539
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 991:
Line 991: + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth (view source)
Revision as of 01:52, August 27, 2011
, 01:52, August 27, 2011→Freshwater and Saltwater Fish
On one hand, I believe this counterexample doesn't belong on this website because it necessarily assumes that evolution is true. It basically says that the Earth must be young because there hasn't been enough time for fish to evolve to be able to survive in both freshwater and saltwater. On the other hand, I believe the premise is flawed because evolutionists will tell you that fish have evolved to have a salinity tolerance for their preferred environment, and have no need to be able to survive in both freshwater and saltwater. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding the counterexample. (And if that is the case, perhaps it should be better explained.) --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 21:39, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
On one hand, I believe this counterexample doesn't belong on this website because it necessarily assumes that evolution is true. It basically says that the Earth must be young because there hasn't been enough time for fish to evolve to be able to survive in both freshwater and saltwater. On the other hand, I believe the premise is flawed because evolutionists will tell you that fish have evolved to have a salinity tolerance for their preferred environment, and have no need to be able to survive in both freshwater and saltwater. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding the counterexample. (And if that is the case, perhaps it should be better explained.) --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 21:39, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:Personally I think it should be deleted because it's nonsense. An old Earth is conclusively disproven by looking at models of the solar system's planets and satellites; no scientist can explain the distribution of planetary types, the orbits of moons and the eccentricity of all orbits (which both classical mechanics and general relativity say should be basically circular with a few minor hiccups.) We don't need incoherent arguments about fish, which in any case are irrelevant to the age of the Earth; whether the flood happened 4,500 years ago on a 6,000 year old Earth or 4,500 years ago on a 4,600,000,000 year old Earth makes precisely no difference to the effects it would have had.
:If we want this site to be credible we should avoid making statements that any materialistic scientist can effortlessly refute. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:52, 26 August 2011 (EDT)