That Evidence that the Earth is Young

Author: TheMelioist

Posts

Total: 10
TheMelioist
TheMelioist's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 24
0
0
5
TheMelioist's avatar
TheMelioist
0
0
5
A lot of young-earth creationists claim that there is loads of evidence that the earth is less then 10,000 years old.

so... bring it.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
The past doesn't exist, only the present exists, according to science.

Age is defined as the time passed between the start of its existence and the present, and since the present is the present, Earth is 0 years old.

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
The past doesn't exist, only the present exists, according to science.
[Citation Needed]

Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Just look at this debate. I am writing an argument about it now.

Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
"If you think you understand quantum mechanicsyou don't understand quantum mechanics."

-Richard Feynman

I think that quote applies spectacularly here.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheMelioist
The bible is the inerrant word of God. What more evidence is needed?
TheMelioist
TheMelioist's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 24
0
0
5
TheMelioist's avatar
TheMelioist
0
0
5
-->
@dustryder
Firstly, I'm a Christian (and an old-earth creationist). If you want to see why Young-earth creationism is unbiblical I suggest  going to this video here: 

Secondly, when I wanted evidence it was implied that you would give scientific evidence.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
Using a fallacy of ignorance does not deny that this is true.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
No, I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about, or more specifically - that you don't understand quantum mechanics.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Having looked at your debate, and you syllogism, I'll just note that most syllogisms allow non sequitur arguments to be considered logical, to wit;

P1 Camels walk
P2 Birds fly
C Therefore, butterflies swim.

It's simple A + B = C, but your elements must truly add up, and it is too easy to proposes elements that do not, such as your R1 argument's syllogism.


That light has traveled 9 billion years, so says NASA. Your argument of "no past" is simply too simplistic because all depends on a point of view. Who's view?