The Creationists' Nightmare

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Like an old earth and old universe. Why do the ~40 different isotopes for measuring the age of the earth tell us it's much older than 6 000 years? Why does it seem like the light from stars have been travelling for millions, if not, billions of years to get to us?

Since I'm not God I can't give you what He did or why He did it,

That hasn't stopped you yet, why quit now?

But thanks for admitting that you have been making this all up all along. I suspect that now you will be bombarded with reminders every time you presume to speak for your BIFF from here on out. Heh.

I rely on creation scientist and other scientist that I personally know.

Hereby admitting your willful ignorance and obstinate closed-mindedness. Which has always been painfully obvious to everyone else, and which prevents any meaningful discussion with you. Thus the vast amount of ridicule you receive here : there really is no point in attempting to engage with one who refuses to acknowledge what doesn't fit his
narrow view.

One thing I read lately was when God created, the earth was at the edge of a black hole were time would seem to be in days and the time farther away would cover some great amount of time. I've not had time to look into it further, I'm going to try soon if time permits.

Admitting that you will accept any proposition, no matter how outrageous, preposterous, and outlandish, as long as it fits into your own pre-ordained fantasy view. This us pyre intellectual dishonesty.

No surprise here.

---

I almost puked after reading this.

Maybe you should research before condemning, oh wait, you're doing what most atheist do, bla, bla, bla before looking at something, typical. .

Says the idiot that just admitted that it limits its information pool to whack job sources that attempt to manipulate the facts to fit their superstitious fairy tales.

[libalchris]

The earth is 4.54 billion years old, and the universe 14.6 billion. The evidence for an old universe (being able to actually see stars billions of lightyears away) is just as strong as the evidence for an old earth (different kinds of radiometric dating on different objects giving consistent dates. Thick geological layers that form at very slow rates, and a lot more)

[Epimethean]

Science and GC are separated by a thick layer of, er, thickness.

[Godscreated]

Your scientific back ground and employment is...

https://www.google.com/search?q=black+ho...annel=fflb
Here. I did the hard part for you. Black holes have become a part of common knowledge.

I'm a graphic design major with minors in psychology and advertising, and I'm currently freelancing. Not that it's relevant.
You see, I have a sense of curiosity. I watch documentaries while I work. I watch documentaries while I clean. I watch documentaries for fun. I watch documentaries to help me wind down from the day. Then, I have a website that bombards me with scientific articles that I really enjoy reading.

But here is the most important part: I paid attention in fucking science class.

So documentaries and a science class makes you a knowledgeable scientist, I watch PBS documentaries all the time trying to learn, I also did very well in my science classes.

[Undeceived]

The earth is 4.54 billion years old, and the universe 14.6 billion. The evidence for an old universe (being able to actually see stars billions of lightyears away) is just as strong as the evidence for an old earth (different kinds of radiometric dating on different objects giving consistent dates. Thick geological layers that form at very slow rates, and a lot more)

I just discovered these:
http://www.examiner.com/article/grand-ca...tric-dates
http://www.icr.org/article/excessively-o...ava-flows/

If you examined a meta-study, you might find the dates inconsistent (depending on how much leeway you want to give scientists). The picture in the second link is especially interesting (edit: better color picture partway down http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...nas-basalt ). The higher layers are thin and flat. Old layers should be tilted, since pitch indicates erosion. No erosion = young. The higher layers must therefore have been laid down in rapid succession. How do you suppose that happened?

As for stars, their light may be evidence of age, but it is not where God is concerned. He made the stars for us to see. It is logical that the all-powerful Designer of the universe would create the light-trails too, rather than create a mass of rock and wait 14 billion years before adding humans. Or maybe he did, thereby reconciling modern science with Bible. Pick your poison.

[FallentoReason]

I just discovered these:
http://www.examiner.com/article/grand-ca...tric-dates
http://www.icr.org/article/excessively-o...ava-flows/

If you examined a meta-study, you might find the dates inconsistent (depending on how much leeway you want to give scientists). The picture in the second link is especially interesting (edit: better color picture partway down http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...nas-basalt ). The higher layers are thin and flat. Old layers should be tilted, since pitch indicates erosion. No erosion = young. The higher layers must therefore have been laid down in rapid succession. How do you suppose that happened?

If you're proposing that the Grand Canyon was formed after the flood, then why doesn't the rest of the world look like it's been flooded and eroded to that extent? I find it suspicious that the Grand Canyon is the only example of the flood that creationists can give in terms of erosion and stuff.

As for stars, their light may be evidence of age, but it is not where God is concerned. He made the stars for us to see. It is logical that the all-powerful Designer of the universe would create the light-trails too, rather than create a mass of rock and wait 14 billion years before adding humans. Or maybe he did, thereby reconciling modern science with Bible. Pick your poison.

Why would God deceive like that though? Not only deceive but contradict himself by giving a description of his creation that doesn't match the observations of his creation.

[Cato]

I just discovered these:
http://www.examiner.com/article/grand-ca...tric-dates
http://www.icr.org/article/excessively-o...ava-flows/

If you examined a meta-study, you might find the dates inconsistent (depending on how much leeway you want to give scientists). The picture in the second link is especially interesting (edit: better color picture partway down http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...nas-basalt ). The higher layers are thin and flat. Old layers should be tilted, since pitch indicates erosion. No erosion = young. The higher layers must therefore have been laid down in rapid succession. How do you suppose that happened?

As for stars, their light may be evidence of age, but it is not where God is concerned. He made the stars for us to see. It is logical that the all-powerful Designer of the universe would create the light-trails too, rather than create a mass of rock and wait 14 billion years before adding humans. Or maybe he did, thereby reconciling modern science with Bible. Pick your poison.

These are the credentials of the author of your 'examiner' link:

Terry Hurlbut, Creationism Examiner

A serious student of politics and political philosophy since his Yale (1980) days, Terry A. Hurlbut analyzes current political events from the perspective of some of the finest political theorists of the Western world, from Locke to Paine to Tocqueville to Rand. He has been a resident of Essex...

Why should I consider Terry's opinion equal to that of geochronologists and geologists when it comes to the Grand Canyon?

You then provide links to the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis.

Scientists are not hell bent on proving a 4.5 billion year old Earth. This is simply what the data suggests. On the other hand, the ICR and AIG are hell bent on confirming a predetermined biblical age of 6-10 thousand years, despite what evidence suggests. Does the drastic difference in motive ever give you pause for thought? Seriously?!?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I watch PBS documentaries all the time trying to learn, I also did very well in my science classes.

So you say.

You fail the Practical.

[Norfolk And Chance]

As for stars, their light may be evidence of age, but it is not where God is concerned. He made the stars for us to see. It is logical that the all-powerful Designer of the universe would create the light-trails too, rather than create a mass of rock and wait 14 billion years before adding humans. Or maybe he did, thereby reconciling modern science with Bible. Pick your poison.

I won't be picking the poison that is the bible.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I just discovered these:
http://www.examiner.com/article/grand-ca...tric-dates
http://www.icr.org/article/excessively-o...ava-flows/

You call these sources?

How do you suppose that happened?

"It" was made up by a creotard pathological liar, the sort who makes shit up as he goes along to suit his fairy tales, that's how.

As for stars, their light may be evidence of age, but it is not where God is concerned. He made the stars for us to see. It is logical that the all-powerful Designer of the universe would create the light-trails too, rather than create a mass of rock and wait 14 billion years before adding humans. Or maybe he did, thereby reconciling modern science with Bible. Pick your poison.

And look, someone else who makes shit up as he goes along.