Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9029 total)
60 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, kjsimons, nwr (5 members, 55 visitors)
Newest Member: Michael MD
Post Volume: Total: 884,337 Year: 1,983/14,102 Month: 351/624 Week: 72/163 Day: 32/26 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hubble's Law Disproves Young Earth Creationism
Calvin
Junior Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 9
From: California
Joined: 05-14-2018


Message 1 of 36 (832951)
05-14-2018 10:00 PM


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.

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.

In a formula Hubble's Law is the following:

V=DH

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.

V=DH

(1/H)V=D

1/H=D/V

Distance divided by velocity is time. So we now know the age of the universe is equal to the inverse of Hubble's Constant.

1/H=T

Hubble's Constant is in [km/s]/[mpc] so we can plug that in.

1/71([km/s]/[mpc])=T

There are 3.0857e19 kilometers in a megaparsec.

1/71([km/s]/3.0857e19[km])=T

We can cancel out the kilometers and get the following:

1/71/3.0857e19[s]=T

1/1รท71/3.0857e19[s]=T

3.0857e19/71[s]=T

So the universe is 4.3460563e17 seconds old. Which is 13.78 billion years.

So my question to young earth creationists is:

How do you reconcile a belief that the earth is less than 10,000 years old with Hubble's Law?

Edited by Calvin, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Stile, posted 05-15-2018 9:50 AM Calvin has not yet responded
 Message 10 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2018 4:15 PM Calvin has not yet responded

  
Calvin
Junior Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 9
From: California
Joined: 05-14-2018


Message 14 of 36 (832986)
05-15-2018 5:47 PM


Stile writes:

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.

The conversation would probably move to trying to prove the big bang then, which I think there is plenty of evidence for.

NoNukes writes:

I think you can reconcile the two things with a version of last Thursdayism. The universe was created 6000 years ago with the stars and galaxies and space expanding at just about their current rates in just about their current positions, where just about means the minor adjustment for 6000 years.

Well, there's a reason last Thursdayism isn't scientificaly accepted. While it's possible, it's also a positive claim that requires the last Thursdayist to meet their burden of proof.

I see the same thing with a univerese "created old" its a positive claim that requires proof and without that, I see no reason to believe it.


Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2018 6:32 PM Calvin has not yet responded
 Message 16 by jar, posted 05-15-2018 6:45 PM Calvin has responded
 Message 32 by Stile, posted 05-17-2018 9:35 AM Calvin has not yet responded

  
Calvin
Junior Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 9
From: California
Joined: 05-14-2018


Message 17 of 36 (832992)
05-15-2018 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
05-15-2018 6:45 PM


Re: look at the responses.
It disproves a young earth, but only if we already assume that the big bang is true. If someone would like to contest this I can provide evidence for the big bang theory.

If we assume the big bang is true, an alternative for why we get 13.8 billion years from Hubble's Constant must be presented in order to discount my argument. A universe that's "created old" is a possibiltiy but would need to be proven, which it hasn't been.

Edited by Calvin, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 05-15-2018 6:45 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 05-15-2018 7:52 PM Calvin has responded
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 05-16-2018 12:30 AM Calvin has not yet responded

  
Calvin
Junior Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 9
From: California
Joined: 05-14-2018


Message 19 of 36 (832994)
05-15-2018 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by jar
05-15-2018 7:52 PM


Re: look at the responses.
Making that distinction, you're totally correct. It disproves a young universe but not a young Earth. If a christian believed in a young Earth but an old universe, like you said I would point to Genesis 1:1. Since it implies the Earth and universe are the same age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 05-15-2018 7:52 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 05-15-2018 8:09 PM Calvin has not yet responded

  
Calvin
Junior Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 9
From: California
Joined: 05-14-2018


Message 22 of 36 (833007)
05-16-2018 1:09 AM


So then you admit that your single piece of evidence does the trick claim is not correct?

I think it competely rules out a young universe. But if this is our only piece of evidence, it does not disprove a young Earth.

Fortunately, we have mountains more evidence for an old Earth. If you'd like I could provide some.

Edited by Calvin, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 05-16-2018 7:11 AM Calvin has not yet responded
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 05-16-2018 10:51 AM Calvin has responded

  
Calvin
Junior Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 9
From: California
Joined: 05-14-2018


Message 25 of 36 (833093)
05-16-2018 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
05-16-2018 10:51 AM


Interesting, so what do you think is a valid argument against, my post? Even if you think there are other things that prove an old universe/Earth. Remember, I've conceded that it a) it assumes the big bang theory to be true and b) says nothing about the age of the Earth. But I currently still do think it can prove the age of the universe to be billions of years old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 05-16-2018 10:51 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 05-16-2018 5:37 PM Calvin has responded
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2018 1:25 AM Calvin has responded

  
Calvin
Junior Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 9
From: California
Joined: 05-14-2018


Message 27 of 36 (833096)
05-16-2018 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
05-16-2018 5:37 PM


Uhhh... No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 05-16-2018 5:37 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Calvin
Junior Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 9
From: California
Joined: 05-14-2018


Message 29 of 36 (833104)
05-17-2018 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by NoNukes
05-17-2018 1:25 AM


You're right of course, science never proves thing, it only selects the best model to explain our observations. But I think my op is fairly strong evidence that an old universe is exactly that.

In any case, it's kind of moot since no one here seems to be a YEC.

Edited by Calvin, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2018 1:25 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2018 2:23 AM Calvin has responded

  
Calvin
Junior Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 9
From: California
Joined: 05-14-2018


Message 31 of 36 (833106)
05-17-2018 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by NoNukes
05-17-2018 2:23 AM


OK, sure. I'll say that it doesn't completely rule out a young universe. But all I said was:

In my opinion, one of the larger pieces of evidence against a young Earth, is Hubble's Law.

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.

Edited by Calvin, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2018 2:23 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Stile, posted 05-17-2018 9:50 AM Calvin has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021