Why do people think the earth is billions of years old when most evidence indicates it is young?

Question

For example, we can measure how much salt is going into the oceans, how much is going out. On current measurements the oceans can only be thousands of years old.
For example, the moon is receding. Extrapolating backwards, the earth/moon cannot be millions of years old.
For example the earths magnetic field is decaying. Extrapolating backwards, the earth cannot be more than thousands of years old.
For example radiometric dating methods are based on ssumptions and are demonstrably flawed - rock from a recent volcano was dated as millions of years old.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Young.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

How many different evidences of a young earth will it take to convince people?

Campbelp you are mistaken.
Check out this link about recession of the moon - which indicates a young earth
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0811.asp

You are also mistaken about the decay of earth's magnetic field 0 which is not the same as revesals of polarity.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i4/magnetic.asp

Answer 1

All of your "evidence" is bogus.

1. Salt is reabsorbed into the earth at subduction points during plate tectonic activity. This keeps the salt concentration roughly constant over billions of years.
2. The distance between the earth and the moon regularly oscillates backwards and forwards over periods of millions of years.
3. If radiometric dating as a process is flawed, then nuclear reactors wouldn't work either. I wouldn't dispute the occasional error (it's often a difficult thing to do correctly, given all the possible error sources), but an occasional mistake doesn't invalidate the principle.

Answer 2

The oldest rocks that have been discovered in the international date to 3.8-3.9 billion, by using a number of radiometric relationship procedures. This establishes a decrease shrink for the age of the earth, it is, all of us recognize for a actuality that the earth is atleast 3.8 billion years previous. the easily age of the earth is measured with a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites, the place 3 isotopes of uranium and lead are measured. The ratio of those are then calculated. If the image voltaic device formed from a uncomplicated pool of count, which grew to become into uniformly disbursed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the preliminary plots for all products from that pool of count might fall on a single factor. it truly is precisely what the info has shown so a procedures, which demonstrates that the Earth is 4.fifty 5+-a million% billion years previous. this might properly be a query that would desire to have been asked interior the technology section although.

Answer 3

The Earth is young in astronomical terms. If the human race dies, the Earth will still be here unless we manage to blow it up along with ourselves. Everything in our universe should be basically the same age. Some entities formed later than others, but it all came from the same cosmic soup. The protons of matter will decay in about : trillion^16x 1 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion years from now. That will be the end of our universe.
Four billion years? I'd say we're still pretty young. Our universe has been expanding ever since it was born and will continue to do so. Changes will come as a result, if your looking at "the big picture". These changes take a looooong time. Did you know that an undersea storm (a storm made of water instead of air) at the bottom of the ocean can last as long as two hundred years? Time is relative to that which you compare it.

Answer 4

It all depends on what you chose to present and what you chose to repress. Did you ever hear of plate tectonics? Major amounts of water (and salt) get subducted along with the seafloor and become recycled into new igneous rocks. I never heard of the moon receding. I never heard of the Earth's magnetic field decaying, although I have heard of reversals in the magneic field. These reversals are used to correlate various oceanic plates across the earth. As for radiometric dating methods being based on flawed assumptions, a study of Carbon-14 dating versus tree rings showed that the Carbon-14 dating underestimated the true age of the tree. Finally, do not use the Bible as a science book unless you are willing to give up all that science has to offer, including the internet.

Answer 5

we can measure lots of things including that the geology of the contains radio carbon isotopes indicate that many rocks layers were laid down millions of years ago, not the 5..6000 that the followers of a religion believe based on a an advertorial for a religon aka the bible)

we can look at sedimentary rocks laid down in 3 separate bands at differning angles which indicate it cannot, irrespectice of what belief says cannot have happened in the time 'calculated' from bibilical references

ther fact that radio carbon dating may or may not be a lot older than the volcano is immaterial (who knows whent he original precuros to theat rock was first formed.

just because the bible / koran / what ever says x is y then that doens't actuially mean it is the truth. After all con merchants have made a killing over the years deludign people into believing their story - and at the end of the day thats all it is a story.

Answer 6

Most of the information indicates a very old Earth. For example, at the speed the Moon is moving away, a couple inches a year, it would take millions of years to move enough to even notice. Another example is that the magnetic field has decayed all the way to zero and back again many times, as indicated by bands of alternating polarity magnetic material in rocks, so the age of those rocks must be at least the time to decay once times the number of alternating layers of opposite polarity.

Answer 7

When will people learn that religion lies to you? You started at the bible and went from there you brainwashed chimp, dont you dare use the the word science in the same paragraph as that clap trap.

The earth is millions of years old. dont let the Christians get to you, ID was dissmissed as bunk a while ago mate they retro fit science to subvert people into beleiving the creationist theory. ID is wrong because you can't prove scientificly that god exists so the rest of the theories are mearly assumtions.

And about the volcanic rocks, it was formed millions of years ago the volcano only just spat it out.

Short answer, you are both wrong and an idiot.

DARWIN! DARWIN! DARWIN!

Answer 8

The difference between science and religion is faith. Religions believe what they read in a book that has been scrabbled together by a roman emperor, while science was born from the corruption of the early catholic church.
Science searches for understanding by finding proof - whether that be reasoned out, from experiments which give results that support or refute current thought.
You are merely ranting - go to college and get a degree in earth science. To understand the earth you have to understand chemistry, physics and maths to be able to understand rocks and their formation. This will give you the tools to understand the argument you are making, and one day you may be able to prove the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Oh, and your site is full of pseudoscience designed soley to preach to the converted who ironically wouldn't see the truth even if it jumped up and bit them in the nose.

Answer 9

Do you actually understand fully the "evidence" you are citing? I don't think you do. Have you done the calculations out for yourself? Have you researched other possible explanations? Or are you just taking someone elses word on all of this?

For example, yes it is true that Earth's magnetic field is decaying. But we have solid evidence that our magnetic field has reversed many many times, so how can you use the current rate of decay to figure out when Earth formed? You must (or rather, the author's of that website must) be making incorrect assumptions.

I am only convinced by direct data, not by what non-scientists tell me based on what someone else told them.

Answer 10

One tiny little example , stand in the bottom of The Grand Canyon, look up, count the layers. Think how long it takes lime mud sand and silt to accumulate ( let alone to be compacted by overlying layers ) .How deep is the Grand Canyon? Look at the fossils. Notice how from the bottom to the top, the forms of life get progressively more complex.
Professor Richard Dawkins was interviewing to a creationist on TV a while ago. He asked him "So how old do you think the earth is?" When he replied with his figure,( a mere few thousand years) The Prof. replied "Ah so the world was created AFTER agriculture had become established in the middle east was it?" Oh the look on that guys face!