lol the literacy rate was not even close to 90%

The figure you're citing is from a book in 1974 that postulated that, by the end of the 18th century, around 90% of white New England men were literate. Which is exactly my point, that education and literacy was incredibly discriminatory and of significant disparity.

Secondly, creationism (at least as transcribed in the bible) is proven false by every piece of science discovered that explains the beginnings of life and the universe without the existence of a god. As even a simple example: the nearest galaxy to earth is the Andromeda galaxy, which is around 2.5 million lightyears away. Given that a lightyear is the distance that light travels in one year, it means that the light coming from the Andromeda galaxy has traveled at lightspeed for around 2.5 million years. If the earth was younger than that, then we would physically not be able to see the Andromeda galaxy, because the visible light needed to see it in the first place would still be travelling through space. That fact alone already disproves the biblical age of creation.

Lastly, that "politically incoorect" quote is a very common quote from the internet, it's not anything brave or original; it's basically just the conservative version of "live, laugh, love". And I don't know why I would be offended by any of those things either lol they're just embarrassing tho...

▲▲Reply to this Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

14 Replies

@TruthHurts101 from Washington commented…10mos10MO

The 2.5 million light years are accounted for by a little something called DARK ENERGY and EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE, which perfectly fits the Biblical time frame. You use dark energy to argue for evolution 1 minute than ignore it the next

▲▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…10mos10MO

lol dark energy is not expanding the universe at the rate you would need to fit a biblical timeline of creation. To visualize the difference, the farthest known star from earth is about 28 billion lightyears away, yet around 13 billion years old.

Secondly, no one uses dark energy to argue for evolution, so I'm not sure where you even got that from lol...

▲▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

@TruthHurts101 from Washington commented…10mos10MO

Give me evidence to support your position. I just went to a conference where Dr. Jason Lisle explained that as the speed of light is slowing down and the universe is expanding this fits the biblical timescale.

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…10mos10MO

"Give me evidence to support your position."

lol "my position" of what..? You mean the scientific consensus on the age of the earth? According to all objective evidence and scientific research, the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, found through a variety of different means and peer-reviewed sources.

Here it is explained by...

National Geographic: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/how-did-scientists-calculate-age-earth/

University of Wisconsin: https://atmos.uw.edu/academics/classes/2001Q1/211/Group_projects/group_X_W01/tanya.htm

Scientifi… Read morec American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/

The Smithsonian: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/

International Planetary Society: https://www.ips-planetarium.org/page/age

United States Geological Survey: https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

National Park Services: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/age-of-the-earth.htm

a response against creationism from University of Notre Dame: http://sites.nd.edu/james-applewhite/2020/03/22/age-of-our-earth/

and again, literally ANY science textbook, journal, or article explaining our current collection of scientific data, research, and findings. In fact, the only sources that consistently denied the evidence of the world's scientific community were privately-funded religious organizations and institutions, none of which provided any actual evidence to support their claims beyond the mere dismissal of everything that proves them contrary. And that is only on the age of the geological earth, not even the additional mountains of evidence supporting our current timeframe of evolution, much of which I have already provided in my other comments.

Again, I greatly recommend this video that uses science to debunk these kinds of anti-scientific claims: https://youtu.be/rIzENnMbsxA

"I just went to a conference where Dr. Jason Lisle explained that as the speed of light is slowing down and the universe is expanding this fits the biblical timescale."

First of all, you either misunderstood what he was saying, or his work is not published, BECAUSE, all our current evidence indicates that the speed of light is a universal constant. In fact, it is literally famous for being a constant (with the given variable, "c"), as it has been used for nearly all mathematical and astrological calculation since it's discovery by Einstein in 1905. The idea that the speed of light is NOT a constant is purely a theory today (not a scientific theory, but a theory that has yet to find actual evidence to support it). Scientists have been trying to find evidence to support this idea for decades now, as it would fundamentally change our current framework on time and spacial relativity, but there is still NO actual evidence yet to prove or support it. It is still just a fringe concept (mostly pushed by creationists as a possible explanation against the big bang), but so far unproven.

Secondly, the expansion of the universe is already taken into account in our current math and measurements of the universe, of which we used to arrive at our current conclusions of the almost 14 billion-year-old universe. No amount of alterations of evidence and mathematical changes can make that fit anywhere around a biblical timeline without blatantly ignoring objective evidence. That's why the entire scientific community agrees with the numbers concluded from objective evidence, while creationists have to rely on foregoing and denying evidence to make their preconceived beliefs fit the lack of data.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Link Context •••Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

@UnstoppablePorpoiseGreen from Pennsylvania agreed…10mos10MO

If you have a recipe that's been tested and verified by thousands of bakers, you're likely to trust it. Similarly, our understanding of the Earth's age is a recipe backed up by countless scientists.

But, for the speed of light changing its mind... well, that's like saying your cake will bake faster if you just wish hard enough! The speed of light is as constant as a grumpy cat on a Monday - it ain't changing for anyone or anything.

Now, as for the universe expanding, it's definitely happening - like my waistline after the holidays! But it's not going to help squeeze billions of years into a Biblical timescale, no matter how much we'd like it to. The numbers just aren't there.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Disagree Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

Show 2 replies

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this comment.

@VulcanMan6

Last activeActivity1,878 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias85%Audience bias25%Active in

PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

lol the literacy rate was not even close to 90%

14 Replies

About this author

Discussions

Voter guides

Data & analytics

Candidates

About