Hubble's Law Disproves Young Earth Creationism

The problem is that so far nothing you have presented disproves Young Earth Creationism.Significantly, so far everyone who has replied to you agree that Young Earth Creationism is simply a really stupid concept that can only be supported by utter and total willful ignorance or utter dishonesty. Yet they are all saying the same thing; what you presented fails to disprove Young Earth Creationism.

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.

No it says nothing about the age of the earth. It does set a minimum age for the universe but you are trying to disprove Young EARTH Creationism, not Young UNIVERSE Creationism.You might be able to challenge the Genesis 1:1 tale if you could show there was a difference between the age of the universe and the age of the Earth, but again, nothing in your presentation establishes that relationship.

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.

But first you need to offer evidence that the Earth and Universe are NOT the same age.The problem is that facts and reality will not challenge Young Earth Creationism.

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

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.

Remember, so far all of the respondents agree that the Earth is Young and it's unlikely you can present evidence we are not currently also presenting to Young Earth Creationists.BUT you don't have yo convince us, rather you need to present something that a Young Earth Cult member would find convincing.

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.

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.

Have you ever poked holes in jello with a needle?

Uhhh... No?

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.

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.

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.