Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 148: Line 148:     
It seems to me that you are basically correct. I cannot think of any kind of reasonable way out of this. Why has no-one thought of this argument earlier? I knew, for example that relativity and creation were in direct conflict; basically if you create something out of nothing, then this creates huge issues with gravitational fields etc., but this question is so simple, especially the fact that stars were supposedly created, but you have to either accept that they are al lot nearer (say a couple of light-days), or that Adam and Eve would not be able to see starlight for years. This effectively kills off Young Earth Creation. Wonderful. That';s that obne sorted, now to set about Intelligent Design.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:21, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
 
It seems to me that you are basically correct. I cannot think of any kind of reasonable way out of this. Why has no-one thought of this argument earlier? I knew, for example that relativity and creation were in direct conflict; basically if you create something out of nothing, then this creates huge issues with gravitational fields etc., but this question is so simple, especially the fact that stars were supposedly created, but you have to either accept that they are al lot nearer (say a couple of light-days), or that Adam and Eve would not be able to see starlight for years. This effectively kills off Young Earth Creation. Wonderful. That';s that obne sorted, now to set about Intelligent Design.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:21, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
This argument is not new, by any stretch.  See my note in the preceding entry.  The very position of the stars and galaxies is also "disproved" by science and its offering of a 13.5 Billion year universe.  To answer the original question, I think that you must concede that YEC is based on faith alone.  But you must also concede that a 13.5 Billion year universe is based on faith alone or make up pseudoscience as well.  If the Earth is actually 3.5 Billion years old, and mankind has been here for 5 Million years through the evolutionary cycle, then science cannot explain why we find nothing written, no culture, no evidence of human settlements that exceed about 6,000 years ago.  The earliest known writing found in clay tablets is in Pakistan from 5,500 years ago.  If mankind has been here in this form for 5 Million years, then why did he do nothing lasting for the first 99.995% of his existence?  In the last 0.005% of man's theoretical evolutionary existence, he has gone from first and claw to clubs to pointed sticks, to knives, to firearms, to cannons, and to the atomic bomb; but he achieved nothing prior to this. This is like being behind 24-0 in a sixty minute football game with 1.8 seconds left in the 4th quarter, and then scoring 27 points to win the game before the clock expires.
 +
 +
It is less plausible than creation and requires far more magic and faith to belief than the alternate theory. --[[User:swbuza|swbuza]] 11:23, 25 Aug 2011 (EDT)
    
== Theory 4? ==
 
== Theory 4? ==
4

edits

Navigation menu