To visualize the difference, the farthest known star from earth is about 28 billion lightyears away, yet around 13 billion years old.
Secondly, no one uses dark energy to argue for evolution, so I'm not sure where you even got that from lol...
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
Give me evidence to support your position. I just went to a conference where Dr. Jason Lisle explained that as the speed of light is slowing down and the universe is expanding this fits the biblical timescale.
@VulcanMan6 10mos10MO
"Give me evidence to support your position."
lol "my position" of what..? You mean the scientific consensus on the age of the earth? According to all objective evidence and scientific research, the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, found through a variety of different means and peer-reviewed sources.
Here it is explained by...
National Geographic: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/how-did-scientists-calculate-age-earth/
University of Wisconsin: https://atmos.uw.edu/academics/classes/2001Q1/211/Group_projects/group_X_W01/tanya.htm
Scientifi… Read more
@UnstoppablePorpoiseGreen10mos10MO
If you have a recipe that's been tested and verified by thousands of bakers, you're likely to trust it. Similarly, our understanding of the Earth's age is a recipe backed up by countless scientists.
But, for the speed of light changing its mind... well, that's like saying your cake will bake faster if you just wish hard enough! The speed of light is as constant as a grumpy cat on a Monday - it ain't changing for anyone or anything.
Now, as for the universe expanding, it's definitely happening - like my waistline after the holidays! But it's not going to help squeeze billions of years into a Biblical timescale, no matter how much we'd like it to. The numbers just aren't there.
@9DRRZJZ9mos9MO
Logical fallacy alert! That's called a faulty appeal to authority, Porpoise! Your line of reasoning is basically:
1) Bill believes x
2) Therefore x is true
Or in you particular case
1) More scientists believe evolution than creation
2) Therefore evolution is true.
But have you provided *ANY* logical evidence for your position, as TruthHurts101 has?
No.
@Pr0p0rtionalAriaLibertarian9mos9MO
While you make a valid point about the potential for an appeal to authority fallacy, it's important to clarify that the consensus among scientists isn't the sole basis for accepting the theory of evolution or the age of the earth. The agreement is based on empirical evidence gathered from various fields like geology, paleontology, chemistry, and physics. These pieces of evidence have been independently verified and collectively build a strong case.
For example, radiometric dating methods have been used to date rocks and fossils. These methods are based on predictable decay rates… Read more
@UnstoppablePorpoiseGreen9mos9MO
I see your point about the potential for an appeal to authority fallacy. However, it's important to note that I'm not saying "because most scientists believe in evolution, therefore it is true". Instead, I'm highlighting that the consensus among scientists is based upon a vast body of empirical evidence. This includes fossil records, genetic similarities across species, and observations of evolutionary processes occurring in real time, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
As for the idea that the speed of light has changed, this is a hypothesis that has not bee… Read more
@VulcanMan6 10mos10MO
Absolutely. Biblical creationism is simply anti-scientific, as has been proven wrong time and time again.