368
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 78:
Line 78: + +
→Young earth?
::::::: Many other arguments remain to show that ''this galaxy'' is certainly much younger than the geologists insist. They are beyond the scope of an article on the "Jurassic period." But they strongly militate against conventional geologic understanding. --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::: Many other arguments remain to show that ''this galaxy'' is certainly much younger than the geologists insist. They are beyond the scope of an article on the "Jurassic period." But they strongly militate against conventional geologic understanding. --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
You are of course forgetting that our galaxy is at least 80,000 light years wide...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
::::::: The article I linked to was written at layman's level. What makes you think that Russell Humphreys hasn't done the maths? See his book, ''[https://store.creationontheweb.com/us/product_info.php?products_id=374&osCsid=97d00c3c1efd8ccd44026c7d9d594372 Starlight and Time]'', and/or search for some of his published papers, such as in the [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/24/34/ Journal of Creation].
::::::: The article I linked to was written at layman's level. What makes you think that Russell Humphreys hasn't done the maths? See his book, ''[https://store.creationontheweb.com/us/product_info.php?products_id=374&osCsid=97d00c3c1efd8ccd44026c7d9d594372 Starlight and Time]'', and/or search for some of his published papers, such as in the [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/24/34/ Journal of Creation].