Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,241 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,657,197
Pageviews Today: 2,498,968Threads Today: 742Posts Today: 14,223
11:04 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Age of the earth

 
Neesie
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 266943
United States
02/14/2010 11:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Age of the earth
Biological evidence for a young age of the earth
Image: Dr Mary Schweitzer


The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65+ million years claimed by the paleontologists.
DNA in “ancient” fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old.
The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author in Creation 30(4):45–47,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.
The data for “mitochondrial Eve” are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
Many fossil bones “dated” at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really?
Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen) are not consistent with their supposed age, but make more sense if the remains are young.
Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils “dated” at millions of years old, whereas complete racemization would occur in thousands of years.
Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.
Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. Coelacanth, Wollemi pine and various “index” fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example? See The “Lazarus effect”: rodent “resurrection”!
The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.
Geological evidence for a young age of the earth
Photo by Don Batten


Radical folding at Eastern Beach, near Auckland in New Zealand, indicates that the sediments were soft and pliable when folded, inconsistent with a long time for their formation. Such folding can be seen world-wide and is consistent with a young age of the earth.
Lack of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See Origins 21(1):51–56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an “era” buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years.
Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the Kaibab upwarp in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood. See Warped earth.
Polystrate fossils—tree trunks in coal (Auracaria spp. king billy pines, celery top pines, in southern hemisphere coal). There are also polystrate tree trunks in the Yellowstone fossilized forests and Joggins, Nova Scotia and in many other places. Polystrate fossilized lycopod trunks occur in northern hemisphere coal, again indicating rapid burial / formation of the organic material that became coal.
Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.
Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.
Evidence for rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds speaks against the hundreds of millions of years normally claimed for this, including Z-shaped seams that point to a single depositional event producing these layers.
Evidence for rapid petrifaction of wood speaks against the need for long periods of time and is consistent with an age of thousands of years.
Clastic dykes and pipes (intrusion of sediment through overlying sedimentary rock) show that the overlying rock strata were still soft when it happened. This drastically compresses the time scale for the deposition of the penetrated rock strata. See, Walker, T., Fluidisation pipes: Evidence of large-scale watery catastrophe, Journal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):8–9, 2000.
Para(pseudo)conformities—where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a “flat gap”. E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time). The thick Schnebly Hill Formation (sandstone) lies between the Coconino and Hermit in central Arizona. See Austin, S.A., Grand Canyon, monument to catastrophe, ICR, Santee, CA, USA, 1994 and Snelling, A., The case of the “missing” geologic time, Creation 14(3):31–35, 1992.
The presence of ephemeral markings (raindrop marks, ripple marks, animal tracks) at the boundaries of paraconformities show that the upper rock layer has been deposited immediately after the lower one, eliminating many millions of “gap” time. See references in Para(pseudo)conformities.
Inter-tonguing of adjacent strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years also eliminates many millions of years of supposed geologic time. The case of the “missing” geologic time; Mississippian and Cambrian strata interbedding: 200 million years hiatus in question, CRSQ 23(4):160–167.
The lack of bioturbation (worm holes, root growth) at paraconformities (flat gaps) reinforces the lack of time involved where evolutionary geologists insert many millions of years to force the rocks to conform with the “given” timescale of billions of years.
The almost complete lack of clearly recognizable soil layers anywhere in the geologic column. Geologists do claim to have found lots of “fossil” soils (paleosols), but these are quite different to soils today, lacking the features that characterize soil horizons; features that are used in classifying different soils. Every one that has been investigated thoroughly proves to lack the characteristics of proper soil. If “deep time” were correct, with hundreds of millions of years of abundant life on the earth, there should have been ample opportunities many times over for soil formation. See Klevberg, P. and Bandy, R., CRSQ 39:252–68; CRSQ 40:99–116, 2003; Walker, T., Paleosols: digging deeper buries “challenge” to Flood geology, Journal of Creation 17(3):28–34, 2003.
Limited extent of unconformities (unconformity: a surface of erosion that separates younger strata from older rocks). Surfaces erode quickly (e.g. Badlands, South Dakota), but there are very limited unconformities. There is the “great unconformity” at the base of the Grand Canyon, but otherwise there are supposedly ~300 million years of strata deposited on top without any significant unconformity. This is again consistent with a much shorter time of deposition of these strata. See Para(pseudo)conformities.
The amount of salt in the world’s oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah’s Flood, which is consistent with a young age of the earth.
The discovery that underwater landslides (“turbidity currents”) travelling at some 50 km/h can create huge areas of sediment in a matter of hours (Press, F., and Siever, R., Earth, 4th ed., Freeman & Co., NY, USA, 1986). Sediments thought to have formed slowly over eons of time are now becoming recognized as having formed extremely rapidly. See for example, A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow (Technical).
Flume tank research with sediment of different particle sizes show that layered rock strata that were thought to have formed over huge periods of time in lake beds actually formed very quickly. Even the precise layer thicknesses of rocks were duplicated after they were ground into their sedimentary particles and run through the flume. See Experiments in stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures, Sedimentation Experiments: Nature finally catches up! and Sandy Stripes Do many layers mean many years?
Observed examples of rapid canyon formation; for example, Providence Canyon in southwest Georgia, Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington, and Lower Loowit Canyon near Mount St Helens. The rapidity of the formation of these canyons, which look similar to other canyons that supposedly took many millions of years to form, brings into question the supposed age of the canyons that no one saw form.
Observed examples of rapid island formation and maturation, such as Surtsey, which confound the notion that such islands take long periods of time to form. See also, Tuluman—A Test of Time.
Rate of erosion of coastlines, horizontally. E.g. Beachy Head, UK, loses a metre of coast to the sea every six years.
Rate of erosion of continents vertically is not consistent with the assumed old age of the earth. See Creation 22(2):18–21.
Existence of significant flat plateaux that are “dated” at many millions of years old (“elevated paleoplains”). An example is Kangaroo Island (Australia). C.R. Twidale, a famous Australian physical geographer wrote: “the survival of these paleoforms is in some degree an embarrassment to all the commonly accepted models of landscape development.” Twidale, C.R. On the survival of paleoforms, American Journal of Science 5(276):77–95, 1976 (quote on p. 81). See Austin, S.A., Did landscapes evolve? Impact 118, April 1983.
The recent and almost simultaneous origin of all the high mountain ranges around the world—including the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rockies—which have undergone most of the uplift to their present elevations beginning “five million” years ago, whereas mountain building processes have supposedly been around for up to billions of years. See Baumgardner, J., Recent uplift of today’s mountains. Impact 381, March 2005.
Water gaps. These are gorges cut through mountain ranges where rivers run. They occur worldwide and are part of what evolutionary geologists call “discordant drainage systems”. They are “discordant” because they don’t fit the deep time belief system. The evidence fits them forming rapidly in a much younger age framework where the gorges were cut in the recessive stage / dispersive phase of the global Flood of Noah’s day. See Oard, M., Do rivers erode through mountains? Water gaps are strong evidence for the Genesis Flood, Creation 29(3):18–23, 2007.
Measured erosion rates at places like Niagara Falls are consistent with a time frame of several thousand years since Noah’s Flood.
Erosion at Niagara Falls and other such places is consistent with just a few thousand years since the biblical Flood.
River delta growth rate is consistent with thousands of years since the biblical Flood, not vast periods of time. The argument goes back to Mark Twain. E.g. 1. Mississippi—Creation Research Quarterly (CRSQ) 9:96–114, 1992; CRSQ 14:77; CRSQ 25:121–123. E.g. 2 Tigris–Euphrates: CRSQ 14:87, 1977.
Underfit streams. River valleys are too large for the streams they contain. Dury speaks of the “continent-wide distribution of underfit streams”. Using channel meander characteristics, Dury concluded that past streams frequently had 20–60 times their current discharge. This means that the river valleys would have been carved very quickly, not slowly over eons of time. See Austin, S.A., Did landscapes evolve? Impact 118, 1983.
Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also.
The amount of sediment on the sea floors at current rates of land erosion would accumulate in just 12 million years; a blink of the eye compared to the supposed age of much of the ocean floor of up to 3 billion years. Furthermore, long-age geologists reckon that higher erosion rates applied in the past, which shortens the time frame. From a biblical point of view, at the end of Noah’s Flood lots of sediment would have been added to the sea with the water coming off the unconsolidated land, making the amount of sediment perfectly consistent with a history of thousands of years.
Iron-manganese nodules (IMN) on the sea floors. The measured rates of growth of these nodules indicates an age of only thousands of years. Lalomov, A.V., 2007. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66.
The age of placer deposits (concentrations of heavy metals such as tin in modern sediments and consolidated sedimentary rocks). The measured rates of deposition indicate an age of thousands of years, not the assumed millions. See Lalomov, A.V., and Tabolitch, S.E., 2000. Age determination of coastal submarine placer, Val’cumey, northern Siberia. Journal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):83–90.
Pressure in oil / gas wells indicate the recent origin of the oil and gas. If they were many millions of years old we would expect the pressures to equilibrate, even in low permeability rocks. “Experts in petroleum prospecting note the impossibility of creating an effective model given long and slow oil generation over millions of years (Petukhov, 2004). In their opinion, if models demand the standard multimillion-years geochronological scale, the best exploration strategy is to drill wells on a random grid.” Lalomov, A.V., 2007. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66.
Direct evidence that oil is forming today in the Guaymas Basin and in Bass Strait is consistent with a young earth (although not necessary for a young earth).
Rapid reversals in paleomagnetism undermine use of paleomagnetism in long ages dating of rocks and speak of rapid processes, compressing the long-age time scale enormously.
The pattern of magnetization in the magnetic stripes where magma is welling up at the mid-ocean trenches argues against the belief that reversals take many thousands of years and rather indicates rapid sea-floor spreading as well as rapid magnetic reversals, consistent with a young earth (Humphreys, D.R., Has the Earth’s magnetic field ever flipped? Creation Research Quarterly 25(3):130–137, 1988).
Along the mid-ocean ridges, the detailed pattern of magnetic polarisation, with islands of differing polarity, speaks of rapid changes in direction of Earth’s magnetic field because of the rate of cooling of the lava. This is consistent with a young Earth.
Measured rates of stalactite and stalagmite growth in limestone caves are consistent with a young age of several thousand years. See also articles on limestone cave formation.
The decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Exponential decay is evident from measurements and is consistent with theory of free decay since creation, suggesting an age of the earth of less than 20,000 years.
Excess heat flow from the earth is consistent with a young age rather than billions of years, even taking into account heat from radioactive decay. SeeWoodmorappe, J., 1999. Lord Kelvin revisited on the young age of the earth. Journal of Creation (TJ) 13(1):14, 1999.
Radiometric dating
Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years.
Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).
Demonstrably non-radiogenic “isochrons” of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron “dating” that gives billions of years. “False” isochrons are common.
Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different “ages” undermine all “dates” obtained from zircons.
Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 848 pp., 2005
Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296).
Pleochroic halos produced in granite by concentrated specks of short half-life elements such as polonium suggest a period of rapid nuclear decay of the long half-life parent isotopes during the formation of the rocks and rapid formation of the rocks, both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time and a vast age of the earth. See, Radiohalos: Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes, Creation 28(2):46–50, 2006.
Squashed pleochroic halos (radiohalos) formed from decay of polonium, a very short half-life element, in coalified wood from several geological eras suggest rapid formation of all the layers about the same time, in the same process, consistent with the biblical “young” earth model rather than the millions of years claimed for these events.
Australia’s “Burning Mountain” speaks against radiometric dating and the millions of years belief system (according to radiometric dating of the lava intrusion that set the coal alight, the coal in the burning mountain has been burning for ~40 million years, but clearly this is not feasible).
Astronomical evidence
Photo by NASA


Saturn’s rings are increasingly recognized as being relatively short-lived rather than essentially changeless over millions of years.
Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth’s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old. See: Transient lunar phenomena: a permanent problem for evolutionary models of Moon formation and Walker, T., and Catchpoole, D., Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe, Creation 31(3):18, 2009.
Recession of the moon from the earth. Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age.
Slowing down of the earth. Tidal dissipation rate of Earth’s angular momentum: increasing length of day, currently by 0.002 seconds/day every century (thus an impossibly short day billions of years ago and a very slow day shortly after accretion and before the postulated giant impact to form the Moon). See: How long has the moon been receding?
Ghost craters on the moon’s maria (singular mare: dark “seas” formed from massive lava flows) are a problem for long ages. Evolutionists believe that the lava flows were caused by enormous impacts, and this lava partly buried other, smaller, impact craters, leaving “ghosts”. But this means that the smaller impacts can’t have been too long after the huge one, otherwise the lava would have hardened before the impact. This suggests a very narrow time frame for lunar cratering, and by implication the other cratered bodies of our solar system. They suggest that the cratering occurred quite quickly. See Fryman, H., Ghost craters in the sky, Creation Matters 4(1):6, 1999; A biblically based cratering theory (Faulkner); Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe.
The presence of a significant magnetic field around Mercury is not consistent with its supposed age of billions of years. A planet so small should have cooled down enough so any liquid core would solidify, preventing the evolutionists’ “dynamo” mechanism. See also, Humphreys, D.R., Mercury’s magnetic field is young! Journal of Creation 22(3):8–9, 2008.
The outer planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields, but they should be long “dead” if they are as old as claimed according to evolutionary long-age beliefs. Assuming a solar system age of thousands of years, physicist Russell Humphreys successfully predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune.
Jupiter’s larger moons, Ganymede, Io, and Europa, have magnetic fields, which they should not have if they were billions of years old, because they have solid cores and so no dynamo could generate the magnetic fields. This is consistent with creationist Humphreys’ predictions. See also, Spencer, W., Ganymede: the surprisingly magnetic moon, Journal of Creation 23(1):8–9, 2009.
Volcanically active moons of Jupiter (Io) are consistent with youthfulness (Galileo mission recorded 80 active volcanoes). If Io had been erupting over 4.5 billion years at even 10% of its current rate, it would have erupted its entire mass 40 times. Io looks like a young moon and does not fit with the supposed billions of year’s age for the solar system. Gravitational tugging from Jupiter and other moons accounts for only some of the excess heat produced.
The surface of Jupiter’s moon Europa. Studies of the few craters indicated that up to 95% of small craters, and many medium-sized ones, are formed from debris thrown up by larger impacts. This means that there have been far fewer impacts than had been thought in the solar system and the age of other objects in the solar system, derived from cratering levels, have to be reduced drastically (see Psarris, Spike, What you aren’t being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD, available from CMI).
Methane on Titan (Saturn’s largest moon)—methane would all be gone because of UV-induced breakdown to ethane in just 10,000 years. And large quantities of ethane are not there either.
The rate of change / disappearance of Saturn’s rings is inconsistent with their supposed vast age; they speak of youthfulness.
Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, looks young. Astronomers working in the “billions of years” mindset thought that this moon would be cold and dead, but it is a very active moon, spewing massive jets of water vapour and icy particles into space at supersonic speeds, consistent with a much younger age. Calculations show that the interior would have frozen solid after 30 million years (less than 1% of its supposed age); tidal friction from Saturn does not explain its youthful activity (Psarris, Spike, What you aren’t being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD; Walker, T., 2009. Enceladus: Saturn’s sprightly moon looks young, Creation 31(3):54–55).
Miranda, a small moon of Uranus, should have been long since dead, if billions of years old, but its extreme surface features suggest otherwise. See Revelations in the solar system.
Neptune should be long since “cold”, lacking strong wind movement if it were billions of years old, yet Voyager II in 1989 found it to be otherwise—it has the fastest winds in the entire solar system. This observation is consistent with a young age, not billions of years. See Neptune: monument to creation.
Neptune’s rings have thick regions and thin regions. This unevenness means they cannot be billions of years old, since collisions of the ring objects would eventually make the ring very uniform. Revelations in the solar system.
Young surface age of Neptune’s moon, Triton—less than 10 million years, even with evolutionary assumptions on rates of impacts (see Schenk, P.M., and Zahnle, K. On the Negligible Surface Age of Triton, Icarus 192(1):135–149, 2007. <doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.004>.
Uranus and Neptune both have magnetic fields significantly off-axis, which is an unstable situation. When this was discovered with Uranus, it was assumed by evolutionary astronomers that Uranus must have just happened to be going through a magnetic field reversal. However, when a similar thing was found with Neptune, this AD hoc explanation was upset. These observations are consistent with ages of thousands of years rather than billions.
The orbit of Pluto is chaotic on a 20 million year time scale and affects the rest of the solar system, which would also become unstable on that time scale, suggesting that it must be much younger. (See: Rothman, T., God takes a nap, Scientific American 259(4):20, 1988).
The existence of short-period comets (orbital period less than 200 years), e.g. Halley, which have a life of less than 20,000 years, is consistent with an age of the solar system of less than 10,000 years. AD hoc hypotheses have to be invented to circumvent this evidence (see Kuiper Belt). See Comets and the age of the solar system.
“Near-infrared spectra of the Kuiper Belt Object, Quaoar and the suspected Kuiper Belt Object, Charon, indicate both contain crystalline water ice and ammonia hydrate. This watery material cannot be much older than 10 million years, which is consistent with a young solar system, not one that is 5 billion years old.” See: The “waters above” .
Lifetime of long-period comets (orbital period greater than 200 years) that are sun-grazing comets or others like Hyakutake or Hale–Bopp means they could not have originated with the solar system 4.5 billion years ago. However, their existence is consistent with a young age for the solar system. Again an AD hoc Oort Cloud was invented to try to account for these comets still being present after billions of years. See, Comets and the age of the solar system.
The maximum expected lifetime of near-earth asteroids is of the order of one million years, after which they collide with the sun. And the Yarkovsky effect moves main belt asteroids into near-earth orbits faster than had been thought. This brings into question the origin of asteroids with the formation of the solar system (the usual scenario), or the solar system is much younger than the 4.5 billion years claimed. Henry, J., The asteroid belt: indications of its youth, Creation Matters 11(2):2, 2006.
The lifetime of binary asteroids—where a tiny asteroid “moon” orbits a larger asteroid— in the main belt (they represent about 15–17% of the total): tidal effects limit the life of such binary systems to about 100,000 years. The difficulties in conceiving of any scenario for getting binaries to form in such numbers to keep up the population, led some astronomers to doubt their existence, but space probes confirmed it (Henry, J., The asteroid belt: indications of its youth, Creation Matters 11(2):2, 2006).
The observed rapid rate of change in stars contradicts the vast ages assigned to stellar evolution. For example, Sakurai’s Object in Sagittarius: in 1994, this star was most likely a white dwarf in the centre of a planetary nebula; by 1997 it had grown to a bright yellow giant, about 80 times wider than the sun (Astronomy & Astrophysics 321:L17, 1997). In 1998, it had expanded even further, to a red supergiant 150 times wider than the sun. But then it shrank just as quickly; by 2002 the star itself was invisible even to the most powerful optical telescopes, although it is detectable in the infrared, which shines through the dust (Muir, H., 2003, Back from the dead, New Scientist 177(2384):28–31).
The faint young sun paradox. According to stellar evolution theory, as the sun’s core transforms from hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, the mean molecular weight increases, which would compress the sun’s core increasing fusion rate. The upshot is that over several billion years, the sun ought to have brightened 40% since its formation and 25% since the appearance of life on earth. For the latter, this translates into a 16–18 ºC temperature increase on the earth. The current average temperature is 15 ºC, so the earth ought to have had a-2 ºC or so temperature when life appeared. See: Faulkner, D., The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system, Journal of Creation (TJ) 15(2):3–4, 2001.
Cometesimals. From his studies, astronomer Louis Frank says that 100 million tonnes of water is being added to Earth every year in cometesimals (small comet remnants). This has strong implications for the supposed age of the oceans, if confirmed. See: Bergman, J., Advances in integrating cosmology: The case of cometesimals, Journal of Creation (CENTJ) 10(2):202–210, 1996.
The giant gas planets Jupiter and Saturn radiate more energy than they receive from the sun, suggesting a recent origin. Jupiter radiates almost twice as much energy as it receives from the sun, indicating that it may be less than 1 % of the presumed 4.5 billion years old solar system. Saturn radiates nearly twice as much energy per unit mass as Jupiter. See The age of the Jovian planets.
Speedy stars are consistent with a young age for the universe. For example, many stars in the dwarf galaxies in the Local Group are moving away from each other at speeds estimated at to 10–12 km/s. At these speeds, the stars should have dispersed in 100 Ma, which, compared with the supposed 14,000 Ma age of the universe, is a short time. See Fast stars challenge big bang origin for dwarf galaxies.
The ageing of spiral galaxies (much less than 200 million years) is not consistent with their supposed age of many billions of years. The discovery of extremely “young” spiral galaxies highlights the problem of this evidence for the evolutionary ages assumed.
The number of type I supernova remnants (SNRs) observable in our galaxy is consistent with an age of thousands of years, not millions or billions. See Davies, K., Proc. 3rd ICC, pp. 175–184, 1994.
The rate of expansion and size of supernovas indicates that all studied are young (less than 10,000 years). See supernova remnants.
Human history is consistent with a young age of the earth
Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today’s population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer?
“Stone age” human skeletons and artefacts. There are not enough for 100,000 years of a human population of just one million, let alone more people (10 million?). See Where are all the people?
Length of recorded history. Origin of various civilizations, writing, etc., all about the same time several thousand years ago. See Evidence for a young world.
Languages. Similarities in languages claimed to be separated by many tens of thousands of years speaks against the supposed ages (e.g. compare some aboriginal languages in Australia with languages in south-eastern India and Sri Lanka). See The Tower of Babel account affirmed by linguistics.
Common cultural “myths” speak of recent separation of peoples around the world. An example of this is the frequency of stories of an earth-destroying flood.
Origin of agriculture. Secular dating puts it at about 10,000 years and yet that same chronology says that modern man has supposedly been around for at least 200,000 years. Surely someone would have worked out much sooner how to sow seeds of plants to produce food. See: Evidence for a young world.

[link to creation.com]
.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

C. S. Lewis
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 886761
United States
02/14/2010 11:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
A bump so I can find it later hf
Neesie (OP)

User ID: 265891
United States
02/14/2010 12:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
A bump so I can find it later hf
 Quoting: Turtles Know


LOL, yes it is a long read, but very eye opening and revealing.
.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

C. S. Lewis
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 748620
United Kingdom
02/14/2010 12:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
A huge cut'n'paste full of drivel doesn't proove a Young Earth.

Nessie, it's all bollocks and you KNOW it
Neesie (OP)

User ID: 265891
United States
02/14/2010 12:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
A huge cut'n'paste full of drivel doesn't proove a Young Earth.

Nessie, it's all bollocks and you KNOW it
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 748620


no it is fact. why do you refuse to see the evidence? and whether it was cut or pasted is irrelevant to the subject.
.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

C. S. Lewis
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 891032
United States
02/14/2010 01:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
Lol from creation.com what a surprise... 1rof1 most creationist won't understand 90% of what that article says so its easy to fool someone that understands nothing of biology, fossils or Dna sequencing any person with any knowledge in science will find this article laughable and probably think its satire until they realize its from creation.com bsflag
Neesie (OP)

User ID: 265891
United States
02/14/2010 01:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
Lol from creation.com what a surprise... 1rof1 most creationist won't understand 90% of what that article says so its easy to fool someone that understands nothing of biology, fossils or Dna sequencing any person with any knowledge in science will find this article laughable and probably think its satire until they realize its from creation.com bsflag
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 891032

creationists arent dumb. they are sure giving the evolutionists a run for their money. I love to watch the debates. some of evolutionists arguments are sophomoric and blundering to say the least. They have had over one hundred years to prove their theory and still it fails.
Hey here is an idea, why don't we grab up some spoons and forks and butter knives and say they have a common ancestor because of their similarities. Oh hey i found the missing link it is a spoon and fork mixed. I will call it a spork.
.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

C. S. Lewis
joe coolaid
User ID: 889253
United States
02/14/2010 01:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
nice try

always trying to prove the Bible true

the earth is young, the earth is young

god is jesus, god is jesus

the bible is true, the bible is true

why not try overcoming your own brainwashing?
Neesie (OP)

User ID: 265891
United States
02/14/2010 01:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
nice try

always trying to prove the Bible true

the earth is young, the earth is young

god is jesus, god is jesus

the bible is true, the bible is true

why not try overcoming your own brainwashing?
 Quoting: joe coolaid 889253


LOL, but you are the one named Coolaid? yeah.....
.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

C. S. Lewis
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 777251
United Kingdom
02/14/2010 01:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
Lol from creation.com what a surprise... 1rof1 most creationist won't understand 90% of what that article says so its easy to fool someone that understands nothing of biology, fossils or Dna sequencing any person with any knowledge in science will find this article laughable and probably think its satire until they realize its from creation.com bsflag
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 891032


Dumb ass , if some of these fossils are millions of years old,why do some of them still have flesh or blood on them.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 891032
United States
02/14/2010 01:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
Lol you christians and creationist are funny, I know creationist aren't dumb, they're so many talented and smart people stuck in 2000+ year old way of thinking, who knows what discoveries and cures these people could come up with if they didn't still accept that an invisible powerful higher being is responsible for the things we don't understand
Neesie (OP)

User ID: 265891
United States
02/14/2010 01:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
Lol you christians and creationist are funny, I know creationist aren't dumb, they're so many talented and smart people stuck in 2000+ year old way of thinking, who knows what discoveries and cures these people could come up with if they didn't still accept that an invisible powerful higher being is responsible for the things we don't understand
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 891032


yes and who knows how many discoveries we would have made by now if scientists didnt lie about the age of the earth and the solar system. They use preconceived notions based on some evolutionary theory that doesnt fit. if they suppose the earth is young as the evidence indicates then they would basically have to toss out their favorite darwinist beliefs that evolution cannot be seen because it is over millions of years and is not visible in our time frame. How lame is that?

Last Edited by Neesie on 02/14/2010 01:47 PM
.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

C. S. Lewis
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 872204
United States
02/14/2010 01:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
A huge cut'n'paste full of drivel doesn't proove a Young Earth.

Nessie, it's all bollocks and you KNOW it


no it is fact. why do you refuse to see the evidence? and whether it was cut or pasted is irrelevant to the subject.
 Quoting: Neesie



What the fuck?!?!?

Evidence? Get the fuck out of here, you have already made it very clear you do not care about evidence.

You obviously do no even understand what evidence means, its not something you only try to use when it supports your retarded fantasy.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 872204
United States
02/14/2010 01:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
Lol you christians and creationist are funny, I know creationist aren't dumb, they're so many talented and smart people stuck in 2000+ year old way of thinking, who knows what discoveries and cures these people could come up with if they didn't still accept that an invisible powerful higher being is responsible for the things we don't understand


yes and who knows how many discoveries we would have made by now if scientists didnt lie about the age of the earth and the solar system. They use preconceived notions based on some evolutionary theory that doesnt fit. if they suppose the earth is young as the evidence indicates then they would basically have to toss out their favorite darwinist beliefs that evolution cannot be seen because it is over millions of years and is not visible in our time frame. How lame is that?
 Quoting: Neesie


What is the purpose of your twisted BS exactly?!

You do not care about science or logic, just stick with your mythic fiction and stop trying to twist reality to suit your small damaged brain.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 891032
United States
02/14/2010 01:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
Lol you christians and creationist are funny, I know creationist aren't dumb, they're so many talented and smart people stuck in 2000+ year old way of thinking, who knows what discoveries and cures these people could come up with if they didn't still accept that an invisible powerful higher being is responsible for the things we don't understand


yes and who knows how many discoveries we would have made by now if scientists didnt lie about the age of the earth and the solar system. They use preconceived notions based on some evolutionary theory that doesnt fit. if they suppose the earth is young as the evidence indicates then they would basically have to toss out their favorite darwinist beliefs that evolution cannot be seen because it is over millions of years and is not visible in our time frame. How lame is that?
 Quoting: Neesie

1rof1 Nessie you are on a roll rimshot That's the funniest thing I've read today, do yo write for the onion?
Neesie (OP)

User ID: 265891
United States
02/14/2010 01:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
A huge cut'n'paste full of drivel doesn't proove a Young Earth.

Nessie, it's all bollocks and you KNOW it


no it is fact. why do you refuse to see the evidence? and whether it was cut or pasted is irrelevant to the subject.



What the fuck?!?!?

Evidence? Get the fuck out of here, you have already made it very clear you do not care about evidence.

You obviously do no even understand what evidence means, its not something you only try to use when it supports your retarded fantasy.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 872204


people always resort to insults and tantrums when they are on the losing end of an argument. if I have something wrong in my evidence you could point it out to me, until then spare me the foot stomping temper and personal attacks.
.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

C. S. Lewis
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 872204
United States
02/14/2010 01:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
Lol you christians and creationist are funny, I know creationist aren't dumb, they're so many talented and smart people stuck in 2000+ year old way of thinking, who knows what discoveries and cures these people could come up with if they didn't still accept that an invisible powerful higher being is responsible for the things we don't understand


yes and who knows how many discoveries we would have made by now if scientists didnt lie about the age of the earth and the solar system. They use preconceived notions based on some evolutionary theory that doesnt fit. if they suppose the earth is young as the evidence indicates then they would basically have to toss out their favorite darwinist beliefs that evolution cannot be seen because it is over millions of years and is not visible in our time frame. How lame is that?

1rof1 Nessie you are on a roll rimshot That's the funniest thing I've read today, do yo write for the onion?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 891032


I wish i found it funny, for me it makes me want to take up arms.

I guess the power of satan is coming over me in face of these "all loving christers".
Son of Righteousness

User ID: 889596
United States
02/14/2010 02:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
if they suppose the earth is young as the evidence indicates.

 Quoting: Neesie




How old are we talking about here?


Like less then 1 million?


Just curious.

Thanks
Neesie (OP)

User ID: 265891
United States
02/14/2010 02:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
Lol you christians and creationist are funny, I know creationist aren't dumb, they're so many talented and smart people stuck in 2000+ year old way of thinking, who knows what discoveries and cures these people could come up with if they didn't still accept that an invisible powerful higher being is responsible for the things we don't understand


yes and who knows how many discoveries we would have made by now if scientists didnt lie about the age of the earth and the solar system. They use preconceived notions based on some evolutionary theory that doesnt fit. if they suppose the earth is young as the evidence indicates then they would basically have to toss out their favorite darwinist beliefs that evolution cannot be seen because it is over millions of years and is not visible in our time frame. How lame is that?

1rof1 Nessie you are on a roll rimshot That's the funniest thing I've read today, do yo write for the onion?


I wish i found it funny, for me it makes me want to take up arms.

I guess the power of satan is coming over me in face of these "all loving christers".
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 872204


you should ask yourself why you are so filled with Hate toward people that believe differently than you.
.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

C. S. Lewis
Neesie (OP)

User ID: 265891
United States
02/14/2010 02:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
if they suppose the earth is young as the evidence indicates.





How old are we talking about here?


Like less then 1 million?


Just curious.

Thanks
 Quoting: Son of Righteousness

6000 years give or take.
.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

C. S. Lewis
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 872204
United States
02/14/2010 02:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
A huge cut'n'paste full of drivel doesn't proove a Young Earth.

Nessie, it's all bollocks and you KNOW it


no it is fact. why do you refuse to see the evidence? and whether it was cut or pasted is irrelevant to the subject.



What the fuck?!?!?

Evidence? Get the fuck out of here, you have already made it very clear you do not care about evidence.

You obviously do no even understand what evidence means, its not something you only try to use when it supports your retarded fantasy.


people always resort to insults and tantrums when they are on the losing end of an argument. if I have something wrong in my evidence you could point it out to me, until then spare me the foot stomping temper and personal attacks.
 Quoting: Neesie


There is nothing to lose dickless, there is not argument.
Why dont you get that?

You work off faith anything to say or present is instantly thrown out, i do no not need to "look for myself" because that has been done time and time again by many for 100's of years.

The only debate is you with yourself because you clearly cannot turn your logic off totally so you have to create and twist things to make it fit in your mythology.



I dont go around trying to tell you the proper way to worship do i?

Then why do you feel the need to go around trying to twist scien
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 873476
United States
02/14/2010 02:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
Time is a relative physical property depending upon the position of the observer.

It need never be an obstacle to Faith

or it can always be used as a justification to reject Faith.

The only issue is the heart of the individual.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 873476
United States
02/14/2010 02:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
The only debate is you with yourself because you clearly cannot turn your logic off totally so you have to create and twist things to make it fit in your mythology.


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 872204

projection.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 872204
United States
02/14/2010 02:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
Lol you christians and creationist are funny, I know creationist aren't dumb, they're so many talented and smart people stuck in 2000+ year old way of thinking, who knows what discoveries and cures these people could come up with if they didn't still accept that an invisible powerful higher being is responsible for the things we don't understand


yes and who knows how many discoveries we would have made by now if scientists didnt lie about the age of the earth and the solar system. They use preconceived notions based on some evolutionary theory that doesnt fit. if they suppose the earth is young as the evidence indicates then they would basically have to toss out their favorite darwinist beliefs that evolution cannot be seen because it is over millions of years and is not visible in our time frame. How lame is that?

1rof1 Nessie you are on a roll rimshot That's the funniest thing I've read today, do yo write for the onion?


I wish i found it funny, for me it makes me want to take up arms.

I guess the power of satan is coming over me in face of these "all loving christers".


you should ask yourself why you are so filled with Hate toward people that believe differently than you.
 Quoting: Neesie


No people can believe differently than me, i just hate you and the other EXTREMIST christers on this board.
And the hate is only increasing, i guess that is satan again and not my logical brain exploding because of dicks like you holding the fucking world back.

The way you present this garbage only enforces a negative response.
paranoid eyes
User ID: 875886
United States
02/14/2010 02:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
Dumb ass , if some of these fossils are millions of years old,why do some of them still have flesh or blood on them.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 777251

duh let me see something published in scientific american that says they found dino bones with flesh and blood in them. but no creationists cite work that is not peer reviewed. they don't even know what peer review is. because of inbreeding i suppose.
paranoid eyes
User ID: 875886
United States
02/14/2010 02:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
No people can believe differently than me, i just hate you and the other EXTREMIST christers on this board.
And the hate is only increasing, i guess that is satan again and not my logical brain exploding because of dicks like you holding the fucking world back.

The way you present this garbage only enforces a negative response.


it's true it makes me treat them with no respect. none is really deserved anyway but....


if a man comes to me trying to prove santa clause because he sees presents under a tree every year , i'm not going to respect this mans beliefs. same with people who say this shit.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 872204
United States
02/14/2010 02:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
Dumb ass , if some of these fossils are millions of years old,why do some of them still have flesh or blood on them.

duh let me see something published in scientific american that says they found dino bones with flesh and blood in them. but no creationists cite work that is not peer reviewed. they don't even know what peer review is. because of inbreeding i suppose.
 Quoting: paranoid eyes 875886


Its just fucking retarded, its like if the acknowlege the reality of the world that somehow is against god.

Why cant their god continue to exist even if the earth is older than 6000 years?

Its these same people that think they have to hold on to their outdated political beliefs regardless of what the reality is.

Seriously christdicks, why cant you just leave science alone, its not the enemy, you are your own worst enemies.

I understand that in your child like brains you have to have a enemy ahehha alauioaawo;tgiawebho;tia so;dh;ah fgbasb gv[hnaw
gj a
j h11!!!!!!D

Nevermind im out here my fucking brain is about to explode!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 882884
United States
02/14/2010 02:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
I don't need a site to tell me that the earth is indeed not millions and billions of years like they shove down our throats as fact.


how do we know its not 200 years old? we don't. 500?

how do we know?



and don't bother replying with carbon dating bullshit, because you know as well as I do that most of today's science is utter bullshit to control how people perceive our world/
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 889310
United States
02/14/2010 02:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
if they suppose the earth is young as the evidence indicates.





How old are we talking about here?


Like less then 1 million?


Just curious.

Thanks

6000 years give or take.
 Quoting: Neesie

you are crazier than a shit eating hoot owl!
Son of Righteousness

User ID: 889596
United States
02/14/2010 02:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
if they suppose the earth is young as the evidence indicates.





How old are we talking about here?


Like less then 1 million?


Just curious.

Thanks

6000 years give or take.
 Quoting: Neesie




So dinosaurs lived right along side with ancient civilizations?
3*8** aka MagiChristmas

User ID: 554973
United States
02/14/2010 02:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Age of the earth
Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught that a day, in the Creation accounts, “is a specified time period; it is an age, an eon, a division of eternity; it is the time between two identifiable events. And each day, of whatever length, has the duration needed for its purposes. . . .

“There is no revealed recitation specifying that each of the ‘six days’ involved in the Creation was of the same duration” (“Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, June 1982, 11).
 
More to follow:

3*8**
The deception continues to crumble.
Thread: Tips for improving the GLP experience.
Christ was mischaracterized to the point of Crucifixion.

News