HEY YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS!
If the Earth is only 6000 years old, how can we see light from stars several million lightyears away?!
>>70191828
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTmgb_mWu2I
>>70192851
No wonder right wingers are such retards.
>>70191828
Is this a troll?
If the Sun is 30 million miles away why does light come down through broken clouds at angles?
>>70193021
Why do my buttcheeks get sunburnt so fast?
If space is so cold, how can we feel warmth from the sun?
>>70193110
Why do I love my foreskin so much? I can see you're not here for relevance. Moving on now
Light isn't a constant, so it could've been faster in the past.
>>70193124
If there are so many stars out there, why am I so lonely?
>>70193161
Why is my penis so much darker than the rest of my skin?
>>70192928
It is.
And poorly targeted because not a single creationist retard could tolerate a minute here.
>>70193170
becuz u jus need 2 b urself
>>70191828
because the stars were here before the earth
weak agnostic here OP
i like what you are doing but this is a weak arguement
>>70193199
Lol you have honkyniggerdick. Quite common
>>70193225
Thx Aussiebro!
>>70193201
Found the newfag
>>70193246
Not in terms of size, that's for sure.
>>70193201
I believe the Earth was created, have yet found reason to believe it is only 6000 years old. There is no way to know how long Adam and Eve spent in Eden before the Fall.
>>70191828
If the earth is only 6000 years old, than how am I only 19?
Checkmate Christians!
>>70193323
>>70193306
Bruutal. It still looks better though, i'd bet
>>70193163
Are Australians really this dumb?
Tell me you are being ironic.
You have thousands of points that can refute a creationist, and you pick this one? It's like saying that astronauts inside an spaceship can't see the starts since they were in the exact position for less than several million years.
>>70193405
Thx Leafbro!
>>70191828
Your premise relies on more than one premise being absolute and true. You have to believe that light is a constant, that redshift is more than a local phenomena and can be used to gauge distance, solar references are fixed and their measurements accurate and that distant starlight suggests something inherently about the age of the earth.
The earth could be 6,000 years old, but the universe 100 gorrillion years old, its a non sequitar argument based on a belief that you have concrete, indistupitable facts about reality, this denies the real fact that science does not deal in facts but empirical data derived from subjective human experience.
Lets assume the universe is 16.4 bya, or w/e it is claimed to be now, even calculating the amount of stars being destroyed and the neccessity of star creation never being observed, why is there still so many stars? Why is distant starlight been observed further than 20 billion light years? They stopped using distant starlight as a good measurement for cosmogony because the better the technology the further they find starlight.
>>70193543
POO IN LOO
>>70192928
Poo in loo
>>70193543
>inb4 POO IN LOO
>>70192926
I can smell the cuck from this post
>>70191828
>Humans
>Knowing how time could be perceived by an Omnipotent being
I cant stop Face-palming
HEY ATHEISTS
If hot air rises, how come there's always snow on Mt. Everest??
CHECKMATE GAYTHEISTS, TRUMP WINS
>>70193543
Rupert Sheldrake gave a Ted Talk that was banned; he discussed how light is not a constant, among other things.
He believes that it varies slightly, but the point is that if it varies at all, everything we know about this reality needs to be changed, there are countless theories and hypotheses that rely on light being a constant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg
>>70193589
Np. Canadian penis is best penis
>>70193803
i can recognize a fellow Canadian when i see one
great shitposting friend!
>>70193590
Stars are still forming. As far as subjective experience, that is true. However we rely on uniformity of nature to gather what you said as empirical data.
We are able to test something, using such and such, and because of the uniformity it reacts in such a way. It is not that chemical bonding and reactions do not occur the way they do for no reason, they are meant to act that way. If meant is too personal a word than forced may be better.
Good post. A lot of what you said in the beginning is out of my league.
>>70193021
Either side of the road right beside me appears angled inward. Thus, the road converges to a point very close to me.
>>70191828
lets be honest here- if God made the earth only 6k years ago, God could do whatever the fuck he wanted. Put dinosaur bones because fuck you thats why, make some stars exist that are older than the universe.
the whole premise is 'if god did it i dont gotta explain shit but ill pray 5 u'
>reminder sage still works if placed in options field
>>70194385
I would recommend you read about star formation and then ask yourself how much of what you read is empirical, or ever could be. I mean the claims about star formation have been so ambiguous that some have suggest it take 100 stars exploding to create enough energy to put one back together. It certainly begs the question. Here's a single link that you might find interesting on the topic:
http://www.universetoday.com/24190/how-does-a-star-form/
as far as the uniformity of reality, i agree, that is exactly what is used as a main apriori premise, but this premise cannot come from a materialistic philsophy like what modern academia is inundated with currently, Reality must be believed to be stable enough to test against. A strange paradox for a universe of constant change and instability.
In naturalistic philsophy there is something called demarcation, the 'what is science and what is not science.' Much of what we consider science is non-operational, which is a code word for non-empirical, cosmogony, AOE, common ancestry, paleontology, geology, have large aspects that are not empirical, but based on such a premise I brought up. Like any syllogism, if one of the premises are faulty, so then is the conclusion.
Carbon dating
>>70194650
The Bible speaks of dinosaurs. It calls them dragons and that they had tails like spruce trees or something something. Perhaps similar to a dinosaur
>>70195164
By empirical do you mean absolute? It is only empirical as far as what uniformity determines. The only reason we believe uniformity will continue is based on personal experience as far as what has happened every day before this one.
Because of inflation
>>70195585
No, empiricism is based on experience, like taste, touch, feel, seeing. something that's non-empirical would be something you can't directly experience and in classical naturalistic demarcation, anything that cannot be experienced directly is not science. This has obviously been shifted alot, most non-empirical "science" is just based on materialism/naturalism, which is circular reasoning because that is based on empiricism.
In the context of science, empiricism is almost entirely gleaned from experiment, this is obvious by looking at the scientific method. It would not be wrong to say that if something follows the scientific method, it is science; but if something does not follow the scientific method it can also be science too as long as it is materialistic.
You should read up on Karl Popper, he was one of the most famous and interesting naturalist philosophers, and he was in the camp that said science should be based almost exclusively on the scientific method.
He also advocated for my position, which is we can have philosophy involved in science or we remove all philosophy but we can't have both and yet currently we have ONE, which is materialism. I advocate science with no philsophy, otherwise it gets away from the noble pursuit.
>>70193543
You are ignorant, you should read about what we're discussing before you make stupid comments.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all
>>70191828
God is a decent software tester?
>>70196413
Experience from what occurs whenever you do such and such over and again because of the uniformity. Only testable things obviously. My point is other things will act in whichever way they do as long as uniformity remains.
>>70196741
But history is unique, it only happens once. Even if we accept uniformity as an objective fact, we cannot replicate a test that we cannot do in the first place. Something like Common Descent is based entirely upon the extrapolation of uniformity as an idea, but not something that actually exists and is observable, testable. So extrapolation of what we assume to be true in our sphere of experience onto the realms of the unknown is firstly not science and secondly virtually worthless.
>>70197417
I agree with you 100%.
The problem is they allways just say "Bcs God made it ike that"
