Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 255:
Line 255: + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth (view source)
Revision as of 13:53, September 24, 2016
, 13:53, September 24, 2016→Expansion of the universe: new section
:Did the mask have a date carved on it or do we have to rely on unreliable old earth dating methods? See: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
:Did the mask have a date carved on it or do we have to rely on unreliable old earth dating methods? See: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
What would give a carved on date, or any of the examples listed (with the exception of tree rings), credibility and accuracy?
What would give a carved on date, or any of the examples listed (with the exception of tree rings), credibility and accuracy?
== Expansion of the universe ==
"The expansion of the universe is accelerating, something that would not occur if the Big Bang had happened billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent"
I accept the expansion of the universe is accelerating, but why should that mean the universe is only 6000 years old? It would be equally valid for it to be hundreds of thousands of years old.
(username removed)