How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[Paddington]

Accidentally overwrote this post, this is a reconstruction as best I can remember...

I asked for the 3 strongest pieces of physical evidence supporting a 6K year old Earth, so I’m going with the first 3 given.

Magnetism

"Worth of magnetism" in the poles (not polls) is a nonsense phrase. Molten iron currents in the Earth's core cause magnetism. The magnetic field fluctuates but is not expiring. You are confusing the magnetic poles with the magnetic fields. Also 5% per decade =/= a few K years worth, which is it? Lastly if the magnetic field switched off, not all life on Earth would die, this is a gross exaggeration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

Moon

The Moon is moving away from the Earth at 3.8cm per year. Over ten million years, that’s 38 kilometres, which is hardly a blip. It’s roughly equivalent to the width of a closely-trimmed fingernail compared to the length of the entire human body.
Also, twice as close = x4 the gravity. That’s significant – average ocean tidal bulge is 1 metre and would go to 4 metres – but wouldn’t end human civilisation, let alone wash over all of the landmasses on Earth. Complete nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_...ce_(astronomy)

Pluto

There are no volcanoes in the colloquial sense on Pluto. There might be “ice volcanoes”, which make sense because it’s a frozen wasteland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryovolcano

Magnetic Field:

Yes ALL life would die if the magnetic field dissipated because it protects us from the sun's harmful rays. Cancer would kill us all. Wikipedia is not a reliable source anyway. I already posted an article for you on this proving my point. Shall I post it again? Or do you need another?

Moon:

Scientists say that the Earth/Moon are 4.5 BILLION years old. How far back in time do you need to go before the moon touches the earth? 1.2 Billion years. If that were true, Life couldn't have formed when they said it did is the point. If it were even half as far away, 600 Million years ago, there is no way that life could have even survived the tidal waves.


PLUTO:

So, what is driving all this activity? Scientists believe that the activity we see is a result of an internal heat source — like the radioactive decay of elements left over from the formation of Pluto over 4.5 billion years ago are keeping the interior warm enough for ice to flow.

https://www.iflscience.com/space/nas...-lava-and-ash/

[numberguy12]

On spread with Mr Beer or I'd rep him for wrecking this predictable brainwashed nonsense of Paddington.

On magnetism, you are ignoring the rather clear evidence we have of geomagnetic reversals (the existence of which makes your entire line of reasoning nullified). Btw nothing says the magnetic field "disappears" even during a reversal- so I don't know why you are going on now about the consequences for life with no magnetic field.....

On the moon recession, are you able to perform basic calculations yet? Where are you getting your 1.2 billion number? Let's calculate the actual time it would take (this is basic math), given the constant rate of recessions you are assuming:

(3.8cm/year)*(1m/100cm)*(1km/1000m)*x = 380,000km
x = (380,000*100*1000)/3.8
x = 10^10, or 10 billion years

So 10 billion years for moon to have been touching earth to where it is now. How exactly is that 1.2 billion?

Etc etc

[Paddington]

On spread with Mr Beer or I'd rep him for wrecking this predictable brainwashed nonsense of Paddington.

On magnetism, you are ignoring the rather clear evidence we have of geomagnetic reversals (the existence of which makes your entire line of reasoning nullified). Btw nothing says the magnetic field "disappears" even during a reversal- so I don't know why you are going on now about the consequences for life with no magnetic field.....

On the moon recession, are you able to perform basic calculations yet? Where are you getting your 1.2 billion number? Let's calculate the actual time it would take (this is basic math), given the constant rate of recessions you are assuming:

(3.8cm/year)*(1m/100cm)*(1km/1000m)*x = 380,000km
x = (380,000*100*1000)/3.8
x = 10^10, or 10 billion years

So 10 billion years for moon to have been touching earth to where it is now. How exactly is that 1.2 billion?

Etc etc

These reversals are pure speculation. I think there is only 1 reversal that may have happened in history that could be verified. And it would have to coincidentally reverse every time the poll is weak, it's not true.

Wrong again. This source says it's 1.2 Billion years ago that the moon would have touched the earth. It couldn't have pulled away at the same rate the entire time due to gravity. That is your error. You are supposing that it's always at the same rate.

The Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth. If it is getting further, at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law dictates that if the Moon were half the distance from the Earth, its gravitational pull on our tides would be quadrupled. 1/3 the distance, 9 times the pull. Everything would drown twice a day. Approximately 1.2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been touching the Earth.

https://www.allaboutcreation.org/how....LSHK4GQk.dpuf

[numberguy12]

These reversals are pure speculation. I think there is only 1 reversal that may have happened in history that could be verified. And it would have to coincidentally reverse every time the poll is weak, it's not true.

Wrong again. This source says it's 1.2 Billion years ago that the moon would have touched the earth. It couldn't have pulled away at the same rate the entire time due to gravity. That is your error. You are supposing that it's always at the same rate.

The Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth. If it is getting further, at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law dictates that if the Moon were half the distance from the Earth, its gravitational pull on our tides would be quadrupled. 1/3 the distance, 9 times the pull. Everything would drown twice a day. Approximately 1.2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been touching the Earth.

https://www.allaboutcreation.org/how....LSHK4GQk.dpuf

Ah, so it's confirmed you are simply ripping off false talking points from creationist sites [that entire article is a joke and unscientific].

Nope, the geomagnetic reversals are not pure speculation. They in fact are based on vast evidence from the geologic record [science doesn't just "make things up" with no evidence]. See section under "Observing Past Fields":

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

To the moon thing, actually you seem to be essentially assuming a constant rate of recession:

How far back in time do you need to go before the moon touches the earth? 1.2 Billion years. If that were true, Life couldn't have formed when they said it did is the point. If it were even half as far away, 600 Million years ago, there is no way that life could...

You are saying half as long ago [600 million years, from 1.2 billion years], it was half the distance. Surely you are assuming a constant rate of recession to arrive at this number....how else would you have arrived at it? Actually the rate is not constant [and present rate of 3.8cm/yr is probably abnormally high]. But this has no bearing on the age of the earth. Notice your article says 1.2 billion years the moon was touching the earth with absolutely no justification of this statement [because there is none]- So much for that 6,000 year old earth even if this was the case.

Actually, recent evidence says the earth moon distance was about 340,000 km 1.4 billion years ago:

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6363.abstract

Not exactly "touching the earth".

We have direct radiometric dating data that shows the solar system is about 4.5-4.6 billion years old from all kinds of objects we have dated. And furthermore, you can simply observe Andromeda in the sky and realize that the light took millions of years to reach us based on its distance. Your 6,000-10,000 year timescale cant explain any of this.....

Between you and the guy in the other thread who is skeptical of heliocentrism, R/P trying to take humanity back into the dark ages, smh.

[Paddington]

.....

[Mr Beer]

Magnetic Field:

Yes ALL life would die if the magnetic field dissipated because it protects us from the sun's harmful rays. Cancer would kill us all. Wikipedia is not a reliable source anyway. I already posted an article for you on this proving my point. Shall I post it again? Or do you need another?

The article you posted refers to a magnetic reversal process which occurs over a several hundred thousand year time frame and that has occurred numerous times in the past, instantly debunking your claims of a 6K young Earth. It also states that this process is not expected to have a great impact on life on Earth.

Moon:

Scientists say that the Earth/Moon are 4.5 BILLION years old. How far back in time do you need to go before the moon touches the earth? 1.2 Billion years. If that were true, Life couldn't have formed when they said it did is the point. If it were even half as far away, 600 Million years ago, there is no way that life could have even survived the tidal waves.

I don't know why you are talking billions of years being a problem when you think the Earth is only 6K years old? It's like claiming that an ant is 200 metres long instead of 2mm and then complaining that extrapolating estimates about ants looks tricky once you get down to the 1cm mark - either way your ant isn't the length of a football field.

Anyway your distances are way off, which can be demonstrated with basic arithmetic. 3.8cm per year = 4,560 km in 1.2 billion years. The moon orbits 380,000km away so no it's not touching, not even close.

Again, even if the moon was half as close, it's gravity is 4x as much, 4x sized tides don't destroy all life on Earth or even near to that. A typical high tide might be 6 metres instead of 1.5 metres. Living on the seafront would be dangerous but 10 kilometres inland with 50 metres of elevation, it would be perfectly fine.

So, what is driving all this activity? Scientists believe that the activity we see is a result of an internal heat source — like the radioactive decay of elements left over from the formation of Pluto over 4.5 billion years ago are keeping the interior warm enough for ice to flow.

https://www.iflscience.com/space/nas...-lava-and-ash/

Yes, the article backs up what I said - that ice volcanoes might exist on Pluto. So what?

[Paddington]

Happy Labor Day Weekend Everyone!!!

[Paddington]

Pluto NOT Pludo

[Paddington]

Pluto NOT Pludo

Sorry, wrong comment.

[Paddington]

Rock-dating techniques throw evolution in question

https://www.wnd.com/2019/09/rock-dat...n-in-question/

[numberguy12]

Rock-dating techniques throw evolution in question

https://www.wnd.com/2019/09/rock-dat...n-in-question/

Sorry, you are being brainwashed by young earth creationist sites. No one takes this nonsense seriously in the scientific community. You have no response to the rebuttals above, which says more than enough: there is nothing for you to stand on to support your false claims.

[Mr Beer]

Rock-dating techniques throw evolution in question

https://www.wnd.com/2019/09/rock-dat...n-in-question/

I'm not a scientist, so it took me 2 minutes working with the internet to establish that this video is a typical creationist lie. The narrator said that these 10 year old rocks were dated using the radiometric decay of potassium to argon but gave contradictory results.

So I checked and it turns out this technique isn't used unless the rocks are more than 100,000 years old:

Due to the long half-life of 40K, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old. For shorter timescales, it is unlikely that enough 40Ar will have had time to accumulate in order to be accurately measurable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93Ar_dating

In other words, no geologist would use the technique that the narrator claims was used.

Pretty sad when creationists know their audience is so gullible that they will swallow lies that even a child could debunk.

EDIT

Also radioactive decay is known to have a constant rate, it's extremely well established so the stuff the narrator is saying about scientists being unsure of this fact, is simply nonsense.

Additionally, evolution is supported by multiple chains of evidence. In fact it's so well supported by DNA evidence that we can prove it by analysis of extant species. We don't even need fossils, rocks or radiometric decay to prove it.

In other words, even if this guy wasn't lying about the analysis this lab allegedly did (but he is lying) and he wasn't lying about there being uncertainty of the rate of radioactive decay (he is lying about that as well), then there still wouldn't be any doubt about the factuality of evolution - so he's lying about that too.

As I mentioned before, creationists are either ignorant or dishonest. Given the production values used here, it's pretty clear that he is cynically deceiving gullible viewers by just bare-faced lying on camera. Rather distasteful but par for the course.

[Paddington]

Sorry, you are being brainwashed by young earth creationist sites. No one takes this nonsense seriously in the scientific community. You have no response to the rebuttals above, which says more than enough: there is nothing for you to stand on to support your false claims.

Did you even read the article?

[numberguy12]

Did you even read the article?

Mr Beer's response above you is spot on, not much needs to be added to it.

It is very telling, like with so much of this stuff, that the Creationists spouting this nonsense are doing so even though their points have been repeatedly addressed. But they continue to spout it in spite of this. This is essentially the definition of dishonesty.

I am simply amazed just how dishonest creationists can be in defending.....Christianity, of all things. Boggles the mind.

[Paddington]

I'm not a scientist, so it took me 2 minutes working with the internet to establish that this video is a typical creationist lie. The narrator said that these 10 year old rocks were dated using the radiometric decay of potassium to argon but gave contradictory results.

So I checked and it turns out this technique isn't used unless the rocks are more than 100,000 years old:

Due to the long half-life of 40K, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old. For shorter timescales, it is unlikely that enough 40Ar will have had time to accumulate in order to be accurately measurable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93Ar_dating

In other words, no geologist would use the technique that the narrator claims was used.

Pretty sad when creationists know their audience is so gullible that they will swallow lies that even a child could debunk.

EDIT

Also radioactive decay is known to have a constant rate, it's extremely well established so the stuff the narrator is saying about scientists being unsure of this fact, is simply nonsense.

Additionally, evolution is supported by multiple chains of evidence. In fact it's so well supported by DNA evidence that we can prove it by analysis of extant species. We don't even need fossils, rocks or radiometric decay to prove it.

In other words, even if this guy wasn't lying about the analysis this lab allegedly did (but he is lying) and he wasn't lying about there being uncertainty of the rate of radioactive decay (he is lying about that as well), then there still wouldn't be any doubt about the factuality of evolution - so he's lying about that too.

As I mentioned before, creationists are either ignorant or dishonest. Given the production values used here, it's pretty clear that he is cynically deceiving gullible viewers by just bare-faced lying on camera. Rather distasteful but par for the course.

You aren't thinking with your brain. They didn't tell them where the rock came from because they KNEW that the scientist would refuse to date the rock because they believe that all of the measurable c14 would be gone after 100,000 years. They aren't LYING to you, they LIED to the scientists to get them to date the rocks that they KNEW were only 10 or so years old and they came back with those ridiculous dates of millions of years. It PROVES that the dating methods don't work. FACT: Every single dinosaur bone ever found that has been dated has measurable c14 in them, even though the evolutionists claim that they died out 65 million years old. The evolutionists are lying.

[Paddington]

Mr Beer's response above you is spot on, not much needs to be added to it.

It is very telling, like with so much of this stuff, that the Creationists spouting this nonsense are doing so even though their points have been repeatedly addressed. But they continue to spout it in spite of this. This is essentially the definition of dishonesty.



I am simply amazed just how dishonest creationists can be in defending.....Christianity, of all things. Boggles the mind.

That's because you don't know the other side to the story. They purposely didn't tell the evolutionists how old the rocks were and they came back at millions of years old.

[numberguy12]

You aren't thinking with your brain. They didn't tell them where the rock came from because they KNEW that the scientist would refuse to date the rock because they believe that all of the measurable c14 would be gone after 100,000 years. They aren't LYING to you, they LIED to the scientists to get them to date the rocks that they KNEW were only 10 or so years old and they came back with those ridiculous dates of millions of years. It PROVES that the dating methods don't work. FACT: Every single dinosaur bone ever found that has been dated has measurable c14 in them, even though the evolutionists claim that they died out 65 million years old. The evolutionists are lying.

You don't even understand which dating method they are using.

This shows without a doubt that you are simply ripping talking points from creationists sites, without understanding the science involved whatsoever. This isn't carbon 14 dating lol. It's K-Ar dating (radioactive potassium-40 to argon-40). Potassium 40 has a half life of 1.3 billion years....so it's actually the opposite problem of whatever nonsense you are writing about above: the amount of decay of 40K is so little in a young-age sample, that the results are ambiguous. This test has nothing to do with carbon 14, nor are they measuring amounts of carbon 14.

The nonsense in that video has been dubunked and is old news. The lab itself said that tests are not reliable for <2,000,000 year samples. So this right here means it's all worthless. Further, if wondering how much Argon 40 accumulated, there is possibility of contamination of the mass spectrometer from previous experiments and or/rock sample contamination issues.

C14 in old dinosaur bones? Wtf? Carbon 14 has a half life of 5,700 years. lol carbon 14 is utterly gone from dinosaur remains from > 65 million years ago. You are literally just making things up now. Dino fossils are not dated with radiocarbon tests, the surrounding rock is tested via radiometric tests....

Edit: I see you are once again pulling fake creationist talking points about the c14 in dinosaur fossils. This is not much more than a joke, and is debunked in the following:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...-materials-dat

Read the top answer here very carefully, especially the methodology used by the Miller et al team from the "Creation Research Science Education Foundation" used in 1)getting the sample from the museum and 2)conducting the "research". It is actually a good case study in how dishonest/poor quality the research is of these creationists who put out falsehoods. Btw....the samples were utterly contaminated, nothing even needs said about that.

No measurable amounts of Carbon 14 in old dino fossils.

[numberguy12]

It's not even necessary to get involved in these details. Once again, your entire stance goes right out the window when you consider the following simple fact:

We see countless objects in the sky that are >>>>> 10,000 light years away. Many of these galaxies are millions and millions of light years away. Others billions of light years away. This is based on extremely well-established science backed up by experiment. You are unable to explain why Andromeda is about roughly 2 million light years away, and the light we are seeing from it is that far from the past. Simple as that. Young earth creationism is false news.

[Johnez]

100% sure I'm going to heaven. As an atheist, I figure being put in the ground with a single solitary spot to rot wouldn't be fun. I've instructed my family to burn me up in an oven, not sure if my smoke will make it all the way to heaven but if that doesn't happen they can throw the rest of my ashes off a high building, tower of Babel if it ever gets rebuilt. So yeah, I'm gonna be in heaven. And in the air, sea, and dirt. Everywhere, even in animals that breathe me in.

[Mr Beer]

You aren't thinking with your brain. They didn't tell them where the rock came from because they KNEW that the scientist would refuse to date the rock because they believe that all of the measurable c14 would be gone after 100,000 years. They aren't LYING to you, they LIED to the scientists to get them to date the rocks that they KNEW were only 10 or so years old and they came back with those ridiculous dates of millions of years. It PROVES that the dating methods don't work. FACT: Every single dinosaur bone ever found that has been dated has measurable c14 in them, even though the evolutionists claim that they died out 65 million years old. The evolutionists are lying.

Thank you for admitting that this story, like so many creationist claims, starts out with creationists telling lies. Again, this reinforces my point that dishonesty is a requirement for creationists.

I wasn't aware of the importance of this linchpin of creationist arguments. Unlike the wealth of evidence that informs valid science, creationists have to sift through veritable mountains of straw to locate the flimsiest of needles that they then claim proves their point.

So in 1992 a creationist called Dr Austin sent contaminated samples to a laboratory for argon dating, knowing that it was 6 years old and ignoring the laboratory's admonition that their testing would not provide accurate results for rocks < 2 million years old.

Lo and behold, the results were not accurate! Exactly as predicted by the laboratory.

The samples came back as various ages, between 280K and 2.8 million years old. So why so old?

1. Given the lab equipment was used to detect argon and everyone else sending samples in did so without lying, there was probably argon contamination in the equipment. Note, if it detected any argon at all, the smallest accurate increment is around 2 million years, so that makes sense.

2. The samples was comprised of different kind of rocks that had been crushed and melted together. There's a good chance that some of the rocks weren't completely melted and contained argon, which was then detected by the lab equipment.

So basically creationists lied and even then, the method used returned the smallest possible increment of inaccuracy, due to either equipment or sample contamination.

It's like using a ruler to measure the width of a human hair, when the smallest increment is 1mm. Due to a bad sample, the hair width comes back as 1mm. The actual width of a hair is much smaller than 1mm. So the hair-obsessed equivalent of creationists claim that rulers are useless and that scientists are lying to everyone and in fact hairs are 300mm thick.

[Paddington]

You don't even understand which dating method they are using.

This shows without a doubt that you are simply ripping talking points from creationists sites, without understanding the science involved whatsoever. This isn't carbon 14 dating lol. It's K-Ar dating (radioactive potassium-40 to argon-40). Potassium 40 has a half life of 1.3 billion years....so it's actually the opposite problem of whatever nonsense you are writing about above: the amount of decay of 40K is so little in a young-age sample, that the results are ambiguous. This test has nothing to do with carbon 14, nor are they measuring amounts of carbon 14.

The nonsense in that video has been dubunked and is old news. The lab itself said that tests are not reliable for <2,000,000 year samples. So this right here means it's all worthless. Further, if wondering how much Argon 40 accumulated, there is possibility of contamination of the mass spectrometer from previous experiments and or/rock sample contamination issues.

C14 in old dinosaur bones? Wtf? Carbon 14 has a half life of 5,700 years. lol carbon 14 is utterly gone from dinosaur remains from > 65 million years ago. You are literally just making things up now. Dino fossils are not dated with radiocarbon tests, the surrounding rock is tested via radiometric tests....

Edit: I see you are once again pulling fake creationist talking points about the c14 in dinosaur fossils. This is not much more than a joke, and is debunked in the following:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...-materials-dat

Read the top answer here very carefully, especially the methodology used by the Miller et al team from the "Creation Research Science Education Foundation" used in 1)getting the sample from the museum and 2)conducting the "research". It is actually a good case study in how dishonest/poor quality the research is of these creationists who put out falsehoods. Btw....the samples were utterly contaminated, nothing even needs said about that.

No measurable amounts of Carbon 14 in old dino fossils.

It doesn't matter. The point is that they dated the rock that was a little over 10 years old to be millions of years old. Maybe they use the Potassium Argon method. I may be mistaken about the method, but I am not about the bogus date they gave.

[Paddington]

'Evolution in action' actually supports creation

https://www.wnd.com/2019/09/evolutio...orts-creation/

[numberguy12]

It doesn't matter. The point is that they dated the rock that was a little over 10 years old to be millions of years old. Maybe they use the Potassium Argon method. I may be mistaken about the method, but I am not about the bogus date they gave.

I mean did you read literally any of the last few posts on this subject? It is being explained to you why those dates are worthless, but you seem to not even be able to understand, and keep obliviously repeating the same thing? I mean how easily do you want it spelled out? The lab specifically said anything <2,000,000 yrs old is not to be dated with that method, as results will be bogus.

Also, no answer to how we see distant objects millions to billions of light years away (and into the past?)

What is the shape of the earth, Paddington? I'm curious what your take on that is. Just to gauge which century your mindset is in.

[Paddington]

I mean did you read literally any of the last few posts on this subject? It is being explained to you why those dates are worthless, but you seem to not even be able to understand, and keep obliviously repeating the same thing? I mean how easily do you want it spelled out? The lab specifically said anything <2,000,000 yrs old is not to be dated with that method, as results will be bogus.

Also, no answer to how we see distant objects millions to billions of light years away (and into the past?)

What is the shape of the earth, Paddington? I'm curious what your take on that is. Just to gauge which century your mindset is in.

So then you are admitting that there is no way to date objects reliably and that the millions of years dates are bogus? I agree.

The startlight issue has a few theories. Time dilation is one explanation. Einstein proved that time is not a constant and that speed affects time, so although our perception from earth would be billions of years, in actuality, it's only about 6,000 years old. There are other theories as well.

The shape of the earth is round.

Isaiah 40:22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The earth hangs in outer space:

Job 26:7He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

[numberguy12]

So then you are admitting that there is no way to date objects reliably and that the millions of years dates are bogus? I agree.

The startlight issue has a few theories. Time dilation is one explanation. Einstein proved that time is not a constant and that speed affects time, so although our perception from earth would be billions of years, in actuality, it's only about 6,000 years old. There are other theories as well.

The shape of the earth is round.

Isaiah 40:22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The earth hangs in outer space:

Job 26:7He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

No, I said nothing at all about not being able to date objects reliably. You are now just putting words in my mouth lol. In fact, lunar rocks, meteorites, and the oldest earth rocks are way, way, older than 2 million years old, and the radiometic methods used for those rocks are fair game (and use radioactive isotopes with very long half-lives in the billions of years).

No, sorry, Einstein's time dilation says nothing about how long something traveling at c (i.e. light) takes to reach us, from our frame of reference. It simply takes (the distance)/c in time from our perspective. Time dilation is completely different and describes, how, for example observers in different inertial systems experience time with respect to each other. We aren't talking about the time experienced by the photon of light, we are talking about the time it takes the light to reach us from Andromeda from our perspective. Simply quoting Einstein's theory with literally zero understanding to answer a point is pretty ridiculous. No....the radiation traveling to us from the most distant galaxies took >>>>>>>>>>> more than millions of years.

That's nice you actually realize the earth is round (surprising, to be honest). Of course the OT was written by the ancient Hebrews who surely had flat earth as their worldview (they likely had a specific 3 tiered world view with the heavens, the flat earth, and the underworld), and this is why, for example you see things like Joshua through God stopping the sun in the sky (=ignorant of heliocentrism), etc.

[numberguy12]

To follow up on that point about relativity, transmission from the earth to the moon had like a 1 second lag either way (as it should, since the moon is close to a light second away from the earth)- observed in practice with the apollo missions. Light takes about 8 minutes to reach us from the sun. Radio transmissions (which travel at the speed of light) from the Mars rovers take exactly how long you'd think for them to reach us based on distance. Radio from Voyager 1 takes nearly a day because it is like 21 billion km away. All of this agrees with light taking the (distance/c) amount of time to traverse space. There is no uncertainty due to Einstein's relativity lol....."errrr maybe those transmissions from the Curiosity rover on mars only take like 10 seconds, or a thousand years to reach us because.....Einstein". Sorry. Might want to research more the basic premise of Special Relativity and what time dilation actually means.

[Paddington]

No, I said nothing at all about not being able to date objects reliably. You are now just putting words in my mouth lol. In fact, lunar rocks, meteorites, and the oldest earth rocks are way, way, older than 2 million years old, and the radiometic methods used for those rocks are fair game (and use radioactive isotopes with very long half-lives in the billions of years).

No, sorry, Einstein's time dilation says nothing about how long something traveling at c (i.e. light) takes to reach us, from our frame of reference. It simply takes (the distance)/c in time from our perspective. Time dilation is completely different and describes, how, for example observers in different inertial systems experience time with respect to each other. We aren't talking about the time experienced by the photon of light, we are talking about the time it takes the light to reach us from Andromeda from our perspective. Simply quoting Einstein's theory with literally zero understanding to answer a point is pretty ridiculous. No....the radiation traveling to us from the most distant galaxies took >>>>>>>>>>> more than millions of years.

That's nice you actually realize the earth is round (surprising, to be honest). Of course the OT was written by the ancient Hebrews who surely had flat earth as their worldview (they likely had a specific 3 tiered world view with the heavens, the flat earth, and the underworld), and this is why, for example you see things like Joshua through God stopping the sun in the sky (=ignorant of heliocentrism), etc.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The moon rocks are NOT 2 million years old either.

You can deny the time dilation theory, but it's just one of a few possible reasons for the star light being so far away. Another theory is that God created them with an appearance of age and He may have just as He created Adam probably not as a fetus.

The Bible is God's word, not the Hebrews word and it's pretty clear that the earth is round and hangs in outer space. How did they know it hangs in outer space. Did they have rocket ships? Or maybe it's just that God inspired the Bible.

Joshua's long day was likely a local event where God kept it light longer. How do you explain the darkness that happened at the time of Christ's crucifixion that occurred and was written about in secular history?

As far as the moon goes, it couldn't be 4 billion years old or even 2 billion years old. If it were 2 billion years old, it would be touching the earth because it's pulling away from the earth and at the rate it is pulling away, it would touch the earth in 2 billion. Even if it were only half as far away from the earth as it is now, the tides would be so high that all life on earth would die. So it can't even be 1 billion years old. How do you explain that?

[BrosefMengele]

As far as the moon goes, it couldn't be 4 billion years old or even 2 billion years old. If it were 2 billion years old, it would be touching the earth because it's pulling away from the earth and at the rate it is pulling away, it would touch the earth in 2 billion. Even if it were only half as far away from the earth as it is now, the tides would be so high that all life on earth would die. So it can't even be 1 billion years old. How do you explain that?

Can someone confirm this?

[Mr Beer]

Can someone confirm this?

Already debunked several times ITT by myself and numberguy. See below for a representative quote.

OP is insanely wrong on distances and rate of orbital decay and also insanely wrong on the effect of gravity on tides.

2 billion years at current rates = 7800km distance in orbital distance, the Moon orbits 384,000km away.

OP has been corrected numerous times but simply keeps repeating his disproven creationist lies. Quite sad really.

Moon

The Moon is moving away from the Earth at 3.8cm per year. Over ten million years, that’s 38 kilometres, which is hardly a blip. It’s roughly equivalent to the width of a closely-trimmed fingernail compared to the length of the entire human body.
Also, twice as close = x4 the gravity. That’s significant – average ocean tidal bulge is 1 metre and would go to 4 metres – but wouldn’t end human civilisation, let alone wash over all of the landmasses on Earth. Complete nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_...ce_(astronomy)
[U]

[Mr Beer]

You can deny the time dilation theory, but it's just one of a few possible reasons for the star light being so far away. Another theory is that God created them with an appearance of age and He may have just as He created Adam probably not as a fetus.

This is where YEC creationists often hide when backed into a corner: tacitly admitting that the only way their story makes sense is if God is trolling the crap out of humanity by creating a universe that looks exactly like it's 14 billion years old but is actually only 6K years old.

At this point it would be so much simpler and more consistent to stop clinging to the lies and go with the reality of a vast ancient universe.