Vast amounts of time don’t prove Darwinism, but if the earth is quite young, that directly refutes Darwinism. This post continues to present facts about the age of the earth looking at evidence from our atmosphere and from our globe itself.
Pin It
Tag: Methodological Naturalism
I documented evidence from comets, meteors and meteorites, our fellow planets in our solar system, and our sun. All of the empirical evidence suggests that the earth cannot be billions or even millions of years old. There are an astonishing number of factual evidences that our world is quite young.
Pin It
As I said last Sunday, vast amounts of time don’t prove Darwinism. However, short amounts of time, young ages, directly refute Darwinism. Today, I will continue to present some facts about the age of the earth and the universe in which we exist. While opinions can vary pretty vastly, the fact is that there are numerous factual evidences that our world is quite young.
Pin It
Vast amounts of time don’t prove Darwinism. However, the converse does not follow. Short amounts of time, young ages, directly refute Darwinism. This is why Darwinists have worked so hard over the last half century to make anyone who believes earth and the universe to be, in fact, rather young look like a quack, a nut, or someone with an agenda.
Pin It
Because of the Hubble Constant, their math doesn’t even work out anymore. There are stars that are moving far too fast; stars that are far too distant, stars that are far too bright; etc., ad nauseam. Informed scientists know this. Many have abandoned the accepted theories and are in dedicated pursuit of the truth. Many others refuse to do so because of the metaphysical implications alternative theories present. The latter group has the loudest voice.
Pin It
Before I step into the primordial soup that is Chemical Evolution, which slips nicely down the logical slope into the quagmire of Abiogenesis, I must preface those future posts with some foundational data. This data is important for context. The foundational data we must examine has to do with the fallacy of Darwinist reification and the age of the earth. In this post, I will focus on reification.
Pin It
This post will conclude my look at the Darwinian take on the Birth of Stars by listing further scientific problems with the theory and concluding with the number one problem that is insurmountable for Darwinist believers.
Pin It
In my first few posts explaining some of the problems with Stellar Evolution, I detailed the logical problems with the theory and several scientific problems. One of the major conclusions I reached in my personal journey of discovery was that each and every single logical and scientific problem with the collective theories of Darwinian evolution amount to single limiting factors.
Any single limiting factor is enough to refute the entire theory.
Pin It
Steller evolution is the theory of the origin of stars, or how stars are born. The theories of stellar evolution can be largely separated into two categories. There are theories that fall into how stars “evolved” as part of the aftermath of the Cosmic Evolution brought about by the Big Bang, and there are other theories about how stars are “evolving” even today.
Pin It
I will now disregard facts and reason once again in order to ASSUME that, contrary to logic and every known physical law:
1. the particles DID magically manage to move toward one another and
2. the particles COULD slow down and change directions.
Pin It