[_ Old Earth _] Positive evidence for a young earth?

[jwu]

Is there any evidence that the earth is young, other than the long since discredited claims about lunar dust etc?

 

[Deep Thought]

Certainly deafening silence at the moment.

 

[John]

I am working on it, :wink:

 

[jmm9683]

Independent scientists all over the world in different disciplines (geology, paleontology, cosmology, biology etc.) have found that the Earth is billions of years old. All the evidence points to this. There are no peer reviewed scientific journals that support the young earth hypothesis.

 

[John]

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
2. Too few supernova remnants.
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
8. Biological material decays too fast.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages†to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.
Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

 

[jmm9683]

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
2. Too few supernova remnants.
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
8. Biological material decays too fast.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages†to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.
Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

You need to cite peer-reviewed scientific journals. Answers in Genesis, Kent Hovind, etc. have all been debunked by the scientific community.

 

[John]

You need to cite peer-reviewed scientific journals. Answers in Genesis, Kent Hovind, etc. have all been debunked by the scientific community.

Umm no i dont and no they arnt debunked.

 

[jmm9683]

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE380.html
2. Too few supernova remnants.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-mer ... tml#comets
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD220.html
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD510.html
8. Biological material decays too fast.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC363.html
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages†to a few years.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
10. Too much helium in minerals.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC381.html
13. Agriculture is too recent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG041.html
14. History is too short.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG040.html

This has long been debunked. The creationists keep putting out the same arguments time and time again even though they have been proven false. It's just one big propaganda machine with no substance. You need to give some actual peer-reviewed scientific journal articles backing up a young Earth. HINT: Answers in Genesis and Kent Hovind aren't peer-reviewed or scientific.

 

[John]

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Galax ... s_of_years
2. Too few supernova remnants.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/There ... d_universe
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Comet ... d_universe
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Amoun ... _in_oceans
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Earth ... oung_earth
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
8. Biological material decays too fast.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/%28Ta ... ve_decayed
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages†to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Not_e ... _old_earth
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Quant ... _skeletons
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.


I am not a fan of Talk Origins.

 

[Bryce]

I use Answers in Gensis quite often, I've seen many attempts to 'debunk' there explanations and I've yet to see a valid scientifically accurate, proved reasoning as of so far..
Although, I admit as them being only human there are some tiny flaws, nothing to make a signifigant difference. The biggest flaw I found myself was that they tried to explain what they themselves had suggested creationists not to bring up, and there are very few cases of un-updated-information on there.
for example:
"But the raw material on which natural selection acts is random copying errors (mutations). If evolution by goo-to-you were true, we should expect to find countless information-adding mutations. But we have not even found one."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... apter9.asp [Right under #8]

That is a pure and outright lie! Addition mutations are one of the most common of point mutations, moreover gene duplication is also highly common.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...formation.html

Here is an article written on the subject, it provides good links to its sources.

However for the most part, Awnsers In Genesis is very reliable and accurate and I will continue to rely on it's answers.
On topic:

And I must disagree with Johns claim that he does not need to cite peer-reviewed journals, if not just to see both sides of the argument..

In my opinion, creationists have the stronger argument when it comes to a young earth, when considering an older earth you have to throw in probability and chance constantly, not to mention thousands of years guess work, and from chance and probability you get axioms, and axioms are falliable [See Kurt Godels Incompleteness Theorm] (I think that was the name of it) , thus un-reliable and unscientific.

..I could go on if you like with better reasons, but I think John and Jim have provided sufficent evidence.

 

[jmm9683]

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Galax ... s_of_years
2. Too few supernova remnants.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/There ... d_universe
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Comet ... d_universe
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Amoun ... _in_oceans
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Earth ... oung_earth
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
8. Biological material decays too fast.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/%28Ta ... ve_decayed
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages†to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Not_e ... _old_earth
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Quant ... _skeletons
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.


I am not a fan of Talk Origins.

Of course you're not a fan, they actually cite scientific journals. Creation Wiki cites creationist web sites such as Answers in Genesis. If you can't find one peer-reviewed scientific journal supporting a young Earth, the debate is over.

 

[John]

Of course you're not a fan, they actually cite scientific journals. Creation Wiki cites creationist web sites such as Answers in Genesis. If you can't find one peer-reviewed scientific journal supporting a young Earth, the debate is over.

I find really funny with you, you take one look at the cover then make up your mind that your not gonna debate it.

weather its peer reviewed or not, is not the point, jwu asked in the original post and i quote.

Is there any evidence that the earth is young, other than the long since discredited claims about lunar dust etc?

i presented some articles, for debate here. i am pretty sure jwu knew that there would not be any claims given with hard peer review and creditably, but he still made the post indicating to me that he wished to debate whatever anyone brought up. peer reviewed or not. Its on the table now either debate it here or go away.

 

[jmm9683]

Of course you're not a fan, they actually cite scientific journals. Creation Wiki cites creationist web sites such as Answers in Genesis. If you can't find one peer-reviewed scientific journal supporting a young Earth, the debate is over.

I find really funny with you, you take one look at the cover then make up your mind that your not gonna debate it.

weather its peer reviewed or not, is not the point, jwu asked in the original post and i quote.

[quote:c1c54]
Is there any evidence that the earth is young, other than the long since discredited claims about lunar dust etc?

i presented some articles, for debate here. i am pretty sure jwu knew that there would not be any claims given with hard peer review and creditably, but he still made the post indicating to me that he wished to debate whatever anyone brought up. peer reviewed or not. Its on the table now either debate it here or go away.[/quote:c1c54]

The OP asked if there were any evidence other than the "long discredited claims." These discredited claims are what you posted. If you want to show some real evidence for a young Earth I'm all for it, but that would include the "hard peer-review and credibility."

 

[John]

I might just have to use my ignore list, lol i'd never thought i'd see the day.

You have not yet refuted on your own account any of the claims i've made on the entire 123CF, youve just stopped at the cover. thats pretty weak.

 

[jmm9683]

I might just have to use my ignore list, lol i'd never thought i'd see the day.

You have not yet refuted on your own account any of the claims, even after i present counter claims, anyone can claim victory but only the brave defend it.

You listed a bunch of things with no evidence backing it. I provided links that debunk all of your common creationist claims. How many times do people have to prove these things false until creationists will get the idea? Until you show some actual evidence to debate over, there is no debate.

 

[John]

I might just have to use my ignore list, lol i'd never thought i'd see the day.

You have not yet refuted on your own account any of the claims, even after i present counter claims, anyone can claim victory but only the brave defend it.

You listed a bunch of things with no evidence backing it. I provided links that debunk all of your common creationist claims. How many times do people have to prove these things false until creationists will get the idea? Until you show some actual evidence to debate over, there is no debate.

2+2= 4 now give me evidance. :roll:

 

[jmm9683]

I might just have to use my ignore list, lol i'd never thought i'd see the day.

You have not yet refuted on your own account any of the claims, even after i present counter claims, anyone can claim victory but only the brave defend it.

You listed a bunch of things with no evidence backing it. I provided links that debunk all of your common creationist claims. How many times do people have to prove these things false until creationists will get the idea? Until you show some actual evidence to debate over, there is no debate.

2+2= 4 now give me evidance. :roll:

You just gave me evidence that you are a moron.

 

[John]

Anywho, is there anyone with open mind going to join in this fun :

 

[Bryce]

Well, I was considering it :-?
I might be in shortly after I search a few more things

But the easy thing to say is neither side has a 100% anwser

While I'm away here is somthing to talk about, a response to your
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
Response:
http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

And a few more claims
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... #one-sided

 

[jmm9683]

Anywho, is there anyone with open mind going to join in this fun :

So you admit defeat. You cannot give one scientific article. Not one. Your hypothesis has no scientific backing, which was pretty much the point of this thread.