Flat Earth Society and Young Earth Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

and that the Reptoids live under the Antarctic ice with the remaining faithful of the Nazi party.

First, I don't see how a "flat Earth" philosophy is inherently equal to a "young Earth" view. You seem to be placing them on the same level because you depise them, but there's a crucial difference. People can observe the spherical shape of the Earth from an eclipse, but we can't claim the Earth is extremely old beyond a reasonable doubt, because we weren't there at its formation. We can interpret visual evidence through the lens of a particular ideology, but that's the limit.

Actually we can you see we have this form of radiometric dating that is 100% accurate to determine the age of the earth known as potassium argon dating it is used to date rocks and ancient fossils not carbon dating! The Earth is indeed 4.4 billion years old, the oldest known rock is a zircon found in western Australia dated to be 4.4 billion years old. We also know the world is much older than 6000 years old as well as the universe due to the fact on how fast light travels and that we can observe planets, stars and galaxies that are millions of light years away those planets galaxies and stars are so far away at the speed of light as we observe them we are observing them millions of years ago so in a way we are looking at the past. YEC holds no water when it comes to actual scientific facts.

Radiocarbon dating only appears to work when you start with the assumptions that naturalism and uniformitarianism are accurate. Both of those are philosophies, not science.

Young Earth creationism is from primitive anonymous documents and not accurate in any way shape or form.

We left off the geocentrist. Those folks are great. How can we forget them? http://www.geocentrism.com/ http://galileowaswrong.com/

The Geocentrist Flat Hollow Global Warming Xenu-populated young Earth and Moon Creationist Illuminati Time Travellers Society.

Because they are on the same level. Both have been disproved. Just because a different methodology is used to disprove them doesn't mean one is questionable. It just means a different methodology was used.

This puts them both one step below fairies, leprechauns, Cyclops's and unicorns. At least those aren't disproved yet.

How has the age of the Earth been conclusively proven as extremely old, by observable data without naturalistic philosophy attached? Evolutionists always point to things like the geologic column (invented by anti-theistic lawyer Charles Lyell), or radiocarbon dating (disproven by the fact that carbon decays at different rates instead of a constant one). There's also the fact that if the Earth had been here a few billion years, the Sun would've burned out long ago, but its still here.

Behold the Clonal quaking aspen tree over 80000 years old some other trees over 8000 years old alone still living! How can such things be if the world is only 6000 years old? Theres also the clonal creosote bush over 12000 years old.

The geologic column was observed by pioneering geologists of the 18th and 19th Centuries (all before Darwin) -geologists who were good Christians who believed in a deity who created the earth.But nontheless they all noticed that "you always find the same fossils in the same strata of rocks-I wonder why". Radio carbon dating is only for organic remains of the last few thousand years. It may not be totally reliable, but its hardly "disproven". For older non organic rocks you use potassium argon dating. There are many other different chemical dating methods, and there is dendochronology (tree rings), and countless other techniques. These are cross referenced with historic human written records (for the last few thousand years), and with each other. Exact dates might have to be changed, but the overall picture is abundantly corraborated:that the Earth is very old. And Sun isnt due to go red giant for another few billion years. It wont "go out" for some billions of years after that. So I dont know where you get that part about the Sun.

On the other hand- what about the alternative?
The earth being only 6000 years old- where is the "evidence" for that?
You werent around 6000 years ago to see that either.

And if the Universe were only 6000 years old then why are we able to see Andromeda (two million light years away)?

Is the Earth flat relative to the 4th dimension i.e., sliced per an instant in time , then the Earth is flat space ?

It seems like as you go up 1 dimension than anything that exists below that dimension would appear flat to someone in that dimension (e.g. 2D objects appear flat from a 3D perspective).

I found this special relativity concept 'Minkowski spacetime' which is described as flat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

The Earth is really flat per the scientific theory of space-time (4+ dimensions)?

With a fact-free worldview the speed of light is not a constant.

He is spewing out the same old naïve very unsubstantiated claims that they have been spewing out for years even though they know its bunk. The sun argument, which can be debunked by anyone in fourth grade, goes "the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5ft per hour. At that rate the sun should have burned out millions of years ago."

I'm not going to bother typing out why. I'll just post one of the many thousands of arguments that shows how dumb it is.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/sun_shrinking.html

I have no problem with trees being thousands of years old, but that's still a long ways away from millions or billions. As I stated earlier, every piece of data has to be interpreted; fossils and stars don't come with dates stamped on them. There's only two ideologies to choose from when interpreting that data: either the supernatural is possible, or its not. Whichever you start with determines how you react to observable science.

But then how can we see things that are millions of lightyears away? As mentioned Andromeda is 2.5 million lightyears away and we can see stuff much further away.

That's already way past 6000 though. Plus where is this 5000-6000 figure coming from? Can you tell us that? Because I can: some guys from the late 18th century took the number of generations in Adam's genealogy, then multiplied that number by 40. Sounds pretty arbitrary, right?

Not only that but they were ignorant of the fact that Toledoth/Hebrew-genealogies habitually skip generations, often many generations, only mentioning people who are considered historically significant. Just look at Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke, cross reference them with the names in the OT and you'll notice that there are large gaps.