I take the position that the Universe is about 13.8 billion years old and the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. In my opinion, one of the larger pieces of evidence against a young Earth, is Hubble's Law.
I agree with your conclusion.
But I don't understand how you got there.
Hubble's law states that galaxies outside of the Local Group are moving away from earth, and the speed at which they are moving away is proportional to the distance they are from Earth.
Meaning the speed at which a distant galaxy is moving in km/s is equivalent to its distance from earth in megaparsecs (mpc) multiplied by Hubble's Constant, which is about 71.
With this formula we can calculate the age of the earth.
I understand how Hubble's law allows us to calculate how fast other galaxies are moving away. And that "how fast they are moving away" is proportional to how far they are from Earth.
But how do we get from that to calculating the age of the universe?
Are you just taking the calculation back to when "all the galaxies were in 1 spot together?" And assuming that "when all galaxies were in 1 spot together" is the same as "the beginning of the universe?"
Or is it other logical connections you're making that I'm not understanding?
Would knowing the distance and the speed of light tell us how long light from the distant source had to travel for us to be able to see it?
This seems to be moving along the lines of these assumptions:
quote:Are you just taking the calculation back to when "all the galaxies were in 1 spot together?" And assuming that "when all galaxies were in 1 spot together" is the same as "the beginning of the universe?"
My question is whether or not these assumptions are being used to get to the conclusion.
It that's what was intended, then I understand how the conclusion was obtained If they are not... then what logical connections are being made between the rate of expansion and the beginning of the universe?
But if that was the assumption I can't see how that relates to the Young Earth Creationism. That assumption would hold true regardless of whether the Earth was 4.3 billion years old or 6000 years old.
I agree. Hence my questions.
I think there are other assumptions going on... either about physics, or about Young Earth Creationism (which flavour?)
In general, though... I don't really care. As far as I'm personally concerned, this isn't a matter up for debate (at least not in this way... the 'debate point' here all seems fairly clear and understood to me personally).
I'm simply bored and attempting to engage/understand what the OP is, specifically, meaning. I think some details the OP is taking for granted (assuming) have been left out of their message.
and we can consider that time the moment of the Big Bang.
That's the assumption. (And rightly so, if you ask me).
But, a YEC's response, if I were to guess... would be that the Big Bang never happened. So they simply would not accept such an assumption. And therefore, the tracking-the-calculation-back-to-when-galaxies-were-touching would be irrelevant.
Like taking the speed of someone on an escalator, tracking back their position and saying "10 minutes ago you were in the ground beneath this building!!" To a YEC, it doesn't make sense to make a linear-ish assumption.
And I do still think it is one of the larger pieces of evidence, if not totally conclusive.
Maybe it was the title? How I said it disproves YAC. I still haven't seen a good argument against what I said in the op however.
I think that the idea you're attempting to convey includes a lot more than the words you wrote in your OP (original/opening post) imply if those words are taken standing alone.
I think that you are absolutely correct about the idea you are attempting to convey... that Hubbles Constant, coupled with the evidence behind the Big Bang Theory and all wrapped inside the current knowledge of astrophysics... all completely destroys and leaves no other possible conclusion than "YEC is false."
However, we've been around these arguments a while And we understand that you're not likely to get much YEC-response to your post. Possibly because of lack-of-ability to properly deal with your argument, or possibly because of lack-of-YEC-believers-willingness-to-participate at all (maybe even simply because there's not many of them left!)
So, in knowing what your argument was, and also knowing that you weren't likely going to get much of a debate with any actual YECs... we've turned to the next best thing. Dissecting your argument for various reasons... -out of boredom (with few YECs around, we don't have much else to do... ) -out of a willingness to help you form clear and concise arguments in the future -out of a desire to point out arguments that contain flaws regardless of them coming from a YEC or "someone we agree with" -out of knowledge that dealing-with-YECs is not generally a dealing-with-facts sort of argument... therefore, if you're going to use facts, you need to have them "air-tight." -probably a bunch of other reasons I can't think of
Again, I think that the idea you had in mind certainly does do what you claim it does. Folks are just pointing out that the words-you-used-to-describe-your-idea didn't include all-the-necessary-parts-of-your-idea in order to form all the connections to the conclusion-you've-claimed.
Granted... perhaps in order to include all-the-necessary-parts-of-your-idea you may need a lot of data and words, and it can seem overwhelming if not generalized and truncated correctly to begin with. But, well, that's all part of forming a good argument that, to me, is best learned by experience.
Anyway... try not to take any of this personally, we can also be a bunch of tools