Observable unbiased scientific data argues for a 'young' earth.

Scientific phenomena and observable data in support of the young earth and solar system that argue for the Biblical contention:

The rings of the Planet Saturn are unstable and moving away from the planet. If the solar system was as old as evolutionist and cosmologist claim, Saturn would no longer have rings.
Comets continuously loose material and only last approximately 10,000 years by current estimates, which means of course our solar system cannot be billions of years old. However, in an attempt to explain this, a Dutch Astronomer named Jan Ort proposed that a shelf of comets exists at the far frontiers of our solar system from which comets are replenished. This “Ort” cloud of comets is 50 astronomical units away (an astronomical unit is the distance between the sun and earth). As we now know that the mathematical equations used for this hypothesis were not correct; nor has anyone observed the “Ort” cloud, and even Pluto at 39 astronomical units is barely observable, this has now become a conclusion that is in a search for the evidence to support it.
The 6% of the earth’s magnetism has been lost in the last 150 years. At that rate of decay of the earth’s magnetic field, 30,000 to 40,000 years ago it would have been too strong for life to exist on earth at all. The hypothesis put forward to explain this is called the Magnetic Field Reversal Theory. It is based on the alternation of the stronger and weaker magnetic fields across the Mid Atlantic Ridge; which proves only surface variations of the earth’s magnetic field and not a global reversal. Another conclusion in search for evidence which is also in clear violation of the second law of Thermal Dynamics.

Important Note: This loss of the earth’s magnetic field is also why carbon 14 dating is inherently inaccurate as a measure of the age of a fossil or artefact, because the amount of carbon 14 in atmosphere is related to the amount of radiation that is able to reach the earth; as the magnetic field increases more radiation is deflected back into space. This is why carbon 14 dating of anything over 3500 years old is highly suspect. Indeed, after one researcher found that the mammoth’s skin he was testing dated at 21,000 years old, and the lower leg of the same animal dated at 14,000 years old, on a suspicion he tested his Timex watch – it tested as being 450 years old. He later became a Christian.

The moon is gradually getting farther from the earth as it spins around it. What this gradual loss of the moon means is that it was once much closer. The Inverse Square Law states that if you half the distance, you quadruple the attraction; this then means that if the moon was 33% closer, it would have 9 times the gravitational pull. Long before this the tidal effects would have been devastating. In fact if the earth was just 1.2 billion years old the moon would be touching the earth.
The earth is currently spinning at 1676.29 kilometres per hour at the equator, but it is steadily slowing down. Its decreasing speed has meant that every 1.5 years an additional second has had to be added to our time; Astronomy Magazine noted this when it announced “Leap Minute” in June of 1992. If the earth was anywhere near as old as is claimed it would have been spinning at an extreme rate; the centrifugal force would have been so great life would have been impossible. Further, there would have been in excess of 8046.72 kph surface winds.
The Sahara desert was recently studied by climatologists and found to be growing at a rate of 6.44 kilometres per year due to the desertification caused by the prevailing wind patterns killing the trees that border the desert. It was also estimated that the Sahara, the oldest desert on earth, was about 4000 years old. Question: If the earth is as old as is claimed, why are there no older deserts? Answer: It is hard to have a desert under flood waters.
The oldest tree in the world, Methuselah tree in California, is approximately 4300 years old. Question: If the world is as old as claimed, why are there no older trees? Answer: A flood is as great a hazard to tree and plant life as it is to the lives of dinosaurs and humans.
Oil is at 20,000 pounds per square inch underground, which is the cause of oil gushers when it is brought to the surface. That pressure is way above the pressure of the surrounding rock weight and should have equalized within 10,000 years. Why then do we still have oil pressure if the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
Climatologists drilled to a depth of 10,000 feet to collect a core sample from the Antarctic. They counted what they claimed were “annual rings” and announced on the basis of these rings they could prove that the earth was at least 135,000 years old. Then in 1990 a wealthy man from Kentucky decided to find the “Lost Squadron”, a flight of planes that had run out of gas in 1942 and landed on the ice in Greenland. Using ground penetrating radar he found the planes beneath 263 feet of ice and bored down to disassemble and bring up one of the planes. While boring down he found numerous “annual rings” and realized that they were cold/hot layers rather than spring thaw and winter freeze indicators. Indeed, 263 divided by the 48 years the planes were covered equals 5.5~ foot per year rate of ice cover. The 10,000 foot core sample divided by that same 5.5 year rate of ice cover equals 1818~ years; more than enough time to account for the depth of the ice at both poles since the flood.
The oldest reef in the world is the Great Barrier Reef, which is off of the coast of Australia and has been calculated to be 4200 years old. If the earth is as old as claimed, why are there no older reefs?
The Mississippi river deposits 80,000 tons of sediment per hour into the Gulf delta. Scientist were forced to admit that it only took 30,000 years at that rate; but the run off from a global flood would have filled that up MUCH faster. If the earth is as old as claimed, why is the whole Gulf of Mexico not filled with mud? Indeed, when one oil company drilled to 14,000 ft. in the delta, they hit a tree that had not rotted or petrified, meaning it had been covered QUICKLY.
Niagara Falls was eroding back into the Niagara Gorge at the rate of 4.7 feet per year until they diverted most of the water for hydroelectric power production. The Gorge is now 7.5 miles long, but when scientist calculated its age, even allowing for the decreased water flow, they were forced to admit that only 8400 years of erosion had taken place at the most. Of course they had not accounted for the erosion caused by the flood. If the earth is as old as claimed, why has Niagara Falls not eroded the Gorge all the way back to the Great Lake Erie?
When it rains 30% of the fresh water runs off into the sea carrying with it mineral salts; the oceans are continually gaining salt and are 3.6% salt water now. This level of salt content is consistent with only a few thousand years of run off. This level is not consistent with the claimed age of the earth.
The Lincoln Memorial, which was built in 1922, has 50 inch stalagmites; which by current methods of dating stalagmites really make the Lincoln Memorial millions of years old.
In 1999 the earth’s population topped 6 billion; in 1985 there were 5 billion; in 1800 there was approximately 1 billion, and it has been estimated from Roman records that there were 250 million people during the time of Jesus. This growth curve is exactly what would be expected if approximately 4400 years ago 8 people stepped off the ark. If there had been a 3 million year opportunity for the proliferation of mankind as the evolutionist claim, there would now be over 150,000 people per square meter on the earth.
By doing a quick internet search for “dinosaur and man tracks” or “dinosaur with man tracks”, anyone can observe the tracks of a young Tyrannosaurus Rex hot on the trail of a quickly running man in a river bed that have turned to stone. These pictures of dinosaur & man tracks in Arizona are among the numerous such examples that you will never find in any evolutionary text book as they make the theory appear scientifically and intellectually bankrupt. Not to mention proving that man was contemporaneous with the dinosaurs as the Bible clearly states in Job 40:15-24.
All over the world they have found petrified trees standing straight up through several stratum or supposed evolutionary periods that are claimed to cover millions of years. While the pictures of these are not to be found in any evolutionary text for the same reason as above, these trees can be viewed on Ken Hovind’s web site, or by doing a “petrified tree” internet search.


[edit on 6/12/2008 by SGTChas]

I was going to write up a long response to this, but seeing as how every one of these points have been brought up about a billion times before, I'm simply going to provide you with the previously written responses. Just bear with me, as I'm going to respond to one claim at a time, and give each it's own post.

reply to post by PsychoHazard


Please do, I relish the dynamic interplay of lucid thoughtful debate and the subsequent exchange of ideas...

reply to post by SGTChas


Please post a link to the data if you have one, or it will only be see as speculation and personal opinion.

Originally posted by SGTChas
The rings of the Planet Saturn are unstable and moving away from the planet. If the solar system was as old as evolutionist and cosmologist claim, Saturn would no longer have rings.

Responses:
1: Presumably, this is intended to be an argument for a young universe. However, the age of Saturn's rings only places a lower limit on the age of the universe, not an upper limit. If they formed yesterday, that does not mean the universe is only 1 day old (the universe would be at least 1 day old).
2: One of the most popular models to describe the formation of planetary rings involves a catastrophic collision between objects near Saturn (say a comet and one of Saturn's moons); there is no requirement that this collision happened at the moment that Saturn was formed.
3: Saturn's rings are unstable, and could not be more than (several dozen) million years old, unless they are periodically replenished. No physicist has ever argued that Saturn must have formed with its rings in order for the Big Bang theory to be correct. That makes the observation interesting, but irrelevant.
4: Such a ring structure could be formed by a large, weakly-composed comet passing within Saturn's Roche limit, and breaking up to form an accretion disc around the planet. This could have happened at any time in the past, a million years ago, a billion years ago, or more, and it would have no bearing at all on the status of the Big Bang theory, or even the age of the planet Saturn.

Link

[edit on 6/12/2008 by PsychoHazard]

Originally posted by SGTChas
Comets continuously loose material and only last approximately 10,000 years by current estimates, which means of course our solar system cannot be billions of years old. However, in an attempt to explain this, a Dutch Astronomer named Jan Ort proposed that a shelf of comets exists at the far frontiers of our solar system from which comets are replenished. This “Ort” cloud of comets is 50 astronomical units away (an astronomical unit is the distance between the sun and earth). As we now know that the mathematical equations used for this hypothesis were not correct; nor has anyone observed the “Ort” cloud, and even Pluto at 39 astronomical units is barely observable, this has now become a conclusion that is in a search for the evidence to support it.

Responses:
1: In order to calculate the number of comets that should exist today, we need to know not only the rate at which they are being removed from the system, but also the rate at which they are being added. If, for example, the two rates are identical then no problem exists. This rate is one of the fundamental assumptions of this form of dating method, so evidence must be provided for it being less that the removal rate and more-or-less constant over a long time before the dating method can be used.
2: Comets lose material mainly when they enter the inner solar system and are heated by the sun. Short-period comets (i.e., comets of the inner solar system that frequent our skies) do lose material quickly. Long-period comets originate from the distant reach of the solar system and can spend billions of years away from the sun's heat. Their material is preserved. Long period comets originate from the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud. Objects within the Kuiper Belt have been directly observed. Although the Oort Cloud has not been directly observed, there are many direct observations of long-period comets whose orbits extend out to the region of the Oort Cloud.
3: Consider a 10-year-period comet: If this comet was created at the YEC moment of Creation, 6 to 10 millennia ago, it's made at least 600 passes near the Sun, which is more than enough to boil it down to the bare rock. Thus, under a YEC paradigm, there are only two alternatives: Either (a) Short-period comets simply don't exist, or else (b) There is a mechanism which replenishes the supply of comets.
4: Many Kuiper Belt Objects have been directly observed (i.e., many objects orbiting the sun at the distance defined as the Kuiper Belt). Pluto and Charon (Pluto's moon) can be considered two of them.
5: Although the Oort Cloud has not been directly observed, its presence is strongly suggested by the direct observation of long-period comets that occasionally pass through the inner solar system.
6: Let us suppose the YECs are correct to suppose that the Solar System is only 6 to 10 millenia old. This is long enough for comets of periods 10 years or less to have approached the sun at least 600 times -- and 600+ close Solar approaches is more than enough to boil any comet down to the bare rock. But we still observe short-period comets which have not been boiled down to the bare rock; therefore, even under a YEC time-scale, there must be at least one source of new comets such as the Oort Cloud and/or Kuiper Belt.
7: The Oort Cloud is not an ad-hoc hypothesis. It is a necessary consequence of our solar evolution model, and since its proposal has been widely supported by observation. It was not proposed in order to explain the origin of comets, and indeed it is not fundamentally "a region of space filled with comets". Comets are a relatively insignificant ramification of the Oort Cloud's existence, in comparison to many others.

Link
Link

[edit on 6/12/2008 by PsychoHazard]

Originally posted by SGTChas
The oldest reef in the world is the Great Barrier Reef, which is off of the coast of Australia and has been calculated to be 4200 years old. If the earth is as old as claimed, why are there no older reefs?

Thats flawed

The great barrier reef began growing 20,000 years ago, anyone thats swam there and lived on the queensland coat, like i have knows that. Plus there is fossilized eveidence of coral from 25 million years ago. When the seas level dropped (ice age), most of the coral died due to a combination of low temperatures and lack of water. I have no idea where you got your information, but its more biased than most of scientific data out there

And also you have no sources, no names, no citations for your claims. Beginning to sound like you made it up


[edit on 12/6/2008 by OzWeatherman]

reply to post by marg6043


Some links that discuss the scientific facts mentioned:

www.reasons.org...

www.drdino.com...

www.answersingenesis.org...

www.khouse.org...

www.khouse.org...

Originally posted by SGTChas
The 6% of the earth’s magnetism has been lost in the last 150 years. At that rate of decay of the earth’s magnetic field, 30,000 to 40,000 years ago it would have been too strong for life to exist on earth at all. The hypothesis put forward to explain this is called the Magnetic Field Reversal Theory. It is based on the alternation of the stronger and weaker magnetic fields across the Mid Atlantic Ridge; which proves only surface variations of the earth’s magnetic field and not a global reversal. Another conclusion in search for evidence which is also in clear violation of the second law of Thermal Dynamics.

Responses:
1: The current mainstream model for the earth's magnetic field is a dynamo model which would cause occasional drops in the magnetic field's intensity and even total reversals. Paleomagnetic data confirms that historically the magnetic field has changed in a way similar to what one would expect from the dynamo model. Assuming a constant decay rate, as this claim does, is a naive, unthinking approach not covered by any working models.
2: The earth's magnetic field is driven by fluid motion in the core, and it has been recorded by ferro-magnetic minerals for 3 billion years. Since the work of Königsberger (1938) and Carpozen (Nature, 2004), there is some strong physical evidence against Earth having been created in 6 days, 6000 years ago.
3: YECs argue against geological uniformitarianism, which is supported by mass amounts of evidence. However, they make a uniformitarion assumption in the magnetic field argument, and their assumption is not even supported by the evidence.

Link

[edit on 6/12/2008 by PsychoHazard]

You know, this is going to take forever to do it point by point.

Just go HERE. All of these creationist arguments and more are long since covered.

Originally posted by SGTChas
reply to post by marg6043

 

Some links that discuss the scientific facts mentioned:

www.reasons.org...

www.drdino.com...

www.answersingenesis.org...

www.khouse.org...

www.khouse.org...

Well now its all clear

This information is absolute crap and the most biased "scientific" info available.

All those sites are religion based pretty much meaning that science has been manipulated to fit in with the text from the bible

This is the biggest thumbs down to any scientific thread I have seen



[edit on 12/6/2008 by OzWeatherman]

reply to post by PsychoHazard


Widely supported by whose observation? Unbiased scientific observation, or those attempting to maintain an unsalvageable theory that even Robert Jastrow was forced to admit was mere speculation?

www.answersingenesis.org...

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
This is the biggest thumbs down to any scientific thread I have seen

Heh, I think 'scientific' threads like this now belong in the science forum. However, I do see bible-based arguments, so more likely this should be in the BTS theology thread.

Oh well.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by PsychoHazard


Sorry, its extreemly late where I am - or early - I'll post more indepth answers later... Ah, these "white nights"! One forgets what time it is...

reply to post by OzWeatherman


Don't argue "manipulation" if you cannot disprove the math... The laws of physics and many other laws CANNOT BE MANIPULATED! Prove the math wrong or move on.

Originally posted by SGTChas
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

Don't argue "manipulation" if you cannot disprove the math... The laws of physics and many other laws CANNOT BE MANIPULATED! Prove the math wrong or move on.

You havent provided any Math to disprove

You have just stated that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong

And yeah Melatonin,I agree, this thread should be moved to BTS

reply to post by OzWeatherman


20,000 years? 25 million years? Really? Who OBSERVED or QUANTIFIED YOUR tossed out figures sir? I have this 450 year old Timex watch I'd like to sell you.

reply to post by OzWeatherman

All those sites are religion based pretty much meaning that science has been manipulated to fit in with the text from the bible

The topic of your rebuttal involves the mentioned sites, WHICH DO go to great lengths to discuss the mathematics of the physics involved.

PsychoHazard, you may want to put the material your posting in the appropriate [external source] quote tags. What your doing is a violation of ATS' Terms and Conditions of use with regards to plagiarism/posting work written by others.

So far as a young (6,000ish years old) Earth goes.


Hello SGTchas,

You may want to look at this page: How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims and the links which 'bookmark' the page. Lots of info there and counter arguments that you may enjoy. Should you choose to continue to argue for a young Earth it will only help to become familiar with, and have answers for, the criticisms, in my humble opinion.

As a fellow person of Faith may I recommend this short read also: Is Young-Earth Creationism a Heresy?

Which concludes:

Conclusion: When confronted with three solid reasons why the Earth is old, young-Earth creationists will say "That's just how God made it", but therein lies a problem - a very big problem. If the Earth was, indeed, made in a single, supernatural act 10,000 years ago, then God, for some reason, left behind as part of the record of His creation these isotopic abundances, measurable rates of the movement of the Pacific and Atlantic Plates, and two valid methods of age determination, all of which show beyond any doubt that it was not created in a supernatural act some 10,000 years ago.

Ask yourself, "Why would God leave evidence that speaks against the actual record?" We may say that God can do things in anyway that He desires. God chose to be self-limiting. He is the God of order and laws such as gravity. God is good, just and truthful. This allows humans to trust a world that makes sense.

The final determination that must be made is that the record of nature, being God's record, is trustworthy as God has chosen not to lie to us. To say that He would lie would impart a most profound deviousness to God, which would be heresy. Therefore the only possible conclusion we can reach is that the Earth is old - very old.

All the "appearance of age" arguments made by young-Earth creationists to try to explain away the evidences of an old Earth are equally heretical. God did not put false clues under our feet to trick us. He gave us clues to show us His true creation and the way He did it. If God took 4.5 billion years to create the Earth, then so be it. It is far more in line with a firm faith to believe in a God-created old Earth than to believe that a devious god is trying to trick us into not believing in a supernatural creation.

A creationist in a pretrial deposition before the McLean vs. Arkansas trial in 1981 questioning the legality of Arkansas Act 590, exposed their own heretical views of the Creator with the following statement from pages 186-87 of the trial transcript:

As used in the context of creation-science as defined by Section 4 of Act 590, the terms or concepts of "creation" and "creator" are not inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense, the term "creator" means only some entity with power, intelligence and a sense of design. Creation science does not require a creator who has a personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion, justice and so on which are ordinarily attributed to a deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not require that the creator still be in existence.

One can scarcely imagine a more dispassionate faith statement by people who claim to be Christians. The Creator God the young-Earth creationists present would be a capricious, disposable, uncaring, unloving and probably dead god.

To conclude, we have examined the young-Earth creationist views of the age of the Earth and read their own view of the Creator. In both cases the paradigm of "Young-Earth Creationism" has been found to be based on a most outrageous heretical theology and must be rejected by persons of faith.

It's my opinion that young Earth creationism is bad science and bad theology. I suggest you prayerfully consider these things before advocating them. I would recommend also checking out these old-Earth creationism/Christian sites: Godandscience.org and Reasons to believe.org Also take a look a some pages from the theistic evolutionists ( this one is an easy read with good info and theisticevolution.org is good too and has tons of info.)

I hope you find some of this information helpful.


Regards and God Bless.

Originally posted by SGTChas
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

20,000 years? 25 million years? Really? Who OBSERVED or QUANTIFIED YOUR tossed out figures sir? I have this 450 year old Timex watch I'd like to sell you.

They're called experts and by the way, they dont use carbon dating anymore, they use radiation dating which uses decay rates and radiation from radiactive substances to determine age. Its the most accurate dating tool available.

Try and dissprove that one