Atheist and those who say earth is millions of yrs old. How can...?

Question

this be possible? The proximity of the sun and the earth is so criticle that if the sun was any closer or further away it would mean disaster for the human race. But according to some scientists calculations even if the sun and the earth were here together even 300,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that it would have fried man, animal and plants on earth. And so they conclude that the earth can not be as old as some say. What do you say?

Edit,
Ok so it's "critical". My point is this it does not matter what website or scientist I give you you will still refute it. That's because much of what science says about these kinds of things are suspect from the start. I rest my case.

Answer 1

Instead of questioning why Atheists and those who say the earth is millions of years old, why don't provide some tangible evidence that it is not?

Answer 2

You have no case to rest. Go get a real education and develop some respect for the truth. The best scientific estimate is that the Earth began to form 4.66 BILLION years ago. That's roughly 776,667 times older than the Creationist estimate of 6,000 years. Obviously, somebody's estimate must be very, very wrong. Just who could be so completely in error? Was it the millions of highly educated professionals who've spent their entire careers and billions of dollars researching the question from every conceivable angle, or an assortment of ignorant primitives who were never able to understand the difference between their own perceptions and objective (physical) reality? Personally, I'm a scientist and I know with complete certainty that the physical realm is absolutely real. I also know it is utterly impossible for people who imagine their own thoughts are part of reality to ever discover the legitimate truth about anything, much less the age of the Earth.

Answer 3

There is not a single reputable scientist on the planet who would risk ridicule by saying something as patently idiotic as "if the sun and the earth were here together even 300,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that it would have fried man, animal and plants on earth.".

A 6th grader learns about the development of the solar system and has apparently far more insight than you.

Answer 4

Where did you read this?

The Earth, much like humanity, has undergone it's own evolution. From a dry desert to a planet with 3 or 4 times the amount of Oxygen we have now. It was not always like this.

It's speculated that Mars had water, as well. Moons orbiting distant planets have ice, therefore, water on them, as well. I know you REALLY want Earth to be the only habitual planet in the universe, but the universe is prett vast, if not, infinite, itself, so odds are pretty good one or 2 of them would be "just right."

If it were any other planet that was "just right" and it had life on it, I'm sure they are thinking the same things you are.

I am no Atheist, either.

Answer 5

I say you are talking utter bollocks.

Please name these so called scientist that claim that the sun was so much bigger 300,000 years ago.


Yes the Earth is in the 'Goldilocks' zone for life as we know it, but that zone is actually bigger than most people realize.

But you need to realise two things:
1) If Earth was not in the Goldilocks zone then we would not be here to discuss this.

2) There is nothing special about the sun or about the Earth. There are trillions of trillions of stars just like our sun in the universe. There is every indication that there are billions of billions of G2 stars with planets. Why is it so unlikely that some of these planets will be in the Goldilocks zone?

Since probably billions of planets are in their respective Goldilocks zones, why is it so incredible that ours is, considering point 1. ?

In this case tautology is a valid argument. We are here because we are here.

Edit:

For the schmuck that thins answersingenesis has god science - it does not.

No mainstream astronomer thinks that the sun <4,000,000,000 years old.

For a full refutation of the AIG article:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html.

Complete with full explainations and multiple links to references.

Answer 6

"The proximity of the sun and the earth is so criticle that if the sun was any closer or further away it would mean disaster for the human race"

If the distance were any different, then a different form of life would have evolved that was adapted to those conditions. And then they'd claim that they were "intelligently designed" because they were "perfectly made" for those exact conditions...

Answer 7

I am not sure what you are asking.

The earth--sun distance varies by about 5 million kilometers over the course of a year, so that distance in not constant. There is nothing to indicate that the earth's orbit has changed much over very long periods of time.

If the conversion of matter to energy that drives the sun is well understood, then the suns size has been unchanged for a very long time; much longer than, say, 300,000 years.

HTH

Charles

Answer 8

i think of that there is a hullabaloo on the subject of the age of the earth because of the fact of human beings attempting to place God into a similar strata as themselves. take a seem on the story of introduction interior the Bible. He created 2 lights furniture interior the heavens, one to maintain night, the extra beneficial to maintain day. that is easily the relationship with the moon and the sunlight. If those have been created on the 4th day how did you maintain time earlier then? We keep time by the turning out to be and the placing of the sunlight. an afternoon to God is in spite of He needs it to be. no longer what we would like it to be. It additionally states that an afternoon to the Lord is as one thousand years. possibly that's the place they get 7000 years to the introduction. to forget approximately approximately technology, and say the earth is 7000 years old and that that is not any longer any older is ridiculous.

Answer 9

300,000 years is nothing in sense of the cosmos. That being said, the Sun was not much different in size, if at all 300,000 years ago. So your undocumented argument has no legs whatsoever.
Secondly, it really chaps my hide when people instantly couple Atheism with science, it's just about as fair as pairing closet sexual deviants with religion. It is a vast generalization that does no good for anybody. Some of the greatest scientific minds were devout religious figures also.

Answer 10

It's true that the earth is in the 'goldilocks' position (not too hot, not too cold).

The sun's luminosity has remained stable for about 5 billion years, and will remain stable for about 5 billion more years. The physics behind how the sun operates, the equations of hydrostatic equilibrium are well proven and understood. There are no *real* scientists that say the sun was different 300,000 years ago.

I think you're getting your information from distorted sources. time go go study astrophysics if you really want to understand.

Answer 11

They're referring to the alleged "shrinkage" of the sun.

This claim assumes that the rate of shrinkage in the sun is constant. That assumption is baseless. (In fact, it is the uniformitarian assumption that creationists themselves sometimes complain about.) Other stars expand and contract cyclically. Our own sun might do the same on a small scale.

There is not even any good evidence of shrinkage of the sun. The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage. It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades.