The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

He does not use it as a form of population control, that’s my entire point. Scripture never supports that notion. Death is a judgment for sin.

My bad, I must have got a bit lost when tracing the quotes back, apologies.

Only the round-trip speed of light needs to be constant, which it still is using this convention. I appreciate the question though.

Well this runs into the problem above, it does not necessarily have to take that long for light to reach us, it depends on which convention you’re stipulating. Of course stipulations cannot be used to demonstrate anything because they are man-made.

But surely that would depend entirely on how you define the 'round trip'? If you define it from emission to detection, you run into the same problem since the 'overall' speed would have to fall under the constant and whichever convention you employ, the end result would be the same. Or am I missing something?

Last I was aware they were having trouble calculating a Hubble constant that made much sense or was even very consistent. Secondly, this seems to be assuming the proof by calculating the expansion back to a singularity. What are your reasons for assuming a constant expansion rate and a beginning point of zero? I grew 0.1 inches in the year between my 17th and 18th birthday, using your same assumptions I’d have to be 714 years old at that time since I am 71.5 inches tall right?

Haha, I agree. As far as I am aware, the Redshift/Hubble constant can only lead us back to the so called 'Recombination Era' and before that is largely conjecture. I would have thought that the inflationary model would render the concept of a big bang singularity unnecessary, but I'll happily admit I'm not an expert on the matter.

There are plenty of resources available on the internet that explain it much better than I.

I wish you could just explain it. I really hate just, “taking their word for it.”

It's not that at all. It generally takes a lot less time and effort to ask a question than it does to answer it. Answers generally take up a lot more words, too.

I just gave a brief explanation. If you can already refute the examples I gave, then my explaining them in greater detail would be a waste of time. If you have to look online to refute them, then you'll have to do the search anyway. Either way, it's an unnecessary use of time and effort for both of us.

We’re talking past one another. Yes, sometimes the first step of the scientific method is called, “observation” and sometimes it is called “formulating a question”- either way this is not referring to the actual process of experimental inquiry. This comes after the hypothesis has been formulated.

Fair enough

How do you know it is used to reliably date organic matter up to 50,000 years old? I am not aware of any way to empirically verify this.

One method of verifying it involves comparison with dendrochronolgy. IIRC, bristlecone pines give an unbroken record dating back 9000 years or so. Radiocarbon dating results are compared to known ages and, to the best of my knowledge, they have always proven accurate. I have yet to see a claim of inaccurate radiocarbon dating that has not been the direct result or misrepresentation and/or a deliberate attempt to deceive.

There’s nothing wrong with my English (although I did screw it up with one of Zazzy’s posts ). Again, just like everyone who believes the Earth is billions of years old you’re engaging in posturing. Until you demonstrate otherwise I will assume you simply cannot answer the question.

It's not posturing. At worst, it's laziness. A wooden ship as large as noah's ark was supposed to be (let alone the size it would have to be in order to accommodate its cargo)simply doesn't have the structural integrity required to be seaworthy. Not to mention that the ark was sealed with pitch. And according to creationists, pitch comes from the animals that were killed in the flood. A creationist continuity error? Surely not

It’s not relevant in regards to the merits of our positions, which is what I am interested in. If you raised an objection to Christianity and a Christian merely answered you by saying he did not deem your objection worthy of a response you’d have an aneurism. It’s disappointing that you feel you’re justified in engaging in this sort of misbehavior now.

If my objection to christianity was that lucy, the talking dodo had specifically told me that jesus was actually dancing caribou that tricked everyone into thinking he was god, then I think it would be perfectly reasonable for my objections to be dismissed in such a matter.

Unfortunately you’ve given me nothing to even refute. By tracing genetic markers? How does that demonstrate linear ancestry?

You must really hate search engines
how to trace mitochondrial DNA

I thought you didn't like assertions?

I thought you did?

Touché
Though I also tried to provide details when called on it.....

That is true only if there are sections of the Ocean’s crust that pre-date the polar reversals that occurred during the year of the flood. Of course the evidence demonstrates that the igneous ocean crust and sediments overlying it postdate the entire continental Paleozoic sedimentary record; so we know this is not the case.

But that's the point, surely? The oceanic crust records geomagnetic reversals. If those records post-date the flood, then the oceanic crust must post-date the flood.

You know, I really am getting the impression that you're just taking the piss. If so, I applaud you.

[*]Where is the evidence for this?

For what? Plate tectonics?

No, this:

You have that backwards; the plate tectonic action caused the flood by pushing oceanic waters onto the continents and then caused the flood to recede due to continental upheaval back to the oceans towards the end of the flood year.

[*]Why do the geomagnetic reversals either side of the mid-atlantic ridge mirror each other?

I am not seeing the problem here, you’ll have to be more specific.

The "theory" I saw, involving rapid magnetic reversals in ferromagnetic rock, only really managed to demonstrate the phenomena on a very small scale. The mid-ocean ridges have near symmetrical reversals throughout their entire length.

[*]Have you ever considered seeing a psychiatrist?

Nope, have you?

Yes. They weren't very good.