It's A Young Earth!

Duck! It is a shotgun attack. Are you going to stick around to defend any of these claims? Any of these in particular you want to spend some time with? Are there any that you personally know enough about to debate or is this just a massive copy and paste job with no intention of having a real discussion? Will you even look into the refutations of any of these to see if they are true or false?

"The decaying magnetic field limits earth's age to less than 10,000 years old."

The magnetic field is decreasing because it is cyclic in nature. It increases, peaks, decreases, reverses and then repeats the whole process over again. We have records of many repeats in the reversal of the magnetic field in rocks that form sequentially. When the rock forms, the magnetic field aligns parts of the rock. We can see the bands pointing in different directions as the rocks subsequently form. Interestingly, we have found the same types of banded magnetic patterns on Mars and we witnessed a reversal of the sun's magnetic field in the last few years.

"The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions."

Did you read the rest of the explanation? Morris claims that this limits the age of the earth to 500 million years. Do you believe the earth is 500 million years old? Didn't think so. Then why post this? Morris also fails to provide a citation for his assumed rate of new rock formation and also ignores such processes as subduction and erosion which would remove large amounts of the rocks.

"Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate gives only a few thousand years of accumulation."

Did you look at the chart that goes along with this? The "age" ranges from 260 million years for sodium to only 100 years for aluminum. Surely you are not postulating 100 years as the age of the earth. This alone should clue you in that something is amiss. The problem is that these minerals are known to be at equilibrium. That is that their removal rates are the same as their influx rates. Their level are not changing. Since they are at equilibrium, they canno be used to date the oceans.

"The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175, 000 years."

Your source ignores that the polar wind is known to remove an amount of helium roughly equal to its production rate. Helium is at equilibrium and cannot be used to date the earth.

 

"The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years"

This completely ignores observations of ongoing continental building through forces such as volcanoes and the uplift of land due to compression from colliding plates and uplift due to large masses of rising, molten rock.

"Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation."

What? Do we have too little? Do we have too much? What is supposed to be the point?

"Niagara Falls' erosion rate (approx. 2 feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years."

Which only tells us how old Niagara Falls are. And that is about the right age since it formed after the end of the Wisconsinan ice age about that long ago.

"Incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years."

Just why is this supposed to be a problem?

"The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate the mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah's day could have washed 80% of the mud out there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable time for the delta to form)."

And what does the age of the Mississippi delta have to do with the age of the earth? How old are you, maybe we should limit the age of the earth to that.

Did you know that the Mississippi delta deposits are seven miles thick? They cannot be young as it takes time for the sediments to compact and sink. Besides, do you have any plausible reason why the flood would leave seven miles of deposits in this one spot, all nice and compressed down? Just how? And just how did this happen to occur at the mouths of all the world's major rivers and nowhere else?

 

"The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution."

The rate of slowdown is measured to be 0.005 seconds per year. If you roll this back all the way to 4.6 billion years ago, the day is 14 hours long. No limit there.

But it gets better. You can then predict what the length of the day was a various points in the past. And there are methods to measure these things in the past. Tidal rhymites for example. And the pridictions agree with the measurements. Amazing, isn't it!

"Only a small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation."

Actually the seafloor shows a pattern were very little sediment is on the bottom near the places where is is forming and gradually gets deeper the further away you are from the formation of new seafloor with very thick deposits.

"The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have formed in about 4400 years."

And the date of cave formations has to do with the age of the earth how?

Just when during the 4400 years were the limestone seposits laid down, hardened and then dissolved away for the caves to be there in the first place for the formations to begin going?

Did you notice that your source uses formations growing from manmade materials like cement to get high enough growth rates for this to be possible? Growth rates in actual caves are much lower and are observed to be at most about 2.5 inches per THOUSAND years.

Those "largest" formations must be only about 10 inches tall. So how then did the larger fowmation come to be?

"The Sahara desert is expanding. It could easily have been formed in a few thousand years."

This tell you how old the Sahara might be which tell you nothing of how old the earth might be.

"The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now."

We covered this above. Why repeat it? Sodium is know to be in equilibrium and not increasing in concentration.

 

"The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old."

Which tells us how long ago man invented writing. What does this have to do with the age of the earth itself?

"Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood."

Most cultures DO have a myth of their origins and most have fables of floods from floods that happened through the years. Do we really need to look into these fables and myths to see how different they are from your own beliefs? Are you really stooping to using pagan myths and fables to confirm your own faith?

"The Shrinking Sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "millions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter."

This is based on a discredited abstract of a paper that was never actually published. It was flawed.

"The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than 10,000 years old"

That only tells us how long the individual comet has been traveling through the inner solar system and nothing about the age of the solar system itself. The comets are continuously replineshed from the outer reaches of the solar system. We can tell this both from the shapes of the orbits of new comets and from the large objects we have recently discovered in these areas.

"Fossil Meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth."

Beacuse after they sit there more than a short time, exposure to the elements will make them look like any other stone.

Tell you what. Why don't you go looking around in your backyard and tell me how many meteorites you find laying there.

"The moon is receding a few inches each year. A few million years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have destroyed the earth twice a day."

The lunar recession is what causes the earth to slow down so see the response to that above.

"The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old."

Doh! These are intermediate isotopes on the decay series from U-238 and thus will be generated continuously as long as there is U-238 present.

"The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young."

Several facts ignored. Reflected sunlight produces a repulsive force that would help prevent the dust from spiraling all the way in. The tail of a comet gives a nice example. The gravity of the planets would also put some of hte dust into longer lasting orbits while forming stable gravitational resonances with other particles. Plus additional dust is being added by comet and by collisions of asteroids with other asteroids and with planets.

 

"At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for more than a few thousand years."

And this can only limit how long ago the cluster formed, not the universe. I'd also like to see some suporting evidence of clusters moving apart that quickly. I do not believe it. Many types of clusters do spread apart after forming. Our own solar system is thought by some to have formed in such a cluster.

"Saturn's rings are still unstable, indicating they are not millions of years old."

Which only tells us how old the rings could be, not the age of Saturn or the solar system or the universe.

This also ignores that many shepard moons have been found in the rings which may actually stabilize them to an extent and provide fresh material for the rings.

"Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old."

These two are large enough to retain some heat from their formation and to generate heat through continued gravitional collapse. Besides, Jupiter is only cooling at a millionth of a degree per year. (Chaisson, Eric and Steve McMillan. 1993. Astronomy Today Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632)

"It appears that the stars in the centers of many galaxies are moving faster than the stars at the outer edges. This would make the galaxies lose their spiral shape and spin into a homogeneous mass if they were billions of years old."

The effects of dark matter allow the galaxies to hold together and the spiral shapes are maintained by density waves.

"The current population of earth (6 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years."

Yes, but such calculations also invariably lead to laughable situations such as only a couple of thousand of people in the world when Moses was leading hundreds of thousands from Eqypt and dozens of people in the world when the great pyramids were being built.

"The oldest coral reef is about 4200 years old."

Which has what to do with the age of anything other than that reef?

"The oldest living tree in the world is 4300 years old."

Which has what to do with the age of anything other than that tree?

"DNA is 99.9% alike in all people."

So what? You get almost as much similarity with chimps and humans.

The question for you becomes where did even that difference come from?

 

"So you ignore the fact that ancient cultures from around the world have stories about a world wide flood, and accuse Creation Scientists of "using pagan myths and fables" to confirm their faith, but you don't have a problem using the theories and opinions of antichrist athiests to support your beliefs?"

Most cultures formed near rivers. Most rivers flood. Most cultures have fables of great floods. Very few of them have any close parallels the Noah's flood.

And yes, I do find it outrageous that a CHristian would consult pagan fables to try and justify what he claims to believe on faith.

The theories of science are well grounded in the facts. You do not seem to be able to make a case for facts for a young earth. If you can, defend some of your claims from above. It should not be too hard if they are true.

You also ignore that many good Christians work in the sciences.

 

You made all those claims above. (OK, so you did a massive copy and paste.) They have all been refuted with at least as much information as you provided. You obviously have no ability not intention or trying to support any of the claims. You cannot because they are not even true. Yet you continue in the same unsubstantiated assertions and calling folks who put out knowingly false material "good Christian."

These are the guys who are promoting "antichrist teachings." They promote a false version of reality without regard for the truth or the facts. They drive believers from the fold and cause unbelievers to stay away. They even cause unneeded divisions among believers. They are the problem. They are the enemy.

 

Sorry for the double post. I'll figure this out someday.

The main problem with this assertion is that it assumes a steady population growth rate through the entirety of human existence. The population of humans has grown steadily only in the last 100 years or so. Before that there were many zeniths and nadirs over the long term.

Of course to claim that all of the Earth's current inhabitants are direct descendants of an original group of 8 (merely 4000 years ago) requires a belief in an incredibly rapid macro-evolution that no Darwinian would ever postulate.

 

In this thread you will see the fundamental difference between science and religion.

Science will change, it must change or it ceases to be science. Only religion has the luxury of being declared dogma and "unchangeable". This is why you'll find numerous Sunday-School arguments like "It's in The Bible and anything that contradicts it is wrong". That's fine for religion, but it won't work with science and the "real world".

UT was correct when he (?) mentioned that the general public is ignorant of science. This is why we see bizarre assertions like "the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves Evolution" and (my favorite) an attack leveled against some "atheists" that if the Earth were to stop spinning that "the oceans would fly off into space".

Only within religiosity is anyone allowed to make arguments about "Canopy Theory" or "the animals on the ark hibernated" and other such absurdities.

To quote the late, great Carl Sagan, if you want to protect your children from disease, you can vaccinate, or you can pray. I will trust science.

 

"So you just choose not to believe the Bible??"

Nope.

We choose not to believe your interpretation of the Bible however. Unless God has incarnated Himself again, this time as a blogger in Florida, it is not God nor the Bible with which we are disagreeing. It is another fallible human who assumes, as do we, that he must be right. You'll see a difference in that unlike YEers, we do not feel the need to assert that to disagree with us is to diagree with God Himself and to be associated with the antichrist and atheists. We can go on the facts and not stoop to personal attacks.

The other thing is that since your interpretation is at odds with EVERYTHING revealed to us by God through His creation, it is highly unlikely that your interpretation is correct. God has given absolutely NO evidence in His creation that it was recent. The whole creation points to the undeniable fact that God used long term processes to create His universe, Earth, and all life.

 

Well evolutionists, your idol said the same thing I've been trying to get you to admit, but you stutter-step, dance around and in general refuse to acknowledge!

YOU CHOOSE TO TRUST GOD OR SCIENCE!

(Thank you Carl for being honest!!)