Raoul's Thursday Post

Today we watched a debate, where a creationist and a evolutionist argued over whether creationism is a valid belief in todays scientific world. The creationist argued that the world must be six thousand years old, because that is when god created the earth. He argued that science could not disprove his claim on the bases that scientist can only observe facts in the present and can only speculate on facts about the past assuming that the laws of nature have not changed. I was thinking about one simple argument that ends the creationist argument here. Its relates to yesterdays conversation, the stars. when we look our into the night sky most of what we see is millions of years old, therefore we know that the universe is millions of years old including earth. We know that what we see is millions or billions of years old for two reasons, the first is that light only travels at 300,000,000 m/s and there are distant stars and galaxies which are billions of light years (the distance that light travels in a year) away. The fact that we can see objects that are billions of light years away proves that the universe must be at least billions of years old (if it was any younger the light would not have had the time to reach us). The other reason we know that the universe is billions of years old is that the things we see further away are still in their infancy stages. This means that the rate of reactions is much higher in those areas in compared to ours. In stars billions of lights years away we see super massive black holes, quasars, blazers, and super novas frequently. Basically I can not see any argument for creationism saying that the universe is six thousand years old. (one fun fact is that the bible says that god created earth in six days and on the seventh day he created the sun the moon and the stars; however, this would mean that on the seventh day god became 2,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more efficient on the final day…. really).