Why do people ignore the evidence for a young earth?

Question

Not enough salt in the sea

Not enough helium in the atmosphere
Too much helium in rocks decay of earths magnetic field
Recession of the moon
Not enough sediment on the sea floor
Existence of short-lived comets
Spiral galaxies not wound up enough polonium haloes etc http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/

And why are the flaws in old-age dating methods ignored:
20 year old volcanic rock at Mt St Helens dated as millions of years old.
All coal contains carbon 14 putting an absolute upper limit of 50k years old.
Diamonds contain carbon 14.
Dinosaur bones have been found containing soft tissue - hardly 65 millions years old ! http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059/ http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/creationontheweb?q=dino+blood&hl=en&lr=

It doesn't take a PhD to figure out that things aren't quite as clear cut as some would have us all believe.

It's all very well to just dismiss me as a nut, but have you actually checked the evidence for yourself?
Most dating methods indicate the earth and universe is young.
Only one indicates age - and that is demonstrably flawed.

What's nutty about questioning the evolutionary religious dogma?
Seems some poeple are scared of the evidence!

Answer 1

Not enough salt in the sea????

Are you serious?!!!!

Care to explain the significance. The salinity of the ocean is variable depending where we are in the ice age cycle. Less Ice means more fresh water, lower salinity. More Ice means less fresh water, more salinity. This salinity level has changed over the eons and will continue to change.

Yes, the Earths magnetic field does decay, and change, then restrengthen, then change again. This event is recorded in the earths crust and shows the event happens with reguarity. It helps confirm the age of the Earth at about 4 billion years

Yes. the moon moves away from Earth, about 1/16 of an inch per year your point?

Not enough sediment on the sea floor? Again, your point?

Existance of things with a short life does not negate the possibility of things that have long life

Enough of this, the other side

a rock that was on Mt Saint Helens 20 years ago was still on Mt Saint Helens for, let me guess, millions of years.

Carbon dating does not have an absolute top limit of 50,000 years

You are free to believe what you wish. God, being all powerful, could create and make evidence that leads us to believe something that is untrue, but seems to me deceit is more the role of Satan. Believe what you will, but don't try and get the rest of us to spend tax dollars to teach religion in Public Schools. Faith is a good thing when not taken to extremes. Forcing a particular faith on the public at large is how wars start.

Answer 2

Almost all of your "evidence" can be easily explained with current scientific theories. Your theory of a young Earth is based on the Bible, which is not a scientific book, and then all evidence is twisted to conform to your theory, instead of the theory being shaped by the evidence.

I'm an astronomer (but not a PhD) so I can only speak to your astronomy evidence, not the geologic evidence. So what's wrong with short-lived comets? There are billions of comets in the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud that have never been close to the Sun (that's how the meet their demise, by melting), periodically these get disturbed by the gravitational pull of a passing star or the cumulative effects of Jupiter tugging on it, so there's always a supply of new comets to replace the old ones.

The arms of spiral galaxies don't "wind up" at all! If they did, the arms would merge together after just a few rotations. There are other explanations for what causes the spiral arms, primarily dealing with star formation and spiral density waves. Also, there are spiral galaxies that rotate "backwards" - more evidence that spirals don't "wind up"!

Since your astronomy arguments don't hold water, I assume your other arguments are just as weak. The Universe is still 13.7 billion years old, and Earth is still 4.4 billion years old.

Answer 3

wow, well where do i start in debunking your "Facts"? The Oort cloud was detected by both voyager spacecraft as they flew by, and gravitationally it is clearly evident (pluto was known about long before it was ever seen because of the effect of it's gravity) as for the moon and the magnetic field, they are both cases of "exponential decay", the moon wasn't always receding at 1 inch a year, it was far less, but as it gets further away, the pull of earths gravity gets weaker, therefore it speeds up. Salt in the sea? that barely deserves comment when you look in the medditeranian at salt mines from dried up lakes etc, salt goes in, but it also comes out and becomes rock salt. Helium in rocks, and in the atmosphere, you're really grasping at straws, in the upper atmosphere it escapes and leaves the earth, as does hydrogen. In the rocks it might leach out, but this is exponential again, the less that is left in the rock, the less leaks out, (sort of like the half life of radioactive decay). Your next point confuses me "carbon 14 is immeasurable after 50 000 years" but coal and diamonds contain it... just because it is "immesureable" does not mean it isn't there, and as for coal being carbon dated, I personally have never heard of that. Saturns rings are believed to be the remnants of a moon or more than 1 that was destroyed by saturns gravitational tides, this is evidenced by the tiny rings around jupiter that are KNOWN to be composed of the same minerals uniformly and thus be from a single moon ripped apart. Mercury is exactly where it should be, you may notice that the less dense gas giants are further out and the heavy rocky planets are closer to the sun, this is due to how an accretion disk formes planets, if you dont understand the science, then read more about it. I have never heard of any complete cells being found in any fossils EVER, and if there was, it is not out of the realms of pissibility that they could be found, not all biological matter decays at the same rate, some may be incredibly well preserved. Finding a few cells does not prove that dinosaurs were a recent species. I think you need to research your points again and look up more about carbon 14 dating and the dating of rocks from magnetic fields (this is incredibly precise. And remember that a scientist is an "empiricist" they work with FACTS, something cannot be ignored just because it doesn't fit your ideas, thats why einstiens relativity was so massive, it explained why mercury orbits faster than Newton said it should so science looked for a new solution (with Arthur Eddington of course). I would suggest that you rethink your opinions and research your arguments and come back with something FACTUAL that actually makes sense.

Answer 4

The Atlantic Ocean is widening at about 2cm per year. The Americas and Africa were demonstrably once a single land mass (from the palaeontological and geological evidence). The narrowest point of the Atlantic is 2,575km. A trivial calculation shows us that, at the current rate, the Atlantic Ocean must have formed around 2,575 * 50,000 = 128 million years ago. If you assume the fastest plausible displacement by plate tectonics of 5cm per year, that only brings it down to 50 million years. The most recent fossils (i.e. the ones in the uppermost strata) of terrestrial organisms which are common to both Africa and the Americas must therefore be at least 50 million years old, which is entirely consistent with the figures obtained by radiometric dating.

Hence your young Earth hypothesis must be rejected.

Answer 5

I can't really answer all of those questions Chas, but you could look at how Mary Schweitzer reacted when she read the claims from the creation website you posted. Scweitzer is a member of the team who has actually studied this fossil.
Have a look at what she has to say on the seventh paragraph from this link
http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php?page=3

Chas, it seems you do need a phd to figure these out. You're making your self sound silly on this point. Statements like yours "drive Schweitzer crazy".
This is coming from the actual scientist who discovered the dinosaur with soft tissue. Does the creation site explain her misgivings? I'll wager her thoughts were left out. Would you rather believe someone who has the specimen and studied it first hand or someone who just speculates. How much more of this website is dubious?
Scweitzer is christian herself, yet she is "horrified" about how her data has been misrepresented by people like you.
Regards,
Melok.

Answer 6

You can find a web page to support any outrageous claims you want but it doesnt make them true.

Of course you are entitled to believe what you want but there is overwhelming scientific and proven evidence that the world has been around longer.

Conspiracy theorists have a conspiracy for everything. Things don't always have a hidden meaning or mystery behind them.

Answer 7

Am I familiar with the creationist arguments? Yes, I am. I was within just a few credits of getting a Bachelor's degree in biology before switching my major to philosophy. One of my biology professors considered himself to be a Christian, and I took a class on organic evolution from him. As a Christian, he firmly believed that God created the universe, but as a scientist, he could not find any good way to justify the fundamentalist dogma concerning creation theory. At various points in his lectures, he would stop to point out the creationist alternative, then proceed to explain why these creationist arguments were flawed. (I won't review every point here, but see the link I've pasted below.) My professor believed that Biblical truths were deeper than scientific truths, and because of this, one cannot simply translate Biblical statements into literal historical or scientific facts. The Bible says that God created human beings from the dust of the earth. My professor believed this to be true. Science doesn't proclaim God as the best explanation, but it does agree that human arose from the dust of the earth, in a manner of speaking. And, actually, this is a very profound truth. We are made of the elements of the earth. And so are all other forms of life. From this it makes sense that there is kinship between humanity and all other life. Maybe the Bible provides the deep truths – human beings are one with the earth, and with all life – and science fills in the details of how it all works. The Bible is more like God's poetry than God's textbook.

My own view: Despite a common misconception, Truths are not matters of fact. Facts are mere facts, and their existence depends on perspective – they are almost always context-dependent. Truth deals with the ontological ground of Being – that which makes factuality a possibility. The Truth is that all facts are interdependent – every individual fact owes its existent to the holistic totality of Being, which includes all facts, as well as plenty of Truths that go beyond mere matters of fact. Creationists are misguided because they are trying to argue facts on the basis of scriptures which, if they have any validity at all, are grounded in realms that go far beyond the realm of mere facts. You can look for Truth in the Bible, if that is your faith, but don't expect the realm of facts (the realm of science) to conform to a simplistic literal interpretation of the Bible as a book of facts. If you are a Christian, you will be lost in perpetual confusion if you insist upon seeing the Bible as a book of facts – just as a literature student would be perpetually confused if she tried to interpret poems as collections of literal facts. Art reveals truth in a why that mere facts can rarely ever do. Spirituality is the poetry of Being. Science is the technical service manual. It is best not to confuse the two.

Answer 8

Why do people with closed minds think they are asking open questions when all they are seeking to do is push misguided ideas?

be honest and put these sort of questions in the religion category and not in the scientific side where they do not belong.

Answer 9

Ignore what young earth evidence? There is none...

Yes, I have dismissed you as a nut - sorry.... you sound intelligent, but misguided. Good Luck on your search for the real truth.

Answer 10

And I suppose on your little creationist website, they have evidence that dinosaurs shared the earth with humans? Why don't you try reading something different and formulate an educated opinion?