Here is why the earth is only a few thousand years old....hence evolution or intelligent design is impossible.

Question

How Old is the Earth? Traditional Thought
How old is the Earth? Good question. The Earth was thought to be fairly young (thousands of years old) until the 19th and 20th centuries, when uniformitarianism (which assumes an Old Earth) and evolutionary thought (which demands an Old Earth) became popular in mainstream society.

How Old is the Earth? Recent Consideration
So, how old is the Earth? In the 19th century, it was proposed that the Earth may be as much as 70 million years old. Then, certain evidence was brought to light indicating that evolution was not possible in so short a time. So, the age of the Earth was pushed back. During the 20th century, it was thought that the age of the Earth was as much as 1 billion years old. Now, with the development of radiometric dating and the application of that technique on the meteorite "Allende", it is thought that the world is up to 4.6 billion years old. However, this is not conclusive. The assumptions that are fundamental to radiometric dating are extremely controversial, and are not held to be reasonable by many leading scholars. Furthermore, uniformitarianism has been disputed by such geologic features as poly-strata fossils and the lack of erosion between strata. Moreover, evolution is a theory in crisis with the discovery of DNA and its complex language convention, plus the absence of transitional fossils.

How Old is the Earth? Modern Evidences
By the 21st century, "How Old is the Earth?" has become an increasingly difficult question for Old Earth advocates. Every year, more and more Natural Chronometers indicating a Young Earth are being identified. While the majority of scientists still presuppose an Old Earth, 80% of the observable data indicates a Young Earth. With the weight of evidence indicating a Young Earth, the ranks of Young Earth advocate groups has swelled.

How Old is the Earth? Natural Chronometers
"How old is the Earth?" This question is once again sparking a heated debate. With discoveries such as the following Natural Chronometers, we are at the forefront of a Young Earth revolution:

* Our oceans contain concentrations of Aluminum, Antinomy, Barium, Bicarbonate, Bismuth, Calcium, Carbonates, Chlorine, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Gold, Iron, Lead, Lithium, Manganese, Magnesium, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Potassium, Rubidium, Silicon, Silver, Sodium, Strontium, Sulfate, Thorium, Tin, Titanium, Tungsten, Uranium, and Zinc. The river systems add to these concentrations at fixed apparent rates. Comparing the amounts already in the oceans with the rates at which more are being dumped, indicates the earth, as well as its river systems and oceans, are fairly young.
* Sediments are being eroded into our oceans at a fixed rate. There are only a few thousand years worth of sediments on the ocean floor.
* The Earth's magnetic field has been accurately measured since 1829. Since 1829, it has decayed 7%. It is decaying exponentially at a fixed rate. By graphing the curve, we see that approximately 22,000 years ago the Earth's field would have been as strong as the Sun's. Life would have been impossible.
* Comets are constantly losing matter. They are losing and losing and never gaining. "Short Period Comets" (like Haley's comet), which have predictable orbits, should deteriorate to nothing within 10,000 years. Why are there still Short Period Comets?
* Jupiter is losing heat twice as fast as it gains it from the Sun (it is five times further from the Sun than Earth). Yet Jupiter is still hot. If it is billions of years old, shouldn't it have cooled off by now?
* Jupiter's moon, Ganymede, which is roughly the size of Mercury, has a strong magnetic field, a possible indication that it is still hot. Why hasn't it cooled down?
* Saturn's rings are not stable. They are drifting away from Saturn. If Saturn is billions of years old, why does it still have rings?
* The Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth. If it is getting further, at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law dictates that if the Moon were half the distance from the Earth, its gravitational pull on our tides would be quadrupled. 1/3 the distance, 9 times the pull. Everything would drown twice a day. Approximately 1.2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been touching the Earth. Drowning would be the least of our concerns!
* Earth's rotation is slowing down. We experience a leap second every year and a half. If the Earth is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. Besides the problem of extremely short days and nights, the increased "Coriolis Effect" would cause impossible living conditions.
* In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original people.

Answer 1

Who cares if it's copy and paste? This is a great collection of facts for those who want to have knowledge at hand to defend the Faith.

Answer 2

*Lake Baikal is a primative ocean containing low amounts of the minerals you mentioned. Hypothesis rejected. There is a limit to the calcium concentration of the ocean. Beyond this, it complexes with carbon dioxide, and settltes to the bottom as calcium carbonate. Areas of ocean bottom where this has occured have been thrust up and are called limestone formations. Hypothesis rejected.
*Lake Baikal has 250,000 years of sediment. Hypothesis rejected.
*There has been a reduction in the Earth's magnetic field since 1829. There is no theoretical basis to use an exponential decay curve. The data fit an exponential decay curve poorly. The data can be fit to a sinusoid just as poorly. Hypothesis on hold until a theoretical basis for exponential decay can be demonstrated.
*Long period comets passing in front of Jupiter will lose energy becoming short period comets. Hypothesis rejected.
*Earth radiates more heat than it receives from the Sun. Uranium and thorium decay in the core provide this heat. Jupiter is father from the sun and far more massive. Its internal heat is much greater relative to incident sunlight. Hypothesis rejected.
*Ganymede is located between Europa and Callisto. The tidal forces of Jupiter and its neghboring moons cause it to flex and distort, generating heat. Hypothesis rejected.
*Saturn's rings are sheparded by moons. Enceladus has geysers that prove material to the E ring. Meteoric collisions with the moons will provide material to the rings. Hypothesis rejected.
*The perigee (closest approach) of the moon is 363,104km. The moon recedes from the Earth at 3.8 cm per year. At that rate, it would take a little over 9-1/2 billion years to recede from the Earth's surface (9,555,368,421). Since that's twice the Earth's age, when the Earth was young, the Moon was twice as close and tides would have been four times greater. As much of the energy comes from the slowing of the Earth, the effect would be stronger in the past. Hypothesis rejected.
*We fixed the length of the day based on the 1900AD rate. The day is now about 2 milliseconds longer, so one second is lost every 500 days or a year and a half. Leap seconds indicate how much the Earth has slowed down, not how fast it is slowing down. The slowing does not progress at a constant rate. Hypothesis rejected.
*This estimate assumes a constant rate of growth without proof of that rate. Very subtle changes in the rate, well within the error for a three point fit, would allow for the the same Earth's population to derive from a few tens of thousands of humans at the end of the last ice age. Hypothesis equivocal.

Five of your seven statements can be shot down based on evidence. The other two cannot be demonstrated as true. Pretty weak for a cut and paste argument. Stick to empty rhetoric. Invoking facts works against you.

Answer 3

I am AMAZED at your faulty logic, even if it is copy-pasted.
How can you believe even half of this?

I mean... I'd LOVE to see the studies saying that there is only a few thousand years worth of sediment on the ocean floor. Who measured this? Who says that all of the ocean's minerals came from rivers? There is simply no way to accurately measure the Earth's age from measuring minerals in the ocean.

How slowly is the moon drifting away from the Earth? Do you have any data to support your claim that 1.2 billion years ago, the Earth and moon would've been touching? How about scientists' theories that the Moon originated from the Earth's crust? Doesn't that constitute touching?

Using your own "leap second every year and a half" data for the slowing of the Earth's rotation: over the course of 100 billion years (a semi-random, even, pretty, old number), we would have only been shorted nearly 3200 years, hardly worth attention.
The point is: losing 1 second for every 40-someodd million seconds (a year and a half), is not noticeable, especially over the few thousand years you think the Earth has been turning.

Jupiter radiates more heat that it absorbs, yes. But this is proven by "old world" scientists. Jupiter shrinks at a rate of about 1mm a year due to lost heat and the fact that it is a largely gaseous planet. The shrinking causes the planet to become more dense (same mass, less volume), causing the pressure to increase dramatically. More pressure = more internal heat. This overall cycle creates double the amount of heat energy than is absorbed by the sun.

And I am not even going to acknowldge the twisted human population logic that doesn't take into account evolution and the non-existance of humans when the Earth was created.

Honestly, though, I don't care what you believe. If you still want to worry about falling off the edge of the world b/c your map is flat, that's fine by me. Please don't perpetuate your false logic by pretending to back it up with facts, when really, all you are doing is blindly reprinting the uneducated musings of some fanatical pseudo-scientist. Don't force your ignorance on me.

Answer 4

In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original people.


Population is exponential growth.. not linear.

Answer 5

Earth is actually billions of years old. r u taking into account 2 world wars, disease, famine, mortality rates etc? i don't think so. your figures are pretty far off. u r forgetting about the existence of dinosaurs, too. They were wiped out by a comet or meteor, which probably knocked the earth further from the moon, or changed its rate of spin around the sun. Do me a favour: READ MORE ABOUT ARCHAEOLOGY, PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY
AND ASTRONOMY before u go on another "nerd rant." Merry Christmas

Answer 6

Cease trying to prove the bible as some factual display of history! The bible IS allegorical. The only reason people thought the earth was young was because of literal interpretations of the bible. The bible is not a history book! Bajesus! And I don't care that you didn't mention God, the agenda is plainly obvious. You'll accept any data to try an prove allegory.

Answer 7

I see you have you degree in BS, so in about twenty years come and visit me with your degree in Biology or earth science and we will talk. The last paragraph is the one that discounts your entire hypothesis.

Answer 8

i'm guessing in your next "question" youl be proving to us that the earth is flat?

by the way in all those "proofs" you provided, you seem to have forgoten to add the billions of years it took our gallaxy to come into existance, and the billions after that it took our solar system to form. add those to the numbers you calculated, and i'm sure the result would be greater than 6000 years.

Answer 9

I've only looked at a few of these, and they pretty much assume no knowledge of science, math, or logic. How stupid.

Each one of these is very easy to disprove... but you're not here for that, are you?

Stop with the pseudoscience already.

Answer 10

I agree with every thing you've said! it's impossible for the earh to be even a million years old! sweet! finally someone telling the truth!
plus the Bible is not an allegory. Why would it list massive geneologies, and talk about wars and the lines of King's and the architectural structure of a temple, and seiges of cities if it wasn't meant to tell history?! and the way to get to Heaven

Answer 11

David please stop. You are free to believe what you want but why is it that 99.9% of scientist in the studies in question are old earth?

This includes Christian scientists. Something tells me they know a bit more about their job than you do.