The secular astronomers BELIEVE the universe is billions of years old but recognize the speed of light may have been trillions of times faster in the past.
Logic and science should indicate to you that nothing can't cause anything.Vulcan Logician said:
That seems the only logical conclusion. Once you accept is logical, then you can look for evidence that the cause is omniscient and omnipotent.Vulcan Logician said:
Fortunately science/ truth is not determined by majority opinion. There are many evidences against an old universe. (Eg. 'Mature' galaxies in the distant 'young' universe). Also there are evidences the speed of light was faster in the past. For example the light horizon problem. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problemVulcan Logician said:
I see you can't explain how your cited article can result in a young earth.
I think you missed something... Logician suggested that someone show how light might have arrived at earth faster than it was supposed to. Neither you nor I know how God created and spread the stars. This is what I answered to Logician.
What do you mean 'supposed to'? It's your dishonest deception, because you interjected in an exchange during which your camp follower JudgeRightly had specifically discussed a young earth at 6,000-10,000 years old.
What god? What spread? These things don't even exist, so I'm not surprised you fail to explain them every time.
The earth is 4.54 billion years old. That is what all of the evidence says, with none contradicting it. In all this bullish nonsense you post you have never once provided a single fact that disproves 4.54 billion years. Not one.This is what I answered to Logician.
Did nothing create that light?... Was there a cause that existed eternally?..... Was the speed of light trillions of times faster in the past like some secular astronomers believe? https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/w...f-the-universe
Old earth/ universe is a belief system (as is young earth). Both belief systems interpret evidence to fit priori biases. But... Young earth beliefs fit the evidence best... of course
Just as before, you cherry pick from your own sources. As the Wiki article explains, the horizon problem is resolved via cosmic inflation. And some of the expectations of cosmic inflation have been realized via COBE and WMAP.
Like before, you rely on hypothetical potential resolutions to support your house of cards. Explaining away the evidence is not science.
You are SILLY. Your belief system attempts to interpret evidence in a way that fits your beliefs. The evidence as you know, doesn't actually say anything. (Evidence ALWAYS needs to be interpreted). Stuu... your interpretation often involves trying to explain away the most obvious interpretation. Dark energy, Oort clods, inflation trillions of times faster than speed of light, dark matter, multiverse, cold whoosh, big crunch, singularity, plasma universe... and on and on are attempts by secularists to deny that we live in a young... created universe.
Not one single piece of evidence that contradicts a 4.54 billion year old earth.
Not one single piece of evidence that contradicts a 4.54 billion year old earth.
Here's a piece of evidence that contradicts a 4.54 billion year old earth.
That refers to a group of people, known as clods, who deny the evidence pointing to a young universe.
:rotfl:
there is MUCH evidence that contradicts the old earth beliefs. The best evidence however, is the eye witness testimony of the One who was there at the beginning.
Still not a single piece of evidence to contradict a 4.54 billions year old earth.
Again you try and deflect by accusing others of your own faults.
Exhibit A.
Sorry, but a creationist website is not 'evidence'. I'm not going fishing for you. Where in that confused mash of science words is there a single fact that disproves a 4.54 billion year old earth?
Talk about bias...
Carbon 14 existing in places where it shouldn't if the BB is true. See the link above for details.