Young earth creationism

I told you it was a mistake. You mentioned this in the comments, there was no point in saying it here. I’ve provided proper reference when you brought this up earlier. The Universe is Expanding You’re actually correct. The universe is indeed expanding. The Bible actually points out in a number of places that the universe has been “stretched out” or expanded. Isaiah 40:22 tells us that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” Verses like this teach that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation, God has expanded it. When this was written, and till recently, secular scientists thought that the universe was eternal and unchanging. This would have caused Christians to read verses like this in an unnatural way, modern science now confirms this though. The Bible recorded the notion of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular science came to accept the idea. Red Shift The expansion of the universe does not actually support the big bang, as that’s what you’re trying to do. Just because the universe is thought to be expanding doesn’t mean it was ever small (i.e. singularity). This also doesn’t indicate that a big bang caused this expansion. The big bang model didn’t even predict this expansion. The big bang was made to make since of such expansion within the paradigm (framework) of naturalism. The Bible, although, brought forward the fact of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular scientists considered it. Also Red Shift isn’t really a fact to as of why the universe is expanding. Scientists have begun to question this interpretation of an expanding universe. There’s a lot of other ways to explain such “stretching out.”[2] Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Explain. You’re Claims about Bias’ and Worldviews The ‘peer review system’ doesn’t cut out bias. Please, go look at a secular scientific journal, and tell me where it offers up the possibility of God being real. Tell me where it points out that evolution and the big bang, etc., are not proven. Show me where your ‘peer reviewed’ scientific journals don’t use propaganda tactics to convey their theories as true. You’re right though; the slightest error of an author mentioning the possibility of God in a secular journal will for sure ruin their career. Seriously, proved? How? And which science are you speaking of, observational or historical? There radically different! For example, how does the 1st Law of Thermodynamics “prove” the big bang, when it emphatically states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed? That is true science rejecting cosmic evolution. I won’t waste any space on this, so look at this video J http://www.answersingenesis.org... “The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said: ‘We take the side of [evolutionary] science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ Now that’s open-minded isn’t it? Isn’t ‘science’ about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation: ‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.’ So the fundamentally important question is, ‘which worldview (bias) is correct?’, because this will determine the correctness of the conclusions from the data.”[3] The facts do not speak for themselves. They must be interpreted. We don’t pull out rocks or fossils from the ground with a label of how old they are. The scientific method doesn’t apply to historical science in the way it applies to observational (experimental) science. You can’t repeat past events. If you ‘know nothing until it is proved through the scientific method’ then you’re in the wrong debate. Because you must know nothing about evolution or creation. Lunar Recession I’ve never heard of creationists saying ‘3 inches’… I believe I did say 1 ½. His math sounds great, but it’s misleading. Refutations like his have been answered many times. The recession of the moon is not constant over time. It would have been faster in the past. So, it is incorrect to assume that the rate has always been 1 ½ /year.[4] So actually, your friend in the video is the one with the bad math. See this in detail from the article I just cited. The ‘impact theory’ is fact? Were you there? Let’s just put that outside for now, and use your theory. You left out how old they estimated the moon to be. Your right that this article did say the ‘young earth had no moon’, but you leave out where the article states the moon is assumed to be (through their assumptions) basically the same age of earth. So, basically the math is still the same in my equation used for the recession. You go on to say I assume the continents have always been the same, I never assumed such thing. You also say I assumed the rate of recession to be constant. I believe above I pointed out the guy in the video did this, instead. I didn’t. And no, our viewpoint (worldview) causes our assumptions. Which have to be made to interpret the evidence? I’ve explained this. Magnetic Field Look at the end notes on the articles I provide before you assume things. The citations you provided were supported with no scientific explanations. And most of them had no references. So were left to wonder whether they made up their argument or if it’s actually trustworthy. The statements made in your citations are a great example of how objections to biblical creation are ultimately subjective and emotional in nature — not logically rational. Read this article http://www.answersingenesis.org... again. :) I don’t think you really read it. Or anything else I’ve cited. This specific article was actually written by “Dr. Andrew Snelling who holds a PhD in geology and has worked as a consultant research geologist in both Australia and America. Author of numerous scientific articles." Reliable, accurate, published geological field data have emphatically confirmed the young-earth model for magnetic fields. I can't wait to hear the evidence for your side of the argument. As you can now see my arguments aren't based on 'false'... anything. Readers should be encouraged to look at the sources provided. You also never made since of the same evidence, based on your beliefs. Oh and to answer your question, I believe the earth is 6,000 years old because God was there, and He says it is. And the evidence fits perfectly. I pray you see that through this debate in later rounds. [2]http://www.answersingenesis.org... -- #66 deals with this. [3]http://creation.com... read the full article. [4]http://www.answersingenesis.org...