16
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: + + +
Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth? (view source)
Revision as of 15:31, April 17, 2007
, 15:31, April 17, 2007→YES!
No, it's not. If it were, then it would be the scientific consensus regarding the interpretation of the evidence. It isn't, purely for the reason that that is not what the evidence indicates. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]
No, it's not. If it were, then it would be the scientific consensus regarding the interpretation of the evidence. It isn't, purely for the reason that that is not what the evidence indicates. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]
Let's not forget, Rebiu: The claim isn't only that the earth is 6,000 years old. It's that earth and the universe formed ''contemporaneously'' 6000 years ago. If that were true, the most distant stars would be no more than 6000 light years away. However, the most distant stars are over 13 billion light years away. Either the speed of light is much, much faster than we measured--over 2.1 million times faster, in fact--or earth and those galaxies didn't form at the same time. But even if our instruments really were so clumbsy as to err over 2 million fold, the young earth theory would still have to explain how the planet managed to cool from a molten state so quickly. If the answer is that god just zapped it into being, then Cristians don't have to explain any observable data whatever. The only question I would then press is why god gave man the faculty of reason and the curiosity to explore if we needn't look any further than our Bibles. [[User:Whomever21|whomever]] 11:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
==No!==
==No!==