[_ Old Earth _] DATING METHODS SHOWING A YOUNG EARTH

[Atonement]

For evolution to be remotely possible, many millions of years are needed. If it can be shown that the earth is young (about 6000 - 10,000 years old), and not millions of years old (as required by evolution), then evolution would not have enough time to happen.

Consider these examples proving a young earth:


1. 1/8 of an inch of moon dust

The earth and moon are gathering interplanetary dust of iron and nickel every year. If the earth and moon are 5 billion years old as evolution claims, we would observe much more dust than we do on the ocean floors having come from the rivers. Where is all this nickel dust if this is true? We only see one-eighth of an inch of meteorite dust on the moon's surface, not 54 feet of dust that would occur if the moon was 5 billion years old.

(Source: Scientific Creationism. H. Morris, p.152)


2. Juvenile water coming out of volcanoes has never been in the oceans before. About 1 cubic mile is added yearly. 340,000,000 cubic miles of water are on earth's surface.

Q: How many years would it take to accumulate 340 million cubic miles of water?

A: 340 million years.

This implies that there were no oceans 340 million years ago, the supposed age of fishes. So how could life have evolved in the oceans 2,000 million years ago if there were no oceans then?

(Source: H. Morris, Scientific Creationism, p.156)


3. Comets orbiting the sun lose much of their mass as they approach the sun due to the solar wind and the heat of the sun. On every pass by the sun more of the comet's matter is blasted from its surface to become part of its tail, finally disintegrating completely. The measured rate of comet disintegration means that all of the 5 million comets would be gone in 10,000 years. Hence the earth, comets and solar system must be less than 10,000 years old.


4. Oil Well Pressure

When an oil well is drilled, it is under such great pressure from rocks above it, that an oil gusher results. Sedimentary rocks surrounding the oil well are porous, thus allowing the oil to seep out before 1000,000 years. This great oil pressure argues strongly against millions of years old oil wells, and implies an age for oil around 10,000 years old. Oil was formed during the Great Flood 4000 years ago.


6. Niagara Falls cliffs wear away at 7 feet per year. From their first mapping in 1678 to 1842 the water wore away the top of the falls at a rate of 7 feet per year. Since the gorge is 7 miles (or 36,000 feet) long,

the age of the falls = 36,000 divide by 7 = 5,143 years (approx.)

5,143 years is close to the time of Noah's flood 4400 years ago. This is nowhere near 100 million years as evolutionists think.


7. Erosion. At today's rate of erosion there should have accumulated at least 30 times more sediment in the ocean than there actually is, if earth's age is 4 billion years. If erosion has been occurring for billions of years, why are there still sharp cliffs. The sharp angular appearance of mountains testifies to their youth. All the continents would be worn down to sea level in 14 million years.


8. Amount of atmospheric Helium. The light gas Helium is steadily gathering in the outer reaches of our atmosphere. It cannot escape. Even more Helium is being added from the sun, as well as from radioactive decay of uranium and Thorium to form Helium.

Years to reach present level = present mass of Helium

rate of Helium formation each year


= 3.5 x 1015 grams

3 x 1011 grams per year


= 11,600 years to reach present levels


If the earth was 4 billion years old, there would be 400,000 times more Helium in the atmosphere. Where is it? 11,600 years is close to 6000 year as the Biblical age of earth.

Source: M.Cook, "Where is earth's radiogenic Helium?" Nature v.179, 26 January 1957, p.213)


9. No trees are older than 5000 years in age

The oldest living thing is a Bristlecone pine growing in eastern Nevada, aged about 4,900 years old by measuring its annual growth rings. There is no reason why they couldn't live much longer.

Q: Why do we find none of these trees dated 15,000 years old or more?

A: All these trees were planted just after the flood 4400 years ago. Source: "The Genesis Flood" Whitcomb and Morris P.392,393


10. Man's Recorded History

If man has lived on earth for 1 million years, why do we only find human records going back to about 3500 BC? This cuneiform tablet is the oldest human writing from Sumeria. When human records first appear, they show man to be highly developed with a sophisticated civilisation. This agrees better with a creation date of 4074 BC than with evolution's 1 million year history of man. Why did man do nothing for 1 million years? Because he has only been here for 6,000 - 10,000 years.


11. The Moon is Receding 2 inches each year from earth. Tidal friction slows down the earth's rotating a very small amount each year resulting in the moon receding 2 inches each year from earth. This means that the earth and moon would have been touching about 2 billion years ago. This is much younger than evolution's estimate of 4.6 billion years.

Source: Origins Film Handbook, 1983, p.30


12. The Sun is Shrinking 5 feet every hour.

A news report of March 23, 1980 stated that "The sun's diameter appears to have been decreasing by about 1/10 of 1% per century". This is due to the great amount of heat, light and radiation being sent out. Every hour the sun shrinks about 5 feet. This means that the sun shrinks by 1% every 1000 years, which is 6% after 6000 years. this is no problem to a creationist with a 6000 year old earth, but it is a great problem to an evolutionist because 100,000 years ago the sun would have been double its present size, and 20 million years ago the sun's surface would have touched the earth, vaporising it. Perhaps the sun and earth are not 5 billion years old after all.

Source: "The Sun is Shrinking", R.Akridge, Acts, Facts, Impact No.82 ICR4/80.


13. Earth's Magnetic Field Strength is decaying by half every 1400 years, based on measurements since 1835, according to Thomas Barnes. Extrapolating backwards 10,000 years, earth's magnetic field strength would have been as strong as a magnetic star. 1 million years ago earth's magnetic field strength would be 10215 Tesla, greater than the magnetism of all objects in the universe. All this speaks of a recent creation date less than 10,000 years ago.

Source:T.G. Barnes, "Origin and Destiny of Earth's Magnetic Field",

ICR,1973,p.157


14. Earth's Heat The earth is slowly cooling from the surface inwards according to Stefan's Law of radiation. Lord Kelvin in 1889 calculated that the earth could not be billions of years old because of earth's known rate of cooling, the existing temperature gradient in the earth, and the assumption that the earth could not have been hotter than "white hot" initially.

Source: "Popular lecturers and addresses" (London: MacMillan, 1889), p.415


15. Short lived lunar isotopes Uranium 236 and Thorium 230

If the moon were of great age, these short lived isotopes would have long since decayed away. Yet they are not only present, but are in relative abundance. U-236 half life is 23.9 million years, Thorium-230 half life is 80,000 years. Thus, according to this method, the moon's age should be thousands of years, not millions or billions.


16. Poynting Robertson Effect. All stars have a gravitational field and pull in particles like gas, dust and meteors within their range. O and B type stars radiating energy 100,000 times faster than our sun have a spiralling effect, pulling particles in all the faster. The unexpected thing from an evolutionary old universe viewpoint is that huge O and B stars have huge dust clouds surrounding them. If these stars were millions of years old, every particle in close range would have been pulled in by now.

Source: J.C. Whitcomb, "Origin of the Solar System".


17. HOT "O" type stars are 10,000 times the diameter of our sun, and radiate 100,000 times more energy. Burning down at this rate, and working back in time, the entire universe would have been filled with the mass of these stars 20,000 years ago, not millions of years ago.

Source: H. Slusher, Bible-Science Newsletter, January 1975, p.2


18. Stellar Radiation Small cosmic dust particles are abundant in galactic space. Solar wind (star radiation) tends to push these particles out of the galaxy. If the universe is only a couple of million years old, calculations show that the galaxy should now be swept clean of dust. But the dust exists in abundance in interstellar space, implying a young galaxy. There is no known source of dust replenishment.


19. Meteorites are only found in surface rocks, and not found throughout the geological column, as would be expected if earth was 4 billion years old. Meteorite craters are all dated to a few thousand years. No meteorite craters are dated millions of years old. This shows a young earth, and that layers of earth rock have not been building up over billions of years.


20. Delta Filling. The Mississippi river dumps about 300 million cubic metres of sediment into the Gulf of Mexico each year. If this river were millions of years old, the Gulf would have been filled long ago. Since the delta grows about 250 feet per year, it's age calculates to about 4000 years, very close to the flood 4,400 years ago.

Source: B.Allen, Geologic Age of Mississippi,

CRS Vol.9,...p.96-114


21.Hydrogen in the Universe Hydrogen is constantly being converted to Helium throughout the universe. Hydrogen cannot be produced in great quantities. If the universe were very old, by now there should be little Hydrogen left. Fred Hoyle says: "Why does the universe consist almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter was infinitely old, this would be quite impossible. The creation issue simply cannot be dodged".

Source: "The Nature of the Universe ". 1960, p.125


22. Ocean Sediment. There is not enough sediment on the sea floors. Rivers add about 28 billion tons of sediment to the oceans each year. If this had occurred for 1 billion years, the continents would have eroded away hundreds of times. There would be a layer of sediment on the ocean floor over 100 miles thick. In reality there is so much less sediment on the ocean floor (average 800 feet thick), and the continents have not eroded even once yet. All the continents would be worn down to sea level in 14 million years. Sharp angular rock features imply youthfulness.

The Tasman Sea off Australia is not part of a subduction zone of ocean floor being pushed deep into the earth. Subduction zones could not dispose of 10% of incoming sediment. Hence the sea floors seem young.


23. Rapid Stalagmite and Stalactite Formation. Today's slow growth rate of huge stalagmites and stalactites lead some people to conclude that they were formed over millions of years. However, their rate of formation depends on water flow, temperature, and lime concentrations.

This stalactite grew so fast that it encased a bat before decomposition set in. Under the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC., stalactites had grown to 5 feet in 50 years.

Source: "The World that Perished"

J.C. Whitcomb p.114


24. Radiohaloes shorten geologic ages of millions of years to a few thousand years.

Radiohaloes are colour rings around microscopic radioactive minerals in rock crystals.

"Squashed" Polonium -210 radiohaloes indicate that Jurassic, Triassic and Eocene formations in the Colorado Plateau were deposited within months of one another, not from 225-255 million years apart, as evolution suggests.
"Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohaloes, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation, or drastic changes in radioactive decay rates.

25. Ocean concentrations of elements flowing in from rivers. If we assume, as evolutionists must, that the oceans were 100% freshwater at the beginning of earth's history, and knowing that the rivers wash 450 million tonnes of sodium off the continents into the oceans each year, if we factor in any recycling of salt, and knowing that sodium's concentration in the oceans to be 10,500 mg/m1, then the very maximum number of years required to reach today's sodium concentration level in the oceans are 260 million years.

This means that the oceans, and hence earth could not be older than 260 million years. Most other elements give an age to accumulate to today's level as about 10,000 years. eg. Vanadium (10,000 yr), Cobalt and Nickel (18,000 yr), Copper (50,000 yr), Caesium (40,000 yr). Bismuth (45,000 yr), Calcium (8 million years), Silicon (8,000 yr) etc.


26. Igneous Crystal Build-up Knowing today's volcanic addition of igneous rocks, the entire crust of earth could be produced by volcanoes in 500
million years.

I have provided the magazines, books and authors of these experiments. Research this stuff. I only bring it here for you to look at and review. Maybe it will help with some questions that you have.

 

[jimbo_oz]

I Don’t agree with this “evidence†Atonement. This is why

1. 1/8 of an inch of moon dust

The earth and moon are gathering interplanetary dust of iron and nickel every year. If the earth and moon are 5 billion years old as evolution claims, we would observe much more dust than we do on the ocean floors having come from the rivers. Where is all this nickel dust if this is true? Not all dust makes it through the atmosphere and that that does doesn’t stay as just dust. Have you heard of sedimentary rock (rock which develops though the process of layering of sediments. (dust in water))? This would explain where most of the dust has gone. Also many places don’t have water systems to send dust into the ocean eg. A desert.

We only see one-eighth of an inch of meteorite dust on the moon's surface, not 54 feet of dust that would occur if the moon was 5 billion years old.

(Source: Scientific Creationism. H. Morris, p.152)


2. Juvenile water coming out of volcanoes has never been in the oceans before. About 1 cubic mile is added yearly. 340,000,000 cubic miles of water are on earth's surface.

Q: How many years would it take to accumulate 340 million cubic miles of water?

A: 340 million years.

This implies that there were no oceans 340 million years ago, the supposed age of fishes. So how could life have evolved in the oceans 2,000 million years ago if there were no oceans then? You seem to forget that the earth was not created with out water. In the beginning and there still are clouds of gases in space of different chemicals. Water can be created through chemical reactions. All you need is hydrogen and oxygen H20.

(Source: H. Morris, Scientific Creationism, p.156)


3. Comets orbiting the sun lose much of their mass as they approach the sun due to the solar wind and the heat of the sun. On every pass by the sun more of the comet's matter is blasted from its surface to become part of its tail, finally disintegrating completely. The measured rate of comet disintegration means that all of the 5 million comets would be gone in 10,000 years. Hence the earth, comets and solar system must be less than 10,000 years old. You are averaging the rate of disintegration for all comets. Some comets don’t return for a hundreds of years. So different ones can break up at different times. New ones are being created all the time. Also our solar system moves up and down in and out of the centre of the main cluster of the Milky Way. The cycle takes 50 million years. When we are in the centre of the Milky Way the solar system takes more hit from comets and meteorites. Due this period we can pick up and lose comets to the solar system.


4. Oil Well Pressure

When an oil well is drilled, it is under such great pressure from rocks above it, that an oil gusher results. Sedimentary rocks surrounding the oil well are porous, thus allowing the oil to seep out before 1000,000 years. This great oil pressure argues strongly against millions of years old oil wells, and implies an age for oil around 10,000 years old. Oil was formed during the Great Flood 4000 years ago. Are you implying that all oil is in cased in sedimentary rock and all oil has a way to escape. If so you are totally wrong. Oil takes million of years under pressure and heat to develop using plant and animal matter. That rules out oil seeping out after 1 million years since all is mined now. Also as you said oil is under great pressure if it was only in cased in sedimentary rock then it would not have been able to be drilled because the pressure and heat is caused by the creation of metamorphous rock (rock created from molten rock from a volcano) over the sedimentary.


6. Niagara Falls cliffs wear away at 7 feet per year. From their first mapping in 1678 to 1842 the water wore away the top of the falls at a rate of 7 feet per year. Since the gorge is 7 miles (or 36,000 feet) long,

the age of the falls = 36,000 divide by 7 = 5,143 years (approx.)

5,143 years is close to the time of Noah's flood 4400 years ago. This is nowhere near 100 million years as evolutionists think. You seem to think that the Niagara falls and any other geographic marvel has to have been created at the beginning of time. This has been proven wrong by the creation of new island and mountains. Also at different times in history there are different amounts of rainfall not a constant amount to where 7 feet wear away every year.

7. Erosion. At today's rate of erosion there should have accumulated at least 30 times more sediment in the ocean than there actually is, if earth's age is 4 billion years. If erosion has been occurring for billions of years, why are there still sharp cliffs. The sharp angular appearance of mountains testifies to their youth. All the continents would be worn down to sea level in 14 million years. Yes it does testify to their youth because continents move and mountains grow and land is created. You have also got those statistics for modern day condition. The sea leave today is rising and so is the temperature which would change the rate of erosion.


8. Amount of atmospheric Helium. The light gas Helium is steadily gathering in the outer reaches of our atmosphere. It cannot escape. Even more Helium is being added from the sun, as well as from radioactive decay of uranium and Thorium to form Helium.

Years to reach present level = present mass of Helium

rate of Helium formation each year


= 3.5 x 1015 grams

3 x 1011 grams per year


= 11,600 years to reach present levels


If the earth was 4 billion years old, there would be 400,000 times more Helium in the atmosphere. Where is it? 11,600 years is close to 6000 year as the Biblical age of earth.
Helium is not trapped in the atmosphere solar winds actually “blow†away lots of helium. NASA has proven this in it’s weather gathering programs you have out dated information.

Source: M.Cook, "Where is earth's radiogenic Helium?" Nature v.179, 26 January 1957, p.213)


9. No trees are older than 5000 years in age

The oldest living thing is a Bristlecone pine growing in eastern Nevada, aged about 4,900 years old by measuring its annual growth rings. There is no reason why they couldn't live much longer.

Q: Why do we find none of these trees dated 15,000 years old or more?

A: All these trees were planted just after the flood 4400 years ago. Source: "The Genesis Flood" Whitcomb and Morris P.392,393 I have read up on why they survived as long as they did and was because of luck the bristlecone trees aren’t native to the area because they had evolved to fit there nature landscape they flourish with no completion in there new habitat.

10. Man's Recorded History

If man has lived on earth for 1 million years, why do we only find human records going back to about 3500 BC? This cuneiform tablet is the oldest human writing from Sumeria. When human records first appear, they show man to be highly developed with a sophisticated civilisation. This agrees better with a creation date of 4074 BC than with evolution's 1 million year history of man. Why did man do nothing for 1 million years? Because he has only been here for 6,000 - 10,000 years. Man has had history recorded later then 3500BC there are cave paintings 43200 years old.

11. The Moon is Receding 2 inches each year from earth. Tidal friction slows down the earth's rotating a very small amount each year resulting in the moon receding 2 inches each year from earth. This means that the earth and moon would have been touching about 2 billion years ago. This is much younger than evolution's estimate of 4.6 billion years. This information is very dated in fact the moon is not receding it coming in closer.
Source: Origins Film Handbook, 1983, p.30


12. The Sun is Shrinking 5 feet every hour.

A news report of March 23, 1980 stated that "The sun's diameter appears to have been decreasing by about 1/10 of 1% per century". This is due to the great amount of heat, light and radiation being sent out. Every hour the sun shrinks about 5 feet. This means that the sun shrinks by 1% every 1000 years, which is 6% after 6000 years. this is no problem to a creationist with a 6000 year old earth, but it is a great problem to an evolutionist because 100,000 years ago the sun would have been double its present size, and 20 million years ago the sun's surface would have touched the earth, vaporising it. Perhaps the sun and earth are not 5 billion years old after all. This is also wrong in the life cycle of a star. A star is born from a supernova (the implosion of the oldest form of a star) It sends it’s like growing large. This is as a result of trying to burn at the same rate as when it was created it needs a larger surface area to burn at the same intensity (this is the stage our sun is at). This results in it becoming a Red Giant. In which it gravity causes it to crush into it self becoming a White Dwarf. It keeps crusing it self until it results in a black-hole or supernova.
Source: "The Sun is Shrinking", R.Akridge, Acts, Facts, Impact No.82 ICR4/80.


13. Earth's Magnetic Field Strength is decaying by half every 1400 years, based on measurements since 1835, according to Thomas Barnes. Extrapolating backwards 10,000 years, earth's magnetic field strength would have been as strong as a magnetic star. 1 million years ago earth's magnetic field strength would be 10215 Tesla, greater than the magnetism of all objects in the universe. All this speaks of a recent creation date less than 10,000 years ago. Yes it maybe decaying but it has been proven that the field flips (North becomes south vice-versa) after a period of time and regains it strength.
Source:T.G. Barnes, "Origin and Destiny of Earth's Magnetic Field",

ICR,1973,p.157


14. Earth's Heat The earth is slowly cooling from the surface inwards according to Stefan's Law of radiation. Lord Kelvin in 1889 calculated that the earth could not be billions of years old because of earth's known rate of cooling, the existing temperature gradient in the earth, and the assumption that the earth could not have been hotter than "white hot" initially. This is also outdated he forgot to include the creation of heat though human needs and volcanic activity and grinding of plates.


Source: "Popular lecturers and addresses" (London: MacMillan, 1889), p.415


15. Short lived lunar isotopes Uranium 236 and Thorium 230

If the moon were of great age, these short lived isotopes would have long since decayed away. Yet they are not only present, but are in relative abundance. U-236 half life is 23.9 million years, Thorium-230 half life is 80,000 years. Thus, according to this method, the moon's age should be thousands of years, not millions or billions. The moon has been hit many a time by comets and meteorites which may contain these elements. Didn’t you just say the moon has been hit many a time so why can’t it have been hit in the last I don’t know in the last 50,000 years.


16. Poynting Robertson Effect. All stars have a gravitational field and pull in particles like gas, dust and meteors within their range. O and B type stars radiating energy 100,000 times faster than our sun have a spiralling effect, pulling particles in all the faster. The unexpected thing from an evolutionary old universe viewpoint is that huge O and B stars have huge dust clouds surrounding them. If these stars were millions of years old, every particle in close range would have been pulled in by now. Your point is? How dose this effect evolution now?
Source: J.C. Whitcomb, "Origin of the Solar System".


17. HOT "O" type stars are 10,000 times the diameter of our sun, and radiate 100,000 times more energy. Burning down at this rate, and working back in time, the entire universe would have been filled with the mass of these stars 20,000 years ago, not millions of years ago. As I explained earlier the life cycle of a star explains their age. This contradicts science this news letter is made up.
Source: H. Slusher, Bible-Science Newsletter, January 1975, p.2


18. Stellar Radiation Small cosmic dust particles are abundant in galactic space. Solar wind (star radiation) tends to push these particles out of the galaxy. If the universe is only a couple of million years old, calculations show that the galaxy should now be swept clean of dust. But the dust exists in abundance in interstellar space, implying a young galaxy. There is no known source of dust replenishment. Stars just don’t blow all gases out the gases like you said earlier attract to some stars and the winds can counter act each other.

19. Meteorites are only found in surface rocks, and not found throughout the geological column, as would be expected if earth was 4 billion years old. Meteorite craters are all dated to a few thousand years. No meteorite craters are dated millions of years old. This shows a young earth, and that layers of earth rock have not been building up over billions of years. Yes some are dated millions of years old like the one in Mexico that wiped out the dinosaurs

20. Delta Filling. The Mississippi river dumps about 300 million cubic metres of sediment into the Gulf of Mexico each year. If this river were millions of years old, the Gulf would have been filled long ago. Since the delta grows about 250 feet per year, it's age calculates to about 4000 years, very close to the flood 4,400 years ago. As I explained earlier not every thing was created at once and nothing remains the same forever.

Source: B.Allen, Geologic Age of Mississippi,

CRS Vol.9,...p.96-114


21.Hydrogen in the Universe Hydrogen is constantly being converted to Helium throughout the universe. Hydrogen cannot be produced in great quantities. If the universe were very old, by now there should be little Hydrogen left. Fred Hoyle says: "Why does the universe consist almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter was infinitely old, this would be quite impossible. The creation issue simply cannot be dodged". There are large quantities of hydrogen and it dose not keep converting to hydrogen. Have you heard of solid state hydrogen? One of the moons of Jupiter’s ais almost completely made of hydrogen in it frozen form.
Source: "The Nature of the Universe ". 1960, p.125


22. Ocean Sediment. There is not enough sediment on the sea floors. Rivers add about 28 billion tons of sediment to the oceans each year. If this had occurred for 1 billion years, the continents would have eroded away hundreds of times. There would be a layer of sediment on the ocean floor over 100 miles thick. In reality there is so much less sediment on the ocean floor (average 800 feet thick), and the continents have not eroded even once yet. All the continents would be worn down to sea level in 14 million years. Sharp angular rock features imply youthfulness.

The Tasman Sea off Australia is not part of a subduction zone of ocean floor being pushed deep into the earth. Subduction zones could not dispose of 10% of incoming sediment. Hence the sea floors seem young. This is explained in # 7 & 20 you seem to be redundant.

23. Rapid Stalagmite and Stalactite Formation. Today's slow growth rate of huge stalagmites and stalactites lead some people to conclude that they were formed over millions of years. However, their rate of formation depends on water flow, temperature, and lime concentrations.

This stalactite grew so fast that it encased a bat before decomposition set in. Under the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC., stalactites had grown to 5 feet in 50 years. What about them what does that prove?

Source: "The World that Perished"

J.C. Whitcomb p.114


24. Radiohaloes shorten geologic ages of millions of years to a few thousand years.

Radiohaloes are colour rings around microscopic radioactive minerals in rock crystals.

"Squashed" Polonium -210 radiohaloes indicate that Jurassic, Triassic and Eocene formations in the Colorado Plateau were deposited within months of one another, not from 225-255 million years apart, as evolution suggests.
"Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohaloes, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation, or drastic changes in radioactive decay rates. Would you be able to tell me where you got this info because the definition of radio haloes is something that broadcast a radio signal in a radius? But you have described it as colour ring around microscopic minerals. Are trying to say that the half life of the martial is inconsistent to suggest millions of years a part.

25. Ocean concentrations of elements flowing in from rivers. If we assume, as evolutionists must, that the oceans were 100% freshwater at the beginning of earth's history, and knowing that the rivers wash 450 million tonnes of sodium off the continents into the oceans each year, if we factor in any recycling of salt, and knowing that sodium's concentration in the oceans to be 10,500 mg/m1, then the very maximum number of years required to reach today's sodium concentration level in the oceans are 260 million years.

This means that the oceans, and hence earth could not be older than 260 million years. Most other elements give an age to accumulate to today's level as about 10,000 years. eg. Vanadium (10,000 yr), Cobalt and Nickel (18,000 yr), Copper (50,000 yr), Caesium (40,000 yr). Bismuth (45,000 yr), Calcium (8 million years), Silicon (8,000 yr) etc. So if the ocean is at its limit then why can’t it be older if you said that it recycles the element back in. This is called a geographic cycle.

26. Igneous Crystal Build-up Knowing today's volcanic addition of igneous rocks, the entire crust of earth could be produced by volcanoes in 500
million years. Yes but then you have to consider erosion and sediments.

I have provided the magazines, books and authors of these experiments. Research this stuff. I only bring it here for you to look at and review. Maybe it will help with some questions that you have. I have and I now have no doubts in evolution and that the earth is billions of years old.

 

[Garret]

I have and I now have no doubts in evolution and that the earth is billions of years old.

This is really very strange. Someone purporting to have given reasons for "no doubts" in evolution and not a speck, a mere dribble, of actual evolutionary theory in the evidence. I would think that if you're going to support a theory you would understand it. There is no such thing as evolutionary geological theory. Jimbo has shown us that he feels he has conclusive evidence for an old earth. I'm fairly comfortable with his evidence, but perhaps he could go on to explain how this has anything to do with the evolution of biological creatures that it leaves him doubtless of. No doubt he has good reason.

Jimbo, here is an excellent paper on the modern view of evolutionary theory you may find helpful:

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st_Cent_View_Evol.html

Garret

 

[mushi2000]

That was an interesting read. Intrigued by the evolution of species, I spoke to our local chaplin about christianity, the bible and the theory of evolution. He too brought up some good points about christianity, but a lot of points that contradicted scientific proof and evidence.

I see Garret you have talked about Noah's Ark in your post. Also I have read Jimbo's very good Argument on the topic and I would like to bring forward my own argument which I also spoke to my local chaplin about.
Why doesn't the bible scientifically explain the so called 'great flood'. Where did the water come from and go to?
How was Noah able to take care of all the animals?
How did all the animals fit on the ark?
Geologically and historically there is no evidence of a flood.
Egyptians were writing on Papyrus leaves in 3000 b.c., and the Greeks as far back as 1000 b.c., and they have no record of a flood. This whole story can not be explained without invoking multiple miracles that are not mentioned in the scripture.

According to the Bible, evidence of God's power was once in abundance. Joshua stopped the sun (Joshua 10:12), God utterly destroys Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-28), and a donkey talked to his master (Numbers 22:21-30). And yet, today one is told that God "doesn't always answer prayers", "works in mysterious ways", or "works in subtle ways". These sound to me like excuses for the unexplainable way that God does not seem to physically affect our lives.

Isochron dating places the age of the earth millions of years older than most Christians believe it to be. Despite the fact that dating methods are well understood and very reliable, Christians continue to argue against an old earth without taking the time to try to understand that which they are arguing against

Few people would say that dinosaurs did not once roam the earth, and yet the Bible, which contains a history of the world, makes no mention of them. It does speak of behemoths (Job 40:15-19), but this reference is surely lacking considering how prevalent they would have been.
However we have seen fossils and have seen abundant proof that Dinosoars once existed.

People often follow the ten commandments with great rigor, but dismiss the lesser ones. Examples of commonly dismissed laws are: not to eat pork (Leviticus 11:7-8, Deuteronomy 14:8), not to work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15), not to divorce (Mark 10:11-12, Malachi 2:16), missionaries of other faiths must be killed (Deuteronomy 13:10), and non-christians should not be allowed in one's home (2 John 1:10-11).

Many Christians do not even know that the latter statements are in the Bible, probably because they are selectively de-emphasized by Christianity. In fact, Christians often criticize Muslims for carrying out the Deuteronomical commandment to kill people who try to turn you from God. I guess I wonder who decided which commandments were to be followed explicitely, and which were not. It seems to me that one would be playing a dangerous game to try to second-guess God.

Jesus and all of his disciples were Jewish, and yet the New Testament is believed to have been written in Greek.

I don't see why christians spread the word of christianity when they can't give reasonable logical explanations for events and quotes from the bible that are contradictory to science. This brings me back to my theory that people just don't want to believe the facts and just believe in christianity thinking that they will go to "heaven" and that people have been thinking this way because they are scared of the notion of eternal tourment in hell.

 

[Garret]

I see Garret you have talked about Noah's Ark in your post.

A quick point of clarification: I did not. I think your thinking about either Jimbo or Atonement.

Also I have read Jimbo's very good Argument on the topic and I would like to bring forward my own argument which I also spoke to my local chaplin about.
Why doesn't the bible scientifically explain the so called 'great flood'.

Can you explain to me why it should? "Skeptics" generally miss the point of nearly all Old Testament stories. I am not about to say that miracles that occurred in the Old Testament were just stories--I'd say the farthest thing from that. But the Bible is emphatically NOT a scientific text. It is dealing with the hearts and morals of men, not the physical nature of the world. The purpose of the Bible is to give us a clear understanding of our relation to God--who we are because of him. Can you show me how taking time in the Bible to scientifically explain the flood gets God anywhere in doing this? Granted it would answer alot of "how could this be" type questions, but actually we see in the Bible (Job for example) that God is perfectly comfortable with our ignorance on such subjects. With the flood we see an example of how dreadfully serious God is about sin. I'm going to admit to you some ignorance on details, because I've never pursued the creationist explanation for how the flood can be. To me, that's like pursuing how a virgin birth can be--it is all mere speculation. In light of that, I'll let other's with their own ideas answer you other technical questions.

Geologically and historically there is no evidence of a flood.
Egyptians were writing on Papyrus leaves in 3000 b.c., and the Greeks as far back as 1000 b.c., and they have no record of a flood. This whole story can not be explained without invoking multiple miracles that are not mentioned in the scripture.

Except for this. From my admittedly limited knowledge of world history I do know that there was writing long before the Egyptians and Greeks in a form called cuneiform. The Babylonians and surrounding cultures used this form of writing (I believe it was using wedge shapes) and there is actually a tale in their culture of a great flood. This does not automatically confirm the flood of the Bible, but I thought it was kind of interesting.

According to the Bible, evidence of God's power was once in abundance. Joshua stopped the sun (Joshua 10:12), God utterly destroys Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-28), and a donkey talked to his master (Numbers 22:21-30). And yet, today one is told that God "doesn't always answer prayers", "works in mysterious ways", or "works in subtle ways". These sound to me like excuses for the unexplainable way that God does not seem to physically affect our lives.

Yes, God's power was more "flagrantly" used. But look at the case history. Israel witnessed His power left and right but it hardly phased them. Priests witnessed Jesus' miracles and called him a servant of the Devil. There was hardly any compelling reason for God to continue in the old fashion, because quite obviously miracles did not engender people toward God anymore than the lack of miracles did.

Isochron dating places the age of the earth millions of years older than most Christians believe it to be. Despite the fact that dating methods are well understood and very reliable, Christians continue to argue against an old earth without taking the time to try to understand that which they are arguing against

Since Christianity is not the fact that the earth is young I do not personally see where Christianity stands or falls on scientific dating methods. Let the earth be a trillion years old, and you will still not have an argument against Christ. However if the relativist is really right, and if the naturalist is really right, then Christianity falls.

Few people would say that dinosaurs did not once roam the earth, and yet the Bible, which contains a history of the world, makes no mention of them. It does speak of behemoths (Job 40:15-19), but this reference is surely lacking considering how prevalent they would have been.
However we have seen fossils and have seen abundant proof that Dinosoars once existed.

And who are you to decide what God consider's important enough to put into His word and what is not? I, for one, will not decide that. The absence of any emphasis on dinosaurs in the Bible does not somehow tell against God or Christianity. Interestingly, we find no emphasis on rats in the Bible either. Perhaps because this is not the emphasis of the Bible? Why should we expect from a book that which it never purported to offer? I do not look for special relativity in Nathaniel Hawthorne's writings. That would be absurd.

Jesus and all of his disciples were Jewish, and yet the New Testament is believed to have been written in Greek.

Many writers of the New Testament were Greek, and in fact, not every one of the original 12 disciple wrote a book in the New Testament.

I don't see why christians spread the word of christianity when they can't give reasonable logical explanations for events and quotes from the bible that are contradictory to science. This brings me back to my theory that people just don't want to believe the facts and just believe in christianity thinking that they will go to "heaven" and that people have been thinking this way because they are scared of the notion of eternal tourment in hell.

Interestingly, do you see who ends up having to answer to who? The Bible must answer to science as if one is in command and the other is not. This is just another example of NOMA which I utterly reject. As far as your theory, I've got a theory of my own. It is this: that people like to pretend they are embracing "the facts" because of the dramatic story they become a part of. Thus, the two theories cancel each other out and we must look to other explanations as to why some people believe in God and others don't.

Garret

 

[Havoc]

I see you are quoting Morris quite a bit here Atonement, that's too bad because Morris is not what anyone would consider a scientist. His claims are not made on the basis of hard science but rather on supposition and bad data. Here is an example.

1. 1/8 of an inch of moon dust

The earth and moon are gathering interplanetary dust of iron and nickel every year. If the earth and moon are 5 billion years old as evolution claims, we would observe much more dust than we do on the ocean floors having come from the rivers. Where is all this nickel dust if this is true? We only see one-eighth of an inch of meteorite dust on the moon's surface, not 54 feet of dust that would occur if the moon was 5 billion years old.

(Source: Scientific Creationism. H. Morris, p.152)

The Myth of the Missing Moon Dust
By Dawn Huxley

Creationists claim that the Apollo astronauts expected to find anywhere from 150-200 feet of dust on the moon's surface, since the moon was thought to be 4.5 billions years old. Instead, they found only a "few centimeters" of dust after landing, so therefore, the moon must be very young.

This is a fairly insidious distortion and proves that creationists don't even read National Geographic, which thoroughly documented what the astronauts actually found as early as 1972. The Apollo 17 crew took seismic tests of the lunar soil and determined that its lunar regolith (accumulated pulverized impact material) is about 20-40 feet deep on the lunar plain, and up to 120 feet deep in the lunar highlands. Due to the moon's low gravity, and the fact that these sand grains remain free from weathering, the surface remained firm enough to support the lunar module. Also, many creationists claim that 14 million tons of meteoritic dust fall on the earth and moon, annually, but recent space probes proved the influx to earth is 400 times less than that. Due to the moon's low gravity, its influx is even smaller, only 500 tons per year. Most creationists know of the modern measurements, but continue to report the incorrect figure because it suits their purpose. Such is their integrity and scholarship.

Actually, the moon's surface should bewilder, perplex and concern most creationists. According to the Bible, there was only one world-wide catastrophe, Noah's Flood, yet the moon has millions of impact craters, many of them miles long. According to the evidence, our solar system was once pulverized by flying debris that would've sterilized the Earth's surface. Does the Bible record such an event? Are "scientific" creationists aware that creationist author and CRS founder Henry Morris once claimed that the craters on the moon were "put there by Satan?"

Here's an interesting take on your shrinking sun idea

12. The Sun is Shrinking 5 feet every hour.

A news report of March 23, 1980 stated that "The sun's diameter appears to have been decreasing by about 1/10 of 1% per century". This is due to the great amount of heat, light and radiation being sent out. Every hour the sun shrinks about 5 feet. This means that the sun shrinks by 1% every 1000 years, which is 6% after 6000 years. this is no problem to a creationist with a 6000 year old earth, but it is a great problem to an evolutionist because 100,000 years ago the sun would have been double its present size, and 20 million years ago the sun's surface would have touched the earth, vaporising it. Perhaps the sun and earth are not 5 billion years old after all.

Source: "The Sun is Shrinking", R.Akridge, Acts, Facts, Impact No.82 ICR4/80.

The Legend of the Shrinking Sun
By Dawn Huxley

In 1979, two astronomers examined solar meridian transit records recorded between 1836 to 1953 in various journals at the Royal Greenwich Observatory in England. At first glance, the records suggested that the sun had decreased in diameter over several observational periods, but that study turned out to be flawed. Later, other astronomers discovered that our sun pulsates with varying changes in "apparent" luminosity, but the mass of the solar diameter itself remains unchanged.

But true to form, the members of the Institue for Creation Research and Creation Research Society seized upon their original data and fabricated the outrageous claim that our sun was shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour! Even worse, they "assumed" that this shrinkage had been occurring at a steady, invariable rate throughout all of recorded history. Creationist author Henry Morris claimed that if the sun were a million years old, then it would swallow Earth's orbit inside its bloated mass. (One critic said that's like measuring the low tide mark at dusk, and then decreasing the ocean's depth back in time by ignoring its rise and fall.)

They published dozens of books and newsletters supporting this fallacy, while conveniently ignoring the fact that if our sun had truly been shrinking at such a swift rate throughout history, then many total solar eclipses recorded over the past three thousand years couldn't have taken place. The sun would've been too big for the moon to obscure, but creationists dismissed such objections as "nit-picking." Years later, many were forced to admit that they rushed to premature judgments, although some of their publications still repeat the shrinking sun myth because it conveniently suits their strategy.

As far as the Erosion and sediment myth goes, I don't even need a quote for that one. Anyone with an elementary knowledge of plate techtonics and Geology knows why there are new mountains being formes all the time. Creationists fail to explain plate techtonics, which is measureable, and sedimetary rock, which isn't formed in 6000 years.

One of the basic problems with most Creationists is twofold.

1. They, like Morris, tend to get in over their head when trying to discuss hard science. They simply don't have the background necessary. Their theories may sound really scientificish to the general public but they do not hold up to serious scientific scrutiny. Morris and the gang depend on convincing other Christians and the unwashed hordes in order to get Creationism back in schools. They generally refuse to engage in debate with real scientists, I wonder why.

2. Most of the fans of Creationist "Science" don't listen to anything but the CS's like Morris et al. Every single item you've posted here has been refuted long ago using hard science. A 10-second search on the web revealed the two quotes I used. I notice that you didn't mention there were alternate explanations for your article. In fact you stated that those items "proved" a young earth. Quite the contrary they not only prove nothing but the premises themselves are either easily explained or are based on purely false assumptions.

This is why I generally don't argue Creationism verses Evolution. The Creationists don't do the minimum study required for informed debate and most don't have the scientific background required to see how ridiculous things like the Erosion arguement are. If you are going to use people like Morris at least have the decency to acknowledge that there are serious problems with the science of his theories.

 

[mushi2000]

A quick point of clarification: I did not. I think your thinking about either Jimbo or Atonement.

sorry I apologize Garret. I actually meant to say Atonement. but still thank you for replying.

I've got a theory of my own. It is this: that people like to pretend they are embracing "the facts" because of the dramatic story they become a part of. Thus, the two theories cancel each other out and we must look to other explanations as to why some people believe in God and others don't.

That is a fair argument since you have fair reasoning to the theory of God creating the earth but your argument that the earth is young is quite rediculous because scientific textbooks have shown that the earth is millions of years old and that geology has proven this point. Your reasonings still contradict actual fact. I still believe that many people do only believe in God because they don't want to face the facts that have been scientifically proven in the case that they might go to heaven. I'm not saying you are one of these people but there are a lot of people who think this way. Throughout my life I have spoken to many Christians who become offended and try to move away or change topics when I ask them about how God created earth and the contradictory views of science. A good example of this is my mother and grandmother who are devout christians who go to church every Sunday. When I confront them about the topic they will totally change the topic to avoid it. I believe a highly uneducated society which populated Europe thousands of years ago created the myth of the Bible and the word about God spread and people became scared. Don't think i'm just saying this, I have research the topic over many years and have come to this conclusion. I have also read many Bible passages which seem to contradict themselves. I don't currently have the bible refrences but I can acquire them if you want because it has been a while since I have had a look at the bible.

The book of John states that Jesus's last words before he died were "It is finished" after he took his last sip of drink which then he bowed his head and had given up his spirit. Where as the book of Luke states that Jesus's last words were "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." which after that point he gave up his spirit. These statements seem to contradict each other.

Leviticus also states in the bible that a Bat is a type of bird when saying that people must not eat certain types of birds including Eagles and Herron. The Bat has been scientifically proven to not be a type of Bird but a Mammal. Deutronomy also makes the same mistake.

Here are some bible quotes that I wrote down a while ago which contradicts the shape of the earth.

he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12)

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, ... (Revelation 7:1)

Oh Lord, ... to you the nations will come from the ends of the earth... (Jeremiah 16:19)

... and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)

We all know the earth is a globe not a square. The earth does not end, it continually goes on. Are you trying to tell us that the earth is still a square or rectangle. Nowhere in the bible does it say anything about the earth being round or in the shape of a sphere. The earth does not have corners, it is not possible to poke yourself with a corner of the earth unlike the corner of a coffee table.

 

[Judy]

mushi2000,

I would like to try to answer some of what you have stated.

First, the term ends of the earth is a figurative expression. If someone said I will follow you to the ends of the earth , they are not saying that the earth is square! They are saying that they would follow them anywhere.

You use a few scriptures to illustrate your point.
Is.11:12, what is ment here is that he will scatter them all over the earth.

Rev. 7:1, This is speaking of the 4 quadrants of the compass, that is the angels will take up key positions on the earth.

Jer. 16:19, the nations will come from all over the earth.

Dan. 4:10-11, this is a prophetic dream, with the tree representing Nebuchadnezzar. end of the earth is again all over the earth not that it is square!

As far as the shape of the earth goes it does say in Job 26:7 That...He hangs the earth on nothing.
If you want more read Job chapters 38-41, where God answers Job, It is very interesting.
And as far as the age of the Earth goes , who cares how young or old the earth is ? That information does not take away from the fact that God created the Heavens and the earth.

 

[Havoc]

Just a point of clarification. Godly Creation is not a fact, it is a belief. If you choose to claim it to be a fact then you must provide sufficient substantive evidence for Creation to be the only workable solution.

 

[Garret]

I've got a theory of my own. It is this: that people like to pretend they are embracing "the facts" because of the dramatic story they become a part of. Thus, the two theories cancel each other out and we must look to other explanations as to why some people believe in God and others don't.

That is a fair argument since you have fair reasoning to the theory of God creating the earth...

Not intending to be rude, I must point out that this is not why its a fair argument. Rather, it is a fair argument because your suspicion for why people believe God is cancelled out by my equal suspicion that people do not believe in God for said reasons. A similar argument about God that cancels itself out is the suspicion that we believed in God do to our form of government. Monarchies could have brought about monothiestic beliefs. But equally then, democracies can be suspected of founding naturalism and thus they cancel each other out.

...but your argument that the earth is young is quite rediculous because scientific textbooks have shown that the earth is millions of years old and that geology has proven this point. Your reasonings still contradict actual fact.

Let me make this clear because I think you are missing the point. I do not argue that the earth is only 6,000 years old. My beliefs are not founded on the age of the earth. I shouldn't care in the least if the earth is a trillion years old. The current scientific dating of the earth does not tell against Christianity for me. So then... What reasonings are you referring to? Atonement has been making all the arguments for a young earth. I have merely pointed out that in Jimbo's "debunking" he claims to therefore have excellent reasons to put his trust in evolution. I merely asked "how?"

I believe a highly uneducated society which populated Europe thousands of years ago created the myth of the Bible and the word about God spread and people became scared. Don't think i'm just saying this, I have research the topic over many years and have come to this conclusion. I have also read many Bible passages which seem to contradict themselves. I don't currently have the bible refrences but I can acquire them if you want because it has been a while since I have had a look at the bible.

I read ahead and Drake has already posted some pretty valid points. However, I tend to consider Christianity by its core. Meaning you could scrape alot of things away from the Bible (like Noah's flood) and keep only the essentials. God created man, man fell, God became man, God then made the way for us to be remade towards what we were intended to be. Here is the core, as I see it. Though I cut some of the "baggage" I do not mean in any way that the core mentioned above is figurative in any way. I mean it in the realest since possible. As in, you could have rubbed your hand on the cross of Christ and gotten splinters in your hand while He was dying. As in, God personally created human beings and he was personally the primary causal for everything else. This I mean in the strictest sense. Notice none of it has to do with science. So the question as I have always seen it extends out from the core of the beliefs. If we accept the core of Naturalism, or Rationalism, or Relativism where will it lead us? If we accept the core of Christianity where will it lead us? If Christianity's core takes us closer to what is true, then I think we must follow that. However, if Naturalism or the others lead us on a chain of reasoning that draws us closer to truth we must follow Naturalism or the others. Do you see where I'm going here?
I am frankly not a fan of Biblical errancy/inerrancy arguments so I'm not going to offer much on them.

Garret

 

[Judy]

havoc,

Sorry that is my belief and so it is fact to me. But a poor choice of words in a debate. Thanks for your clarification.

 

[jimbo_oz]

So do you want to believe in the morals of the bible? We don't need to believe in god or anything else to that matter to believe in common courtesy and and the well being of your fellow man.

I have heard people saying that if it was not for the belife of god society as we know it would collasspe. Because there would be no need to act normally because there would be no heaven to reward us for our behavior. Do you think we are all children. We need a reward to not go and kill someone. Anyway we have a law system to stop the break down of society.

 

[jimbo_oz]

Garret,

The reason I can put trust in evolution is that christanity has not threaten evolution the evidence is stacked up aganist christians. There is more proof for evolution then religon. Why can we create life and and change creatures and clone them if they where created by a perfect being that we should worship.

 

[mushi2000]

I agree with Jimbo, Humans are now able to create human clones and create bacteria and viruses.

I give you this website as proof of what humans are capable of doing with the help of science.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2122619.stm

I would honestly believe in the bible and god but the whole idea of the bible doesn't stack up with actual fact. I believe free will ables us to believe in anything we want to. That's why there are so many religions and belief systems and I respect that. But since you have created this forum, I have brought upon the facts in which I believe as an argument as this is what I believe.

 

[Judy]

mushi2000 said,

We all know the earth is a globe not a square. The earth does not end, it continually goes on. Are you trying to tell us that the earth is still a square or rectangle. Nowhere in the bible does it say anything about the earth being round or in the shape of a sphere. The earth does not have corners, it is not possible to poke yourself with a corner of the earth unlike the corner of a coffee table.

[/quote]

In my last responce to you I failed to mention that the Bible does say that the earth is a round.

besides the verse in job.26:7 which I used earlier. In job 26:10 He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end. A spherical earth is also described in Isa. 40:21-22 Have you not known? Have you not heard?........It is He who sits above the circle of the earth.....
Proverbs 8: 27 ....When He drew a circle on the face of the deep....also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle. If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle.

On the age of the earth I was wrong to say that who cares. It does matter for God said He created it in six days. If Christ is all-powerful, allknowing, absolute perfection If Christ is all of these things, He is certainly capable of creating the world on one blinding instant. Why would such a Creator use a slow process rife with dead ends ( repeated animal extinctions) and new starts? Why stretch the process over the lifetimes of millions of generations of animals -- all this before ever getting to the point, the creation of man?! The Creator doesn't need time; He doesn't need to experiment. Progressive Creationism stains God's true glory, majesy and power-- the very characteristics that define him.
The wonderful Good News to mankind about Jesus Christ, our Redeemer and Savior, is foundationally rooted in the Book of Genesis. The origin of death is described in Genesis 2:16-17, 3:1-6 Death was the promised result of sin. It was also the means by which man would be restored to God. in contrast, old-earth creationism (progressive creationism and theistic evolutionism) teaches that death and bloodshed existed long before man's existence, contrary to the very message of the Gosple.
I got some of my information from christiananswers.net

 

[Havoc]

There is a vast difference between a sphere and a circle. You can nave a circular earth that is flat, but not a spherical one. The bible refers to the earth as flat, not as a sphere. And yes, the early Hebrews would know what a sphere was.

 

[Judy]

Havoc,

That maybe true, but tell me how can you have corners on a circle? I was answering Mushi2000 who says that the bible says that the earth is square . I was trying to point out that the scriptures he was using was a figure of speech. And that else where it is called a circle and that God hangs the earth on nothing. whether He hung a flat circle or hung a sphere and whether they knew at the time it doen't say.

 

[Atonement]

The bible refers to the earth as flat

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

 

[Judy]

Atonement

I used that verse that is what brought us to the point of a flat circle or a sphere.

 

[Radical Edward]

3. Comets orbiting the sun lose much of their mass as they approach the sun due to the solar wind and the heat of the sun. On every pass by the sun more of the comet's matter is blasted from its surface to become part of its tail, finally disintegrating completely. The measured rate of comet disintegration means that all of the 5 million comets would be gone in 10,000 years. Hence the earth, comets and solar system must be less than 10,000 years old.

but all these comets that we have haven't been around for long. comets originate from the Oort cloud, which lies outside the solar system, and occasionally get knocked out, to orbit the sun for a while before they die, either by just evaporating, or by running into things, usually jupiter.

6. Niagara Falls cliffs wear away at 7 feet per year. From their first mapping in 1678 to 1842 the water wore away the top of the falls at a rate of 7 feet per year. Since the gorge is 7 miles (or 36,000 feet) long,

the age of the falls = 36,000 divide by 7 = 5,143 years (approx.)

5,143 years is close to the time of Noah's flood 4400 years ago. This is nowhere near 100 million years as evolutionists think.

who said that the Niagra falls have existen for 100 million years? no-one I know. rivers change their courses, and niagra is just another example of this.

7. Erosion. At today's rate of erosion there should have accumulated at least 30 times more sediment in the ocean than there actually is, if earth's age is 4 billion years. If erosion has been occurring for billions of years, why are there still sharp cliffs. The sharp angular appearance of mountains testifies to their youth. All the continents would be worn down to sea level in 14 million years.

tectonic drift

8. Amount of atmospheric Helium. The light gas Helium is steadily gathering in the outer reaches of our atmosphere. It cannot escape.

actually it can, it is regularly blasted away by the solar wind.

10. Man's Recorded History

If man has lived on earth for 1 million years, why do we only find human records going back to about 3500 BC? This cuneiform tablet is the oldest human writing from Sumeria. When human records first appear, they show man to be highly developed with a sophisticated civilisation. This agrees better with a creation date of 4074 BC than with evolution's 1 million year history of man. Why did man do nothing for 1 million years? Because he has only been here for 6,000 - 10,000 years.

there are lots of artefacts older than 3500k years old

11. The Moon is Receding 2 inches each year from earth. Tidal friction slows down the earth's rotating a very small amount each year resulting in the moon receding 2 inches each year from earth. This means that the earth and moon would have been touching about 2 billion years ago. This is much younger than evolution's estimate of 4.6 billion years.

Source: Origins Film Handbook, 1983, p.30

this problem was debunked at about the same time as the article quoted, slightly afterwards perhaps.the maths is extraordinarily complicated, and lots of incorrect assumptions were made which have now been dealt with.
I found a link the other day but then my computer died. I suggest you use google to find the debunking.

12. The Sun is Shrinking 5 feet every hour.

A news report of March 23, 1980 stated that "The sun's diameter appears to have been decreasing by about 1/10 of 1% per century". This is due to the great amount of heat, light and radiation being sent out. Every hour the sun shrinks about 5 feet. This means that the sun shrinks by 1% every 1000 years, which is 6% after 6000 years. this is no problem to a creationist with a 6000 year old earth, but it is a great problem to an evolutionist because 100,000 years ago the sun would have been double its present size, and 20 million years ago the sun's surface would have touched the earth, vaporising it. Perhaps the sun and earth are not 5 billion years old after all.

Source: "The Sun is Shrinking", R.Akridge, Acts, Facts, Impact No.82 ICR4/80.

if it is shrinking that fast, it is probably more to do with solar cycles than energy lost, which is actually only a tiny tiny amount. it is interesting to note that pound for pount, the human body generates more heat than the sun does.

13. Earth's Magnetic Field Strength is decaying by half every 1400 years, based on measurements since 1835, according to Thomas Barnes. Extrapolating backwards 10,000 years, earth's magnetic field strength would have been as strong as a magnetic star. 1 million years ago earth's magnetic field strength would be 10215 Tesla, greater than the magnetism of all objects in the universe. All this speaks of a recent creation date less than 10,000 years ago.

Source:T.G. Barnes, "Origin and Destiny of Earth's Magnetic Field",

ICR,1973,p.157

170 years is not enough to draw an exponential curve from. this is based on that fallacious assumption, especially since geological records show that the field oscillates.

14. Earth's Heat The earth is slowly cooling from the surface inwards according to Stefan's Law of radiation. Lord Kelvin in 1889 calculated that the earth could not be billions of years old because of earth's known rate of cooling, the existing temperature gradient in the earth, and the assumption that the earth could not have been hotter than "white hot" initially.

Source: "Popular lecturers and addresses" (London: MacMillan, 1889), p.415

in 1889 they didn't know that the core of the earth was radioactively heated. also they did't know the conditions in the earth very well. you can't blame them though, they had a good try, but like much of the science of the time, they were wrong.

15. Short lived lunar isotopes Uranium 236 and Thorium 230

If the moon were of great age, these short lived isotopes would have long since decayed away. Yet they are not only present, but are in relative abundance. U-236 half life is 23.9 million years, Thorium-230 half life is 80,000 years. Thus, according to this method, the moon's age should be thousands of years, not millions or billions.

those are long lived. also the moon is relatively young because of the awy it was probably formed.

17. HOT "O" type stars are 10,000 times the diameter of our sun, and radiate 100,000 times more energy. Burning down at this rate, and working back in time, the entire universe would have been filled with the mass of these stars 20,000 years ago, not millions of years ago.

Source: H. Slusher, Bible-Science Newsletter, January 1975, p.2

the formation of the stars is not taken into account. they mostly exist on the leading edge of galactic arms and are formed in the shockwave. the entire method and understanding of star formation in that point is just wrong.

18. Stellar Radiation Small cosmic dust particles are abundant in galactic space. Solar wind (star radiation) tends to push these particles out of the galaxy. If the universe is only a couple of million years old, calculations show that the galaxy should now be swept clean of dust. But the dust exists in abundance in interstellar space, implying a young galaxy. There is no known source of dust replenishment.

what calculations? surely the dust would be pushed round in the galaxy.

21.Hydrogen in the Universe Hydrogen is constantly being converted to Helium throughout the universe. Hydrogen cannot be produced in great quantities. If the universe were very old, by now there should be little Hydrogen left. Fred Hoyle says: "Why does the universe consist almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter was infinitely old, this would be quite impossible. The creation issue simply cannot be dodged".

Source: "The Nature of the Universe ". 1960, p.125

because not much hydrogen is actually burned up. proper calculations found in an astrophysics textbook done on this show that the proportions are right. also his point there is based on an infinitely old universe, which is no longer the standard model because the big bang loks more likely. incidentaly I would like to see this quote in context, since Hoyle ws the guy who coined the "Big Bang" after all.

I have left the others because I either don't know and am not about go go about commenting things that I do not understand, or have time to go into great depth. I expect there will be explanations though.