Evidence for a Young Earth

[Pathfinder]

Wasn't sure where to post this but since it pertains to evolution here, I suppose, is as good a' place as any.

 

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

 

Anyway, that should silence a lot of debate for now. Oh and Dr.Humphreys is a scientist.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Oh dear.

 

Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants.

It might be that we can't exactly find all of them very easily. We haven't been looking for very long, and you're only counting the parts we can see.

 

Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years.

Comets don't start orbiting the Sun. They enter our Solar System from other places every once in a while.

 

If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html

 

The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.

The magnetic field does not decay at a linear rate. http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

 

A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html

 

It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds.

Substantiate that claim.

 

In any case, they might know that plants grow from seeds, but that doesn't mean they know how to grow their own seeds for food. Or how to cultivate it. Or any of the numerous other skills required for agriculture.

 

Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history?

Being able to paint caves does not indicate sufficient intelligence to write historical events. Making a calendar diagram or painting a wall require totally different skills from writing down history.

 

In any case, you're cherry-picking your data here. You can't say "this invalidates that" when the two don't even disagree. The article's just saying "I think it's wrong, so I'm right." If you had evidence that the people who were capable of painting a cave could also read and write, feel free to show us.

 

 

Please, do your research. Making up these responses took me about five minutes.

 

Oh, and I don't care if Dr. Humphreys is a scientist. That's an appeal to authority.

[bascule]

Anyway, that should silence a lot of debate for now.

 

Just one question: have you ever looked at the scientific evidence used to estimate the age of the universe?

[Mokele]

If you want to discuss creationist garbage, go elsewhere; this is a forum for *real* science.

 

Topic locked, thanks for refutation, Capn.

[Phi for All]

Anyway, that should silence a lot of debate for now. Oh and Dr.Humphreys is a scientist.

I just found my nomination for post of the week!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If the debate is to continue, it should continue here.