Young Earth Creationism - Is the world only 6.000 years old?

[Winston]

@Neo some links you will love. lol. Do you understand any of this? This is too complex for the average layman.


https://answersingenesis.org/creationis ... retations/

https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the ... arth-look/

https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the ... the-earth/

https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the ... arguments/

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-f ... ung-earth/

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... -universe/

https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... se-is-old/

[Winston]

Why is there distant starlight if the Earth is young?

[tom]

The 6-thousand-year thing is true but not in the way it is commonly framed by modern Christians. 6000 years is near the beginning of modern societies as we understand them now. That is around when we figured out how to get past the Dunbar number of hunters gather societies and have a stable society with larger numbers living together like in cities. The numerous social innovations needed to do that took about 6000 years to develop, that is from the end of the ice age. At the end of the ice age, we see the beginnings of agriculture and animal husbandry. This inter glacial period of the last 12000 years is unusual in how stable the Earth’s climate has been which also made this possible. The Bible is a compilation of all these ideas wich are in fact very sophisticated and impossible for any one person to create. Without the Biblical idea’s societies would be far too violent to remain cohesive, they would descend into extremely high levels of violence and return back to a stable hunter gather group size.

[Cornfed]

Why is there distant starlight if the Earth is young?

The obvious answer is that there isn't distant starlight.

[Winston]

Why is there distant starlight if the Earth is young?

The obvious answer is that there isn't distant starlight.

Well astronomers claim that parallax proved the distance of the stars to be many light years away. Is that true? Is this rock solid science or assumptions and guesses? I dont know enough about trigonometry and astronomy to understand whether the parallax of the stars is really proven or not.

[Cornfed]

Why is there distant starlight if the Earth is young?

The obvious answer is that there isn't distant starlight.

Well astronomers claim that parallax proved the distance of the stars to be many light years away. Is that true? Is this rock solid science or assumptions and guesses?

It is assumptions and guesses.

[gsjackson]

Why is there distant starlight if the Earth is young?

The obvious answer is that there isn't distant starlight.

Well astronomers claim that parallax proved the distance of the stars to be many light years away. Is that true? Is this rock solid science or assumptions and guesses? I dont know enough about trigonometry and astronomy to understand whether the parallax of the stars is really proven or not.

Parallax is the reason they had to come up with the unfathomable distances -- because there wasn't any, regardless of which side of the sun the earth was supposed to be on. All because they had to protect the heliocentric hypothesis.

[Cornfed]

Parallax is the reason they had to come up with the unfathomable distances -- because there wasn't any, regardless of which side of the sun the earth was supposed to be on. All because they had to protect the heliocentric hypothesis.

Well supposedly there is somewhat less than a second (1/3600 of a degree) of angle of parallax involving the alleged closest stars. Even with modern equipment and given that we are supposedly whizzing around galactic central point, I don't see how that couldn't be attributed to experimental artefact. And then they make the assumption that stars that have a similar light spectrum to the alleged close stars but are dimmer are pretty much identical stars but further away. It is not a silly idea, but it is a guess. There is no way of proving it.

[Winston]

If there is no way of proving it, then why do they call astronomy a fact rather than a theory or speculation? Something unproven should not be called a fact. And why are all astronomers in agreement and in on it?