modi thorsson

He replied with this: But we are not in the same time frame! So that doesn't help you. I'm not postulating a 6,000 yr. old earth. I'm saying that the poetic language of the Bible (Genesis). Is more adequate for describing the past, then current scientific understanding. Also the dating systems you enjoy standing on. Are doubtful to hold true in the long run. As decay rates are being shown, not to be constant under a non-uniformitarian system. Which is the kind of system being revealed. I also brought up, how his idea of the early universe with no matter was incorrect. The expansion he was talking about was the Inflationary epoch, but matter existed within the Planck epoch. He replied with this: Which is pretty typical with creationists. When talking about evolution you use the latest genetic evidence, they then talk about darwin. Ugh.

I am new here. I'm a computer programmer by trade. Most of my hobbies revolve around history but I have keen interest in all aspects of science. I'm hoping I can expand my understanding of the formation of the universe, especially the early periods.

Hi, first post here. I am not sure if this is the right place to post this, however considering what im about to post is baseless and completely not within mainstream physics I figure it should be the right sub-forum. I have been having a back and forth with a creationist now for 2 days with him making some wild claims that he can prove the universe is 6000 years old using relativity, inflation period of the universe and the 'ether model'. I'm not having this back and forth with him to try and 'make him see the errors of his ways' since that is usually impossible, however I do want to leave something behind in case anyone comes across his ramblings and doesn't accept them on face value. Physics is not my strong suit by far (that is history and evolution) but nothing what this guy is saying makes sense from what I do know. Here are his various thoughts on the subject. I know he is wrong about this, even with my limited understanding - nothing he is saying matches up with the current model for the universe. The Ether model is old and no longer used, he thinks the inflation period lasted long enough for the milky way to form and be part of it (impossible I know), and that some how a 'universe expanding several times faster than light' makes the universe 6000 years old. However rather than trying to reason with this guy with my limited knowledge I was wondering if someone here could lend me a hand.