Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young. For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. Here are some of these points of evidence.

Helium: One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. Helium then enters the atmosphere—at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young.

Volcanic Debris:

Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere each year, on average. At this rapid rate, about 10 times the entire volume of Earth’s sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.6 billion years. Actually, only about 25% of Earth’s sediments are of volcanic origin, and much greater volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have been proposed for removing or transforming all the missing volcanic sediments. Earth’s sediments, therefore, seem to be much younger than 4.6 billion years.

Solar Wind: The Sun’s radiation applies an outward force on particles orbiting the Sun. Particles less than about a 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter should have been “blown out” of the solar system if it were billions of years old. Yet these particles are still orbiting the Sun. Conclusion: the solar system appears young.

Unstable Galaxies: Computer simulations of the motions of spiral galaxies show them to be highly unstable; they should completely change their shape in only a small fraction of the universe’s assumed evolutionary age.a The simplest explanation for so many spiral galaxies, including our Milky Way Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger than has been assumed.

Shallow Meteorites: Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Experts have, therefore, expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface. Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers. If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly. Furthermore, because no meteorites are found immediately above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, these basement rocks could not have been exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.

Similar observations can be made concerning ancient rock slides. Rock slides are frequently found on Earth’s surface, but are generally absent from supposedly old rock.

This contrary evidence understandably disturbs those who have always been told that the Earth is billions of years old. Can you imagine how disturbing such evidence is to confirmed evolutionists?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 19, 2004

Answers

Bump

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 19, 2004.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

{DO THEY? WE SHALL SEE...}-Zarove

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

{Actually this sint queit true, the Age of the earht has been seen as roughly the same since the 1950's-1960's... the rest was because theyw here just beginning the research.}-Zarove

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe.

{Not nessisarily. Also of note: Te age of the earth was pushed back BEFORE the evolutionary theory was formulated. The Age-Old earth is not a Byprodict of evolutionary theory, as you seem to indicate here.}-Zarove

Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead.

{No they wont. It only took a few Million to evlve compelxe life, before that single celles life frms dominated the earth...}-Zarove

Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine.

{Not relaly, especially when yo shallenge them with tired old creaitonist argumes that have been long sence disproven.}-Zarove

Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence.

{A growign body that remaisn static... relaly the arugments form Creationsist rarly change or admit new Data.}-Zarove

Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

{Less preamble and more evidence. This sort of showtime grandstanding onky serves to lure the midn into acceptance befoe evidence is presented, and shall not work effectivley here.}-Zarove

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. Here are some of these points of evidence.

{Lets have a look shall we?}-Zarove

Helium: One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. Helium then enters the atmosphere—at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young.

{Harldy. The amount that escapes the earth is actally a balanced prodict, and the numbers arent that far off. I even did a websearch and found this link.

http://member.newsguy.com/~wjhudson/evolution/matson/arg14.html}- Zarove

Volcanic Debris:

Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere each year, on average. At this rapid rate, about 10 times the entire volume of Earth’s sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.6 billion years. Actually, only about 25% of Earth’s sediments are of volcanic origin, and much greater volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have been proposed for removing or transforming all the missing volcanic sediments. Earth’s sediments, therefore, seem to be much younger than 4.6 billion years.

{This asusmes that the rate of vulcanic acvity is consitant, ignores erosion, and he fac that ll of the earths surcace was formed by vlcanoes if contenental, disregards the fact that vlcanic sedementation is short raned,an used bad numbers.}-Zarove

Solar Wind: The Sun’s radiation applies an outward force on particles orbiting the Sun. Particles less than about a 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter should have been “blown out” of the solar system if it were billions of years old. Yet these particles are still orbiting the Sun. Conclusion: the solar system appears young.

{this faisl to take into aocun gravitational pull of the sun and ohe rplanets, which wodl create an orbit, as well as the rate of solar winds missing the particles, or else activley prefenting them for leaivng by crating a whirlwind effect...}-Zarove

Unstable Galaxies: Computer simulations of the motions of spiral galaxies show them to be highly unstable; they should completely change their shape in only a small fraction of the universe’s assumed evolutionary age.a The simplest explanation for so many spiral galaxies, including our Milky Way Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger than has been assumed.

{Or that they looked radiclaly different int he past and only now look like ow we see them... likewise, the spiral shape coidl e semi- retained and only the positions of the stars an palnets shanged...}- Zarove

Shallow Meteorites: Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Experts have, therefore, expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface. Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers. If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly. Furthermore, because no meteorites are found immediately above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, these basement rocks could not have been exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.

{This fails to take into acocunt the simpel fac tthat, after erosion, burial, melting in the eaths mantle, and otehr forces of nature, the meteorite woidl look like any other rock. If it fell intot he ocean it may have been subsumed by the earths mantel durign palte tectonic activity, and disolved, or eroded by the wate an sand so that it no longer is recogniable as a meteorite. If on the contenental surface, wind and sand will carve the face of the rock, polishign it to resemble all the other rocks int he region, and eventally ti will be burried and condenced under weight.

One woidtn expect to find old meteorites hat often.}-Zarove

Similar observations can be made concerning ancient rock slides. Rock slides are frequently found on Earth’s surface, but are generally absent from supposedly old rock.

{uhm... this isnt true... we find evidence of rocks slides as early as th riasic. I know, I once cvisited Hell Creek in an excavation. Likewise, rck slides form just 2000 years ago are rare to find, sine rck slides arent always permenent features of the environment, erosion itsself woidl acocutn for abcences.}-Zarove

This contrary evidence understandably disturbs those who have always been told that the Earth is billions of years old. Can you imagine how disturbing such evidence is to confirmed evolutionists?

{its nto evidence, tis premises are false. Her is that website aain.}- Zarove

http://member.newsguy.com/~wjhudson/evolution/matson/toc.html

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 22, 2004.

"Can you imagine how disturbing such evidence is to confirmed evolutionists?"

A: If the "confirmed evolutionists" in question are scientists, they would be tremendously excited about ANY new evidence which revealed ANYTHING about their area of study. New evidence, REAL evidence that is, contributes to knowledge, and seeking knowledge is the very purpose of science. A scientist is just as excited about evidence which disproves a theory as evidence which supports one.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 22, 2004.

So Zarove,

I guess you are a lot smarter than these scientists/authors.., hm?

You simply declare that everything they say is wrong.

If you are so smart., why aren't you an author with the same degrees these guys have?

You think you have proved any of your claims by denying theirs?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 23, 2004.

So Zarove, I guess you are a lot smarter than these scientists/authors.., hm?

{what sceintists/authors? Hovind isn;t a Scintists, and his name is the only one I find associated withhte bulk of these argukents. His degre is in Christain education fo,m a Nonaccredited corrospondance schol, known as Patriot University.

The others are unnamed.}-Zarove

You simply declare that everything they say is wrong.

{I didnt simpley declare them wrong, I showed why they where wrong, or didnt you rea dmy post? The facts they rpsent are false.}-Zarove

If you are so smart., why aren't you an author with the same degrees these guys have?

{Im in a PH.D Programme to earn a Psycology egree and am a proffesisonal author and was a Journalist. Likewise, an argument form authority is not rellay an impressive argukent, least of all to a 27 year old PH.D Candidate. I also hold a standard Masters degree from UTKib the feild of Journalism.

And simpely showign there "degrees" doesnt make them right since other eipel with degrees say thre wrong. shoudl I post stuff from Steven J. gould? he wrte seveal books, and was the most respected evolutionary scentists of all time. oh thats right, there degrees make them riht only if there creaitonists. he has degrees up the whazoo, but is obviosuly to be ignored since he is an evlutionist.

Really, the FACTS, not the degree's held by the people makign the claims, are all thats reevant. ( sincd they are unnamed sicnetists and the only name I can find in a brief search that uses these argumens is Hovind, I can safely say that there degrees are irrlelevant sine they themselves have no names. }-Zarove

You think you have proved any of your claims by denying theirs?

{I did more than deny theres, and made no claims t prove. all I said was that the facts they present ar ein error, and made a brief descripton of why they ar ein error.

The real irony is that this is what I asked you to do for evolution- creation debates infuture. Show evidence and not ust tear nto evolution.

However, when you present evidence, and the evidence is clealry false, soemone critisising said evidence and showign why it is in error is not identical to merley attakcign creationism.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 23, 2004.

So Zarove, I guess you are a lot smarter than these scientists/authors.., hm?

{what scientists/authors? Hovind isn't a Scientists, and his name is the only one I find associated with the bulk of these arguments. His degree is in Christian education from, a Nonaccredited correspondence school, known as Patriot University.

The others are unnamed.}-Zarove

You simply declare that everything they say is wrong.

{I dint simply declare them wrong, I showed why they where wrong, or dint you read my post? The facts they repent are false.}-Zarove

If you are so smart., why aren't you an author with the same degrees these guys have?

{I in a PH.D. Programme to earn a Psychology degree and am a professional author and was a Journalist. Likewise, an argument form authority is not really an impressive argument, least of all to a 27 year old PH.D. Candidate. I also hold a standard Masters degree from UTK in the Field of Journalism.

And simply showing there "degrees" doesn't make them right since other people with Degrees say there wrong. should I post stuff from Steven J. Gould? he wrote several books, papers, articles, and reports, and was the most respected evolutionary scientists of all time. oh that’s right, there degrees make them right only if there creationists. he has degrees up the whazoo, but is obviously to be ignored since he is an evolutionist. Really, the FACTS, not the degree's held by the people making the claims, are all that’s relevant. ( since they are unnamed scientists and the only name I can find in a brief search that uses these arguments is Hovind, I can safely say that there degrees are irrelevant since they themselves have no names. Hovind‘s degree being suspect, and not in any relevant field.) }-Zarove

You think you have proved any of your claims by denying theirs?

{I did more than deny there’s, and made no claims t prove. all I said was that the facts they present are in error, and made a brief description of why they are in error.

The real irony is that this is what I asked you to do for evolution- creation debates in future. Show evidence and not just tear into evolution. However, when you present evidence, and the evidence is clearly false, someone criticising said evidence and showing why it is in error is not identical to merely attacking creationism.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 23, 2004.

Morris/Parker "What is Creation Science?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 23, 2004.