Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Extract from this site
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically -- these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of "rock" bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris[26] and Austin.[27]
Even myths are based on truth. Take Atlantis - it could be anumber of places, with some of the information distorted by the passage of time.
Saying we had a cataclysmic flood serves no purpose beyond indicating we have always lived in a world volatile to climatic change.
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.[28]
Your making very broad assumptions about the state of these bones, and how the blood was preserved.
The earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.[29]
[/b]
Guess what.... the ozone layers benn declining, too.... oh wait, that was
us!
Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape -- certainly not billions of years.[30]
Expected? We don't have a bloody start level or composition- how can we predict the level of decay? again, you're making a baseless assumption that this is a concept, immune to enviromental impact - or even us.
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star -- the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for "young" galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.[31]
Time lag between us and distant space. Very obvious, really. Plus you assume that all galaxies in the Universe would be the same age- the 'Big Bang' theory is impossible to prove.
Also, there is no true raw data to make anything beyond guesses on the true nature and aging process of stars - we only have the Sun, and all other stars are viewed as they were many,many years in the past.
The moon is slowly receding for the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric "dates" assigned to moon rocks.[32]
You're assuming that there have not been changes to the Solar System since it existed...... scarring on the moon is evidence that there are massive impacts during the lifetime on this system. here is also no documentaiton on any fluctuations on the changes in the suns and even the others pantes gravity field - which may been altered themselves. not to mention the possiblity of the asteroid belt being a former moon of Jupiter, for example - not discountable.
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old -- far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.[33]
What makes you think slat will have been entering the sea for all eternity? also, what about the flooding affect of the end of the Ice Age, which would certainly alter the time frame.
A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:27 a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.
b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as “infinite.”
c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.
d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.
Wait a minute.......
firstly, carbon dating is not yet 100% accurate - this is well known - dating of the Turin Shroud has revealed 2 different dates, one proving and one disproving that it came from the target dat (25Ad? not sure - no-ones actually accurately dated the bible, because it depends on the interpetation of what the Star of Bethlehem was).
Especially in 1969....science changes a lot in 33 years.
Secondly, are you trying to use one scientific theory to prove another one as fallible? Because, surely that could mean carbon dating is wrong, and evolutionism sound?
Thirdly, evolution is not an anti-creationist view. Evolutionary theory shows that life should not have started on Earth (through testing of random protein iteractions to form DNA) for billions of years
after it did.
For a Christian, surely this is just a scenario of God setting the process in action and letting it 'go'. If God is perfect, then surely that means the creatures they created are also -for the purposes of this analogy- faultless - i.e. able to choose their own destiny? not to mention that belief in heaven does not rule death as failure - merely the ending of one plane of existance, and possiby ascension to heaven?
so far, all I've read is totally unsubtantied guesses, masquerading as definate proofs. I've not read anything that would make me even consider the validty of evolutionary theory.
