Hubble's Law Disproves Young Earth Creationism

I take the position that the Universe is about 13.8 billion years old and the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. In my opinion, one of the larger pieces of evidence against a young Earth, is Hubble's Law.Hubble's law states that galaxies outside of the Local Group are moving away from earth, and the speed at which they are moving away is proportional to the distance they are from Earth.In a formula Hubble's Law is the following:V=DHMeaning the speed at which a distant galaxy is moving in km/s is equivalent to its distance from earth in megaparsecs (mpc) multiplied by Hubble's Constant, which is about 71.With this formula we can calculate the age of the earth.V=DH(1/H)V=D1/H=D/VDistance divided by velocity is time. So we now know the age of the universe is equal to the inverse of Hubble's Constant.1/H=THubble's Constant is in [km/s]/[mpc] so we can plug that in.1/71([km/s]/[mpc])=TThere are 3.0857e19 kilometers in a megaparsec.1/71([km/s]/3.0857e19[km])=TWe can cancel out the kilometers and get the following:1/71/3.0857e19[s]=T1/171/3.0857e19[s]=T3.0857e19/71[s]=TSo the universe is 4.3460563e17 seconds old. Which is 13.78 billion years.So my question to young earth creationists is:How do you reconcile a belief that the earth is less than 10,000 years old with Hubble's Law?Edited by Calvin, : No reason given.

The conversation would probably move to trying to prove the big bang then, which I think there is plenty of evidence for. Well, there's a reason last Thursdayism isn't scientificaly accepted. While it's possible, it's also a positive claim that requires the last Thursdayist to meet their burden of proof.I see the same thing with a univerese "created old" its a positive claim that requires proof and without that, I see no reason to believe it.

It disproves a young earth, but only if we already assume that the big bang is true. If someone would like to contest this I can provide evidence for the big bang theory.If we assume the big bang is true, an alternative for why we get 13.8 billion years from Hubble's Constant must be presented in order to discount my argument. A universe that's "created old" is a possibiltiy but would need to be proven, which it hasn't been.Edited by Calvin, : No reason given.

Making that distinction, you're totally correct. It disproves a young universe but not a young Earth. If a christian believed in a young Earth but an old universe, like you said I would point to Genesis 1:1. Since it implies the Earth and universe are the same age.

I think it competely rules out a young universe. But if this is our only piece of evidence, it does not disprove a young Earth.Fortunately, we have mountains more evidence for an old Earth. If you'd like I could provide some.Edited by Calvin, : No reason given.

Interesting, so what do you think is a valid argument against, my post? Even if you think there are other things that prove an old universe/Earth. Remember, I've conceded that it a) it assumes the big bang theory to be true and b) says nothing about the age of the Earth. But I currently still do think it can prove the age of the universe to be billions of years old.

Uhhh... No?

You're right of course, science never proves thing, it only selects the best model to explain our observations. But I think my op is fairly strong evidence that an old universe is exactly that.In any case, it's kind of moot since no one here seems to be a YEC.Edited by Calvin, : No reason given.

OK, sure. I'll say that it doesn't completely rule out a young universe. But all I said was: And I do still think it is one of the larger pieces of evidence, if not totally conclusive.Maybe it was the title? How I said it disproves YAC. I still haven't seen a good argument against what I said in the op however.Edited by Calvin, : No reason given.