Young Earth - 6,000 or 10,000 Years?

Theology. What we believe about God is preeminent in this. The consistent naturalist is agnostic at best. He says that God if He exist cannot be cited as the cause for anything we see in the natural world.

Theology is the single most important thing in this.... and truth is not inconsistent with itself. God either did and there are ways to explain the evidence according that assumption or He didn't. Either God has the ability to truthfully, clearly communicate Himself or He doesn't. Some prophecies are shrouded in the mysteries of symbolism. Genesis 1-11 contain prophecies but that isn't the primary design.

Is Lucy "junk science"? Respectable naturalists have disputed claims about where she fits in the spectrum.

Is radiocarbon dating "junk science"? It is based on circular reasoning and if expected results aren't achieved new samples are tested until they are.

How about abiogenesis?

Why didn't Nebraska man or other evolutionists frauds and deceit create the prejudice you have toward ICR for (at worst) being sincerely wrong.

That's fine. Why can't you accept the reverse just as readily?

And that is surprising to you in light of scripture? Believers have always faced "Universal contempt" from the wise of this world. You respect the opinions of men who start from the premise that God, if He exists, had nothing to do with creation over men who say He had everything to do with creation?

Correction. All professors on every side of this issue are biased from the start. Some change their biases. Some do not. All of us are socialized and indoctrinated. We accept a paradigm and most often resist changes to it.

OTOH, I used to respect these same opinions. I used to seek ways to reconcile scripture to the wisdom of modern scientists. I wove a tangled web in an effort to make it all fit together... then I took a step back and asked, "What exactly did God say?"

The problem I have with that is that they don't turn the light of that bias onto their own beliefs. They seem, like Craig, to be offended that anyone would differ with them for any reason.

I believe that some creationists arguments are stretched. I have found a few that I thought were actually dishonest. But the same can be said in much greater volume about evolutionists. "Proofs" for evolution contain more assumptions than data. For instance, there is no empirical data to support the idea that species have been evolving upward into greater complexity. But that assumption dominates every portrayal of data evolutionists perform.

There is nothing wrong with that period. There is something terribly wrong however with seeing scripture through the lens of naturalism.

It isn't honest to remain within the naturalist scheme. It discounts for no reason whatsoever a whole group of possible truths.

Nope. Some scientists interpret the data to say the earth is old. Like I mentioned earlier, if even one YE proof has merit or cannot be disproven then OE collapses.

I consider scripture "fact". But beyond that, I believe I am being honest about the evidence. There are many ways to interpret data from natural history. None of the data is ever complete. It always requires assumptions and presuppositions.

I have no problem saying that evolutionists generate valid possibilities. However, I wholly reject the idea that naturalism should ever limit the alternatives the way evolutionists demand it does.

Quite frankly, I believe that there are many possibilities that are excluded even within the scope of naturalism. Evolutionists limit possibilities to only those that will support a uniformly naturalistic framework like evolution. Even naturalistic explanations of data are discarded if they undermine the overall assumption of an old earth or biological evolution rather than design.

I don't consider myself a scientist. But I am an acute observer of the way people prove things and construct their reasoning. I cannot trust evolutionists until they are honest enough to question naturalism and listen to possibilities outside of naturalism.

The ID debate makes me trust elite academia even less. If truth is on their side, they should welcome an honest comparison of the ideas. They are fighting it tooth and nail... and for very good reason.

ID attacks the foundational assumptions of evolution and that is heresy to someone who has been indoctrinated to believe that science=naturalism.

 

Science is a secular rather than sacred endeavor, </font>[/QUOTE]That is a philosophical position.

If there is truth in religion, applying that truth to science is not only reasonable it is necessary.

This is my primary difference with you. Non-natural "truth" does govern science and natural history every bit as much as natural "truth" does.

 

With the group think of ants, most will recite what they were indoctrinated with over the course of their education and professional development. They will not think outside of the box. They will not question their own presuppositions or the philosophical assumptions behind them.

Most will do what a Jehovah's Witness does when you ask them a question... they will reverence the "tower".

 

Scott,

Several problems...

It isn't honest to remain within the naturalist scheme.

But that is a part of the puzzle.

I'm not suggesting that you or any creationist should abandon your position. Nor do I suggest that scripture be conformed to naturalism. But in appraising data we should be consistent. My knowledge of scripure will not factor into my interpretation of an article in a medical journal. I'll use knowledge of the subject, knowledge of statistics or whatever - but scripture doesn't come into play.

In interpreting the age of a fossil I'll look at carbon dating (not junk science when used correctly), rock layers, other fossils etc.

My decision as to whether or not I personally think the earth is old will be based on scripture as well as my study of those fossils. But in looking at the fossils I use information that will help me with THEM.

When I go to decide about my feelings on the age of the earth I'll consider theological AND scientific calculations. If I choose to believe that the earth is young I will need to concede that the fossil is young too. That doesn't necessarily mean that the scientific information suggested that conclusion. But then the scientific information was only one part of my decision.

Now the evolutionist looks at it and says, "Well the fossil looks old so that's that. The Bible must be wrong.

The creation scientist says, "Well I already believe that the Bible is right - but the scientific data suggest that the fossil might be old. That cannot be right. Therefore I'll find some plausible theory to discredit the scientific theory. It doesn't have to be proven - just plausible enough to cast some doubt.

Needless to say I object to both positions.

In my mind the Christian should, upon encountering a discrepancy between the Biblical and scientific data, look at his perceptions of both. Is the scientific testing trustworthy? Is the Biblical account really intended to be literal? There should be thoughtful and prayerful examination of both sides - not just a default judgment to the fundamentalist anti-evolution party line.

That is the honest approach.

 

It should. The scriptures not only state truth, they provide means and methods for evaluating things not covered in scripture.

Non sequitur with regard to origins. It isn't very likely that God inspired anything having to do with your medical journal. He spoke about creation.

It is junk science as it is dependent upon circular reasoning and selective acceptance of results.

Mine too. I just disagree with you.

I have said before that I won't argue against the merits of OEC that accepts a young biological creation.

As do I... like the recent discoveries of dna and soft tissue in dinosaur bones that could not have survived millions of years.

The account I read recorded the astonishment of the discoverers. They said that such incidents might have been overlooked many times before since researchers knew that dinosaurs had been extinct too long for any dna or soft tissue to still be present.

It isn't nearly that simple and honest. An evolutionist looks at a fossil and says it must be old for evolution to be true then sets out to prove it.

Also see the example above... I have yet to see the evolutionist run out in naked honesty declaring "These fossils look young so it must be young". But that is exactly what you demand of YEC when they propose a different explanation for data.

Nope. A creationist says the Bible is right therefore all scientific data must have a possible explanation under that presupposition... just like the evolutionist does with the philosophical assumption of naturalism.

If the evolutionist's theory is weak, there is nothing more honest or noble or scientific than to point it out.

That charge can be leveled both ways.

Except when you employ a similar method of applying literary science governing ancient mythology to Genesis because you have come to the conclusion that it cannot be true as written.

Surely.

By what standard should this be judged? You apparently say the rules governing ancient myths, fables, and epics.

I will point to the fact that the NT writers treated details, people, and events from the first 11 chapters of Genesis as literal. I will let Paul, Jesus, Peter, and John lead me to my conclusion about the literal accuracy of Genesis.

Why do you presume this of those who disagree with you? You don't think we have thoughtfully and prayerfully considered this issue? Why did you only assume that creationists default to a "party line"? If anything, I would say there is far more evidence that TE's and non-literalists default to the "party line".

Perhaps... but the way you wrote it suggests that only "we" aren't taking that honest approach while apparently you and Craig are.

 

If you want evidence about the science, just ask me. I have presented some from my own point of view and not regurgitating anyone else's. In fact, on one of these posts, I reviewed an article I read today on the unexpected findings about comets and how I feel that what they are finding supports a young creation as well. That is brand new stuff, and no way 'regurgitated!' I am convinced from my own research and study that there IS solid scientific evidence for a young cosmos and that the data points in that direction. It is the evolutionist INTERPRETATION of the data which does not, which is not a great surprise.


I remain convinced that the data itself points to a very young creation. I will present that conclusion and the data that brought me to that conclusion when I speak or write.

 

Scott,

Perhaps... but the way you wrote it suggests that only "we" aren't taking that honest approach while apparently you and Craig are.

I seem to recollect that you are an engineer or something like that. You are obviously more intelligent than the average bird.

But we both know that many believers simply "tow the party line" - on gays, on Terry Schiavo, on evolution. Most of these people have already decided that they will believe the earth is young before they even consider the arguments.

A creationist says the Bible is right therefore all scientific data must have a possible explanation under that presupposition...

Okay at least we agree here. I disagree with that approach. Just because one believes, overall, that the earth is young does not mean that he/she will always find scientific fact in support of that belief. It would seem that faith is enough. If the science doesn't support the faith-based conclusion then so what? Isn't that why they called it faith?

 

It is the evolutionist INTERPRETATION of the data which does not, which is not a great surprise.

Yes and it just happens that 99% of the world's scientists would disagree with you.

I think you believe what you want to believe.

But I still think it is a false statement for you to assert that science supports a young earth. Maybe your science does, or your husband's, or AiG's. But you are still in the minority.

I too have worked in several academic biology departments. How many creation scientists did I encounter? None. That's about 0/80. You're right they are biased against creationists - but I think some of that bias comes from the belief (which I have found to be mostly true) that creationists are willing to stretch things thin just as long as they are against evolution. That makes for a poor scientist. And I have not found one of them who worships evolution or who would not listen if anything credible actually came up calling it into question.

 

The world's scientists all called Wegener nuts when he presented plate tectonics, too.

The majority does not the truth define. Nor did I say science itself supports a young cosmos. I said the data did. The way mainstream science is today, there is a great difference.

 

"UTE, you might want to read these article by a respected geologist and published by a respected geological group:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/22047.htm
http://www.grisda.org/origins/02006.htm "

I cannot readily find the paper (Yamaguchi DK.1986. Interpretation of cross correlation between tree-ring series. Tree-Ring Bulletin 46:47-54.) that he cites as being key ot his argument to evaluate what the orignal paper said. Without that, there is nothing here other than Brown's opinion, it seems. It might be good or bad, I don't know.

But as far the credentials, it looks to be a SDA organization rather than geological and I cannot find anything published by Brown to indicate his degree of respect as a geologists. It might be there, it likely is there somewhere, but I cannot find it.

While I could not find the original paper, I did find a later paper by the same author where he cites his older paper and is using data from the same location of the original to deduce some past eruptive events of Mt St. Helens. This hints that he may not have been troubled by his interpretation of the data.

But, none of this seeks to explain why such diverse data seems to agree in the minds of most folks who have studied the issue. The objection you seem partial to is

"And to try to correlate it with radiocarbon dating, which is notoriously faulty, becomes, then, an exercise in futility, where dates can be chosen out of all of the many results of testing and a 'best fit' made according to what the people already think is true!
"

You are strongly implying academic misconduct of the type that could ruin a career. It would help if there was support of this and not innuendo about some folks and their professional actions.

 

YEC is the shining beacon of hope.

With is as much damage as your movement has caused, I'm sure to steer clear of it until I breathe my last.

 

Robert Brown is past director of the Geoscience Research Institute. Yes, it is SDA and out of Loma Linda University. It is also respected worldwide among those on both sides of the evolution and ages arguments.

As far as implying academic misconduct, I guess you don't know about radiocarbon dating! Go to Google. Type in Radiocarbon "best fit" and you will get nearly a thousand hits, some of which will explain the method in detail for you.

 

"One of the first that caught my attention was the South Pacific 'legend' involving 'how the moon got a dirty face.' When you strip away the mythological elements, the fact remains that men remember a drastic change in the moon's appearance and associate it with large rocks."

But the craters of the moon are not naked eye visible. The maria areas are, but these are mostly volcanic flows and would not have formed overnight.

"Genetic load -- the build-up of negative mutations in the germ cells of a population -- is rapid and debilitating to any species. Life has not been around long, in any form."

Wallace, Bruce, 1991. Fifty Years of Genetic Load - An Odyssey. Cornell University Press.

Wallace argues that this is not true.

"Current science is at a relative loss to explain the very high redshifts at the seen boundaries of the universe"

Could you be more specific?

"the maturity of some 'early' galaxies"

This is a problem for some current models. It does mean that it is intracable nor does it indicate a young earth. It does deserve some research time.

"the cohesiveness of the galaxies themselves"

I do not understand this one. Gravity holds the galaxies together and much of the gravity comes from dark matter.

"Dark matter is not necessary in a young universe, yet it is supposed to comprise something like 90% of all matter simply because old agers need it to support the old age ideas!"

Oh... Now I see. No dark matter.

Dark matter is not needed just to support old universe ideas. It is observed through it gravitational effects. Graviational lensing is a great example and provides a direct way to measure the mass of a foreground object. Typially the visible matter is only able to account for about 20% of the needed mass. This indicates the presence of unseen, or dark, matter providing the rest of the mass.

"Geology has shown us that strata can build up very rapidly in catastrophic conditions and need not take the uniformitarian millions of years."

Some can build up quickly and some cannot. Geologists understand this. Do you think they are unable to tell the difference?

"Paleontologists are finding relatively fresh tissue in some dinosaur remains. There is even the smell of rot in some remains. "

Fresh?

I have seen recent reports of some very well preserved material, but not "fresh."

"the rings of Saturn should have long since disrupted"

Which places a limit on how long the rings have been here but not the universe.

"the small moons should no longer be geologically active, but they are"

Any small, active moons that are not subject to tidal forces?

"Venus' atmosphere should have dispersed one way or another"

I thought that observations of Venus had shown that the interaction with the solar wind produces an obstacle in the ionosphere which prevents the atmosphere from being rapidly scanvenged in a similar manner, though different, than the magnetic field that protects the earth's atmosphere.

 

Helen, I think that they might like to see that backed up with Scripture too.

"For He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth." Rom. 9:28

Do you folks out there think that God was going to put up with men sinning for millions of years? You're joking right?

This comic site claims that man has been on the Earth for about 60 million years according to the 'experts' in science.

http://members.aol.com/Donnclass/EarlyMan.html

Exacly how big would you say the books of Rev. 20:12 are then?

[ September 22, 2005, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: JackRUS ]

 

I agree. If you don't believe Scripture that is.

 

Since the theory is that we've been around for about 50,000 years, no.

 

"As far as implying academic misconduct, I guess you don't know about radiocarbon dating! Go to Google. Type in Radiocarbon "best fit" and you will get nearly a thousand hits, some of which will explain the method in detail for you."

Just glancing through the first page of hits seems to lend support to the method.

Confirmation of near-absolute dating of east Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Dendrochronology.

NO SYSTEMATIC EARLY BIAS TO MEDITERRANEAN
14C AGES: RADIOCARBON MEASUREMENTS FROM TREE-RING AND AIR SAMPLES PROVIDE TIGHT LIMITS TO AGE OFFSETS

"14C and dendrochronology provide an accurate and precise chronometric framework for the Mediterranean region."

The first two hits and a quote from the abstract of the second. Looking through the first page of hits and reading some that seem relevent, I don't find much to support your claims.

I am sure that if I continued digging that I would find some. That's not the issue. But those seem to be in the vast minority. Of those that are very knowledgable about the methods and their strengths and weaknesses, they seem to think that it is useful. Since I don't know, it seems a reasonable appeal to authority to deffer to their informed judgement.

 

Science is a secular rather than sacred endeavor, whether the scientist be a Christian fundamentalist, a conservative or liberal Baptist, a conservative or liberal Lutheran, a conservative or liberal Presbyterian, a conservative or liberal Roman Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, an agnostic, or an atheist. And very few scientists are atheists.

And, JGrubbs, IF you know anything at all about science and scientists, you know these things for a fact. Therefore we have two possibilities:

1. You don’t know anything at all about either science or scientists and your post is of no merit.

or

2. You are deliberately and willfully misrepresenting the facts in order to defend your personal interpretation of Genesis. And if you are deliberately and willfully misrepresenting the facts, you are deliberately and willfully sinning against both man and God and you should be reading Romans instead of Genesis.

</font>[/QUOTE]Darwin and all those who preach his theories are teaching a scientific theory straight from the pits of hell. Anyone who calls themselves a Christian and promotes the anti-christian teachings of Darwin needs to go back and read the Bible!

 

I really hate such copy and past lists as what you find near the top of page 8. What takes a few lines to assert tages pages to refute. No one who posts such lists ever quit posting them once you show the errors. And the problems have been noted for long enough that the owners of the webpages from which they are spammed should know better by now. I'll allow the reader to draw their own conclusion about the presentation of the "data."

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

The magnetic field changes in a very long cycle. It periodically decays to near nothing and reverses. We recently witnessed the sun's magnetic field undergo such a reversal. Evidence of these reversals are preserved in the rocks in the forms of bands where the rock records alternating directions for magnetic north and south. And though Mars lacks a magnetic field like the earth today, it had one in the past and similar bands of remnent magnetic fields have been found on Mars in what are thought to be similar conditions to how the bands formed on earth.

"The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth's lava was deposited rapidly."

If you go back to the original source for this (Morris, H. M. and Gary Parker. 1982. What is Creation Science? Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, California) you will find that they claim 500 million years and not "a few million years" so it seems that YEers cannot even quote themselves accurately.

Second, Morris makes up a value for the volume of lava produced a year rather than citing any actual studies, so the dates he calculates should be considered very suspect.

Next, once you are talking 500 million years anyway that it is hard to find much rock older than that because of erosion and subduction so 500 million years worth may be close to all you would be expected to find at any given time.

Lastly, it would be impossible for all that lava to have been disgorged recently. First off, there isno way to cool it that quickly. Cooling time for large flows of lave can be millions and millions of years. Second, rapid cooling leaves traces. There is what is called the Bowen's cooling series. Basically this tells you through physics and chemistry what minerals form at what temperatures when rocks are cooling and how large the crystal grow tell you hhow long a given temperature range was held. Rapidly cooled rocks typically form no crystals or very small crystals. You also must have a way to remove all of that latent and sensible heat.

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

First off, it depends on what mineral you choose. If we pick sodium (you know, from sodium chloride...the "salt" in "salt water") you get 260 million years. That can't be right you say. Well let's pick aluminum, it gives you only 100 years. Surely you do not advocate a 100 year old earth.

As it turns out, simply looking at levels of influx and total levels gives an incomplete answer. There are also routes of efflux, that is ways to remove these minerals from solution. In fact, most of these minerals are known to be in equilibrium, that is that rates of influx equal efflux. As ana analogy, let's say you came across a 5 gallon bucket. There was a hose flowing 1 gal/min of water into the bucket. But the water level was not changing because there was a hole in the bucket allowing the same amount of water to leave. Please tell me how to calculate how long the hose had been flowing.

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

Well if there has not been time for 4.5 billion years of helium to get out of the atmosphere in 4.5 billion years, then there really has not been time for it to escape in 6,000 years. I suppose that is the deathknell for accelerated decay models such as what RATE has proposed or what c-decay would propose.

The answer to your problem is that it ignores removal of helium by the polar wind.

Banks, P. M. and T. E. Holzer. 1969. "High-latitude plasma transport; the polar wind" Geophysical Research Journal 74: 6317-6332.

"The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years (destroying all old fossils)."

Thanks for giving us a good reason while good fossil finds are relatively rare. They erode away.

Of course this ignores methods of raising up the continents such as uplift and volcanoes.

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

Isn't this just the opposite of your last one? The continents should not be here because they are eroding but the topsoil should be thicker? They are contradictory. The topsoil would be the first to erode. With which claim do you wish to stick?

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

OK. That tells us how old Niagara Falls might be. What does that have to do with the age of the earth?

And I thought YEers were against uniformitarian extrapolations in any case!

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

Or they are well trapped by the geology and are under pressure due to great depths.

"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)"

Again with the uniformitarian assumption to date the river delta and not the earth.

And the flood piled 7 miles of sediment on top of each other how? Most YEers now contend that the mountains were not as tall back in the day so that the floos waters did not need to cover Mt Everest so that there would not need to be so much water. This makes the flood quite shallow. Yetthe Mississippi River delta was picked as the place to dump 7 miles of sediment. Was there a big hole there already? Why not anywhere else? Why not everywhere else? How did this pile get compacted and sunk into the crust so quickly?

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

The earth slows because some of the angular momentum is transferred to the moon, causing it to receed. At the current rate of slowing, the "day" would have been 14 hours 4.6 billion years ago. Where is the limit?

You should also be made aware of something called tidal rhythmites. Essentially, these are rocks that record the length of the day and year in the past. Measurments of these values in the past agrees with expectations. They are even sensitive enough to measure differing rates of change as different configurations of the earth's continents changed the amount of momentum being transferred. (Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. Science and Earth History Prometheus Books, 59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst, New York 14228-2197).

"Only a small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to evolutionists."

Except that there are quite thick deposits of sediment if you look far enough away from where new sea floor is speading apart. Subduction also removes a fair amount of the sediment.

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

And this dates the stalactites and not the earth.

The highest growth rates on which there figure is based are also dervied from artificial situations such as growths on bridges and not from natural environments which grow much more slowly.

"The Sahara desert is expanding. It could easily have been formed in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook."

So the Sahara is young. This implies nothing about the earth.

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

Covered above.

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

Which tells us how long man has been writing, not how old the earth is. And how did 5000 year old writings survive a flood that is supposed to have been more recent than that?

"Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Over 250 of these Flood legends are now known."

So now you are willing to rely upon ancient, pagan myths for support? And you are surprised that pagans settling in river valleys that periodically flooded would have myths about even greater floods?

 

"The Shrinking Sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "millions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth just the right distance for life to survive."

Except that the sun is not shrinking.

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

I guess you have not noticed the steady rain of discoveries of objects in the Kuiper belt that appear in the news every so often for the last few years. It is really there. And the Oort cloud can be deduced from the particular orbits of new comets.

"Fossil Meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks."

Just why should there be fossil meteorites in there? How can you be sure there are not? Would you know how to pick a stony meteorite out of a layer of rock? You think they might could also be eroded away after impact? You think you could find some meteorites if you went out and walked around some fields looking?

"[/i]he 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.[/i]"

Covered above in the slowing of hte earht's spin response. You should also be made aware of a couple of papers that have examined the issue and show that this is not a problem.

Hansen, Kirk S. 1982. "Secular effects of oceanic tidal dissipation on the moon's orbit and the earth's rotation" Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 20:457-480

Finch, D. G. 1982. "The evolution of the earth-moon system" Moon and Planets 26: 109-114

"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."

These are both create during the decay of U-238 and will be present as long as U-238 is present. Since it's half life is about 4.5 billions years, it will stick around for a while.

"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."

Have you ever seen a comet? Do you notice that the tail points away from the sun? There are forces which also tend to push dust away as well as those that temd to make it fall towards the sun.

In addition, there are continuous sources of dust. Comets. Asteroids. Impacts in the solar system. Maybe even a bit of interstellar dust.

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

Which dates the clusters, not the universe.

I am also not aware of any evidence for such rapid dispersal of clusters. I am aware of evience for very ancient clusters, however.

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

Which dates only the rings of Saturn, not the universe.

"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. "

This is neatly taken care of by a combination of leftover heat from their formation and release of gravitational potential energy.

"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."

Except that dark matter holds them together and density waves supply the spiral shapes.

"The current population of earth (7 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years."

SO? How long would it take a few rabbits to cover the earth in rabbits? Why does this not happen? Limited resources. For most of human history, available resources have hobbled the potential growth rates much lower than what we have today.

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

Which dates the coral not the earth.

The coral at Eniwetok atoll is almost a mile thick. Coral reefs grow at less than 0.1 inches per year, usually less. That would take somewhere in excess of half a million years, perhaps at least a million, to form.

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

Which dates the longest living tree. And...?

Tree rings can be correlated back much further than that.

"DNA is 99.9% alike in all people."

Why is it not exactly the same? Where did all of those alleles come from that allow for the diferences in genetic between humans? Where did ithe diversity come from?