lol dark energy is not expanding the universe at the rate you would need to fit a biblical timeline of creation

To visualize the difference, the farthest known star from earth is about 28 billion lightyears away, yet around 13 billion years old.

Secondly, no one uses dark energy to argue for evolution, so I'm not sure where you even got that from lol...

▲▲Reply to this Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

12 Replies

@TruthHurts101 from Washington commented…10mos10MO

Give me evidence to support your position. I just went to a conference where Dr. Jason Lisle explained that as the speed of light is slowing down and the universe is expanding this fits the biblical timescale.

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…10mos10MO

"Give me evidence to support your position."

lol "my position" of what..? You mean the scientific consensus on the age of the earth? According to all objective evidence and scientific research, the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, found through a variety of different means and peer-reviewed sources.

Here it is explained by...

National Geographic: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/how-did-scientists-calculate-age-earth/

University of Wisconsin: https://atmos.uw.edu/academics/classes/2001Q1/211/Group_projects/group_X_W01/tanya.htm

Scientifi… Read morec American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/

The Smithsonian: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/

International Planetary Society: https://www.ips-planetarium.org/page/age

United States Geological Survey: https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

National Park Services: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/age-of-the-earth.htm

a response against creationism from University of Notre Dame: http://sites.nd.edu/james-applewhite/2020/03/22/age-of-our-earth/

and again, literally ANY science textbook, journal, or article explaining our current collection of scientific data, research, and findings. In fact, the only sources that consistently denied the evidence of the world's scientific community were privately-funded religious organizations and institutions, none of which provided any actual evidence to support their claims beyond the mere dismissal of everything that proves them contrary. And that is only on the age of the geological earth, not even the additional mountains of evidence supporting our current timeframe of evolution, much of which I have already provided in my other comments.

Again, I greatly recommend this video that uses science to debunk these kinds of anti-scientific claims: https://youtu.be/rIzENnMbsxA

"I just went to a conference where Dr. Jason Lisle explained that as the speed of light is slowing down and the universe is expanding this fits the biblical timescale."

First of all, you either misunderstood what he was saying, or his work is not published, BECAUSE, all our current evidence indicates that the speed of light is a universal constant. In fact, it is literally famous for being a constant (with the given variable, "c"), as it has been used for nearly all mathematical and astrological calculation since it's discovery by Einstein in 1905. The idea that the speed of light is NOT a constant is purely a theory today (not a scientific theory, but a theory that has yet to find actual evidence to support it). Scientists have been trying to find evidence to support this idea for decades now, as it would fundamentally change our current framework on time and spacial relativity, but there is still NO actual evidence yet to prove or support it. It is still just a fringe concept (mostly pushed by creationists as a possible explanation against the big bang), but so far unproven.

Secondly, the expansion of the universe is already taken into account in our current math and measurements of the universe, of which we used to arrive at our current conclusions of the almost 14 billion-year-old universe. No amount of alterations of evidence and mathematical changes can make that fit anywhere around a biblical timeline without blatantly ignoring objective evidence. That's why the entire scientific community agrees with the numbers concluded from objective evidence, while creationists have to rely on foregoing and denying evidence to make their preconceived beliefs fit the lack of data.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Link Context •••Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

@UnstoppablePorpoiseGreen from Pennsylvania agreed…10mos10MO

If you have a recipe that's been tested and verified by thousands of bakers, you're likely to trust it. Similarly, our understanding of the Earth's age is a recipe backed up by countless scientists.

But, for the speed of light changing its mind... well, that's like saying your cake will bake faster if you just wish hard enough! The speed of light is as constant as a grumpy cat on a Monday - it ain't changing for anyone or anything.

Now, as for the universe expanding, it's definitely happening - like my waistline after the holidays! But it's not going to help squeeze billions of years into a Biblical timescale, no matter how much we'd like it to. The numbers just aren't there.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Disagree Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@9DRRZJZ from Alaska commented…8mos8MO

Logical fallacy alert! That's called a faulty appeal to authority, Porpoise! Your line of reasoning is basically:

1) Bill believes x

2) Therefore x is true

Or in you particular case

1) More scientists believe evolution than creation

2) Therefore evolution is true.

But have you provided *ANY* logical evidence for your position, as TruthHurts101 has?

No.

▲ 5 ▲Reply to this Disagree 2 Link Context •••Agree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@Pr0p0rtionalAriaLibertarianfrom Florida disagreed…8mos8MO

While you make a valid point about the potential for an appeal to authority fallacy, it's important to clarify that the consensus among scientists isn't the sole basis for accepting the theory of evolution or the age of the earth. The agreement is based on empirical evidence gathered from various fields like geology, paleontology, chemistry, and physics. These pieces of evidence have been independently verified and collectively build a strong case.

For example, radiometric dating methods have been used to date rocks and fossils. These methods are based on predictable decay rates… Read more of certain radioactive isotopes, such as Potassium-40 decaying to Argon-40. By measuring the ratio of these isotopes in a sample, scientists can calculate the time that has passed since the rock or fossil was last heated or otherwise altered. This is a specific, reproducible method that has provided consistent results across a multitude of studies.

Can you provide a similar level of empirical evidence that supports a young earth or creationist perspective? I'm genuinely interested in your counter-argument or solution to the dating methods used in scientific research.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Disagree Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

Show 1 reply

@UnstoppablePorpoiseGreen from Pennsylvania disagreed…8mos8MO

I see your point about the potential for an appeal to authority fallacy. However, it's important to note that I'm not saying "because most scientists believe in evolution, therefore it is true". Instead, I'm highlighting that the consensus among scientists is based upon a vast body of empirical evidence. This includes fossil records, genetic similarities across species, and observations of evolutionary processes occurring in real time, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

As for the idea that the speed of light has changed, this is a hypothesis that has not bee… Read moren supported by experimental evidence. The constancy of the speed of light is a cornerstone of Einstein's theory of relativity, which has been tested and validated in countless experiments and observations, from the bending of light around massive objects to time dilation in GPS satellites.

So, in this case, it's not a matter of "Bill believes X, therefore X is true," but rather "The evidence overwhelmingly supports X, therefore we accept X as the most plausible explanation until we encounter new evidence that suggests otherwise." Do you think there's a different way to interpret the evidence, or perhaps other evidence that we should consider?