HOME | DD
pitnerd β NY 2 LA
Published: 2014-02-17 19:20:52 +0000 UTC; Views: 1035; Favourites: 33; Downloads: 6
Redirect to original
Description
What else is the belief that the Earth is only 6000 years old mathematically proportionate to? Anybody?Related content
Comments: 18
The creationists are silly beyond redemption with their stupid claims.
Nice work!
π: 0 β©: 1
and this is why you're a liberal!
π: 0 β©: 1
For rejecting ideological alternatives to established and credible information?
π: 0 β©: 1
i love the fact that some creationists think that people and dinosaurs once frolicked happily together in beautiful meadows.
no. really. i have actually seen that.
cool way of illustrating a point.
π: 0 β©: 0
Saying the Earth is only 6,000 years old is like saying Mount Everest is only half an inch tall.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is FANTASTIC!!!!Β Totally love it!!!! 
How about the distance between their heads and their asses?
π: 0 β©: 0
If the universe were 6,000 years old than e=mc2 would also be wrong, as would the speed of light itself because we see light from stars further than 6,000 light years away.
π: 0 β©: 0
If you scaled the time things evolved to that then humanity evolved in the 19th century.
π: 0 β©: 0
I used a ratio of 1.32 E-6 instead of 1.61 E-6.
Believing the Earth is 6000 years old is equivalent to believing the moon is half a kilometer ( 523 meters, about 4.75 NFL football fields) away from Earth. The moon is currently 396,220 kilometers away.
π: 0 β©: 1
Then again, we could redefine those 6k years to be "god years," in which case 1 god year = 756,666.7 Julian years.
π: 0 β©: 0
I was just talking about this yesterday! I just thought we have records and artifacts at least 6000 years old. If Adam and Eve, the flood, tower of babel, and all that happened, that wouldn't leave any time for actual human history.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yep. Even if you discard the really ancient stone-age artifacts and fossils, we have plenty of evidence of Pre/Early Neolithic cultures that started agricultural technologies from 12,000 BC to 9,000 BC. You don't see too many large-scale settlements or cities until about 8,000 BC though (and only a few there at that), and that may have something to do with why people feel as though it's ok to assume that human history is only about 6,000 years old.
Of course, an entire universe that's only 6,000 years old hasΒ far bigger problems. For starters, most of the universe would then consist only of two elements: Hydrogen and Helium, because you wouldn't have even one generation of stars to fuse the rest of the elements.
π: 0 β©: 1
Exactly! Not to mention starlight and sunlight wouldn't be visible.
π: 0 β©: 1
I actually have a post coming about that very topic. If the universe was in fact less than 10,000 years old, you would see light from the sun (it only takes about 8 minutes or so to get here), and even our closer neighbors (alpha centauri is only a few light years away) would be visible. However, we would only be able to see roughly less than 22% of our own galaxy. Light from the majority of our galaxy, and the entire rest of the universe would still be travelling space on its way here, and the sky would look very empty compared to what we see today.
π: 0 β©: 1
I see. Thanks for clarifying that c:
I'd love to see that piece when it's done!
π: 0 β©: 0
If my math is right (may not be) its the equivalent of believing mount Everest is 1.3 cm tall, or just about half an inch high.
π: 0 β©: 0
For some reason, I found this hilarious.Β Thank you for putting this together.
π: 0 β©: 0