Is there anyone interested in factual data showing that we live on a young earth planet?

Question

http://icr.org/article/42/

Many answers and closed minds. You guys should never accuse creationists of closed minds. There are four fingers pointing back at you !!!

Just in case you missed the last paragraph, here it is !!!

The radioisotope methods, long touted as irrefutably dating the earth's rocks as countless millions of years old, have repeatedly failed to provide reliable and meaningful absolute ages for Grand Canyon rock layers. Irreconcilable disagreement within and between the methods is the norm, even at the outcrop scale. This is a devastating "blow" to the long ages that are foundational to uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology. Yet the discordance patterns are consistent with past accelerated radioisotope decay, which would also render these "clocks" useless. Thus there is no reliable evidence to dispute that these metamorphosed basalt lava flows deep in Grand Canyon date back to the Creation Week only thousands of years ago.

Answer 1

We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:

* a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
* anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
* coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
* streamlined relict islands.


The Scablands in Washington state were produced by such a flood and show such features (Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985). Such features are also seen on Mars at Kasei Vallis and Ares Vallis (Baker 1978; NASA Quest n.d.). They do not appear in the Grand Canyon. Compare relief maps of the two areas to see for yourself.

Your site is lead by a moron who thinks that Creationism is a science. How on earth does Creationism follow the scientific method?

Answer 2

I'm not a geologist so most of that information about radioactive dating is beyond me.

However I am quite familiar with the fact that the geologic, paleontological and scientific community agree that the earth is 4.3 billion years old.

Your source is biased and was created as a proponent of creationism.

Answer 3

The article provides no evidence of a young planet. It purports to demonstrate anomalies in radioisotope dating methods.

The "study" is devastatingly criticised here (see case #2):

http://www.answersincreation.org/ratedeception.htm

Could you please explain what "factual data" there is in the article that shows "we live on a young earth planet"?

Answer 4

*laughing* Oh my.... I love Christian propoganda... let's take a look.

Wow.... that entire article was based around a few inconclusive tests on the rocks in the Grand Canyon.

Gosh... that TOTALLY convinces me of young earth creationism!!

By the way, Institute for Creation Research? Could you possibly find any source that is MORE biased?........ I doubt it.

Answer 5

you need to read the actual article, they do not present evidence for a "young earth planet", they just present data that show varying ages for samples of the same strata

Answer 6

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Doesn't say how long ago or how long it took.

The only data that matta, God's Word.

Answer 7

i cant believe people like you still exist. i hope you are 12 years old or younger at most. or maybe you lived in a little tribe in the amazon. otherwise stupidity like yours should not be tolerated and you should be removed from modern society.

Answer 8

More bogus information from ignorant people that don't have the first clue about the scientific method.

Answer 9

Sure, but that proves nothing of the kind!

Answer 10

is that peer reviewed?

edit: no, mine was a question. which you didn't answer.

edit: thumbs down? why be afraid of peer review if it's valid science?