being. Without God, nothing exists.

  • All I know is if the earth was one more foot away from the son , we would freeze, and one more foot closer , we would burn up. Only an entity with intelligence could do that. It could not have happened by chance, too many factors are involved. We could have had a Big Bang , but who lit the fuse?

    0|1
    0|0
    • No doubt this information came from the same source as the question. Thankfully, given our elliptical orbit, it's not true.

    • Except that's not even slightly true.

      Which of these 5 evidences of a young earth (thousands of years old, not millions or billions) is the hardest to defeat?

  • My goodness what will the creation idiots come up with next.. smh... smh... thank God most people on this planet aren't that stupid.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Thanks for thanking God.

      Also, you're the stupid one thinking the earth is billions of years old.

    • Show All
    • 3d

      No. The Big Bang was not observable. It's a theory and even if it's a held belief based on reasonable evidence and it's the best model scientists have, doesn't imply they know it's the truth.

    • 3d

      Maybe but it's a far more sound explanation than god

  • HAHAHAHAHA

    the debate is over GOD is above the dome
    anyone who says other wise is a fool

    Glory to my GOD above the dome
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2L6KepPgEA&t=1s

    0|0
    0|2
  • None of them, since they are all completely wrong. If you’re gonna try and argue creationism, at least use some of the slightly convincing stuff.. my 11 year old sister knows better than this.

    0|0
    0|0
  • None, and they are all irrelevant anyway. People always want to discuss secondary and tertiary issues, but rarely want to discuss the issues of matter, entropy, and how can anything logically exist.

    1|0
    0|0
  • This is all very silly. If the universe is 6000 years old how come we can see things a million light years away?

    0|0
    0|0
    • You can't observe the past. You rely on uniformitarianism. You have to assume that things stayed the same as light speed and how do you know that light speed is the same both ways: towards and away?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z045s1rLLIc

    • Show All
    • 3d

      Exactly. You trust the history books except for books about God.

    • 3d

      I can go to the pyramids in Egypt. I don't know where the Tower of Babel is.

  • The earth is only 70 years old fact
    And it’s
    A g e
    d o e s
    not
    c h a n g e

    0|0
    0|0
    • I have no evidence for it being more than twenty nine and a half years old. Therefore I cannot believe it's as old as you say.

  • this is ID malarkey

    0|0
    0|0
  • I just lost braincells seeing this

    0|0
    0|0

Recommended myTakes

Loading...