Hubble's Law Disproves Young Earth Creationism

I think you can reconcile the two things with a version of last Thursdayism. The universe was created 6000 years ago with the stars and galaxies and space expanding at just about their current rates in just about their current positions, where just about means the minor adjustment for 6000 years.In short, it is enough to question your extrapolation to the time when everything was in one big giant cosmic atom. Any creationist worth the time to debate over the issue would raise that issue.

Actually, for the purposes of this discussion, it is you who are claiming that a single fact disproves creationism, so it is up to you to provide a reason for dismissing the Creatonist claims.On the other hand, if, as is actually the case, other evidence beyond the Hubble constant is available, then you would have a much better argument.

So then you admit that your single piece of evidence does the trick claim is not correct?

There is not a single participant in this thread who thinks either the universe or the earth are not billions of years old.However, I and others also know a bad argument when we see one. The fact that the universe is currently expanding is consistent with the universe being old, but it is not sufficient to prove that.I would not let a creationist get away with an argument of that nature, and I would apply the same standard to folk who argue a position I agree with. Hubble's law does not disprove Young Earth Creationism. More evidence than that is required.

Science does not prove things. So no, you cannot. The evidence supports a billion-year-old universe and rejects a young, several thousand year old one. None of us can do better than that.In any event, a YEC is not going to spot you the big bang.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't think it is moot. But since science does not prove things, but rather establishes thing to some degree of certainty, that means one lone fact cannot serve as "the evidence" that the universe is old. No one fact does that.In my view, the best evidence that the universe is old is that there are old things in it, but establishing the age of things like the earth, the sun, and the other stars requires a systematic study of various evidence.Given that reality, you should know that you oversold your original claim. And that does matter even if there are no Creationists here.

Not strong enough in my opinion. The number of folks who
1. Accept Creationism
2. Are not utterly clueless with respect to science knowledge
3. Willing to argue about it on the InternetHas to be a vanishingly small percentage of YEC folk. Most of the folks who could be convinced are not YEC anymore. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.