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

Question

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

Just in cace 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

No, because that sounds like a crackpot idea that a creationist advocate might come up with, and not a genuine question.

Apparently less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism, and that is only in the USA where they are more gullible.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Answer 2

I'll summarize the "proof" in case you can't be bothered to read the whole thing: We can't tell if an outflow is 1 billion years old, or 2 billion years old, therefore it is 6,000 years old.

By his own (implicit) admission, the author firmly believes in the veracity of the Scriptures: his hypothesis is that the Bible is correct then proceeds to adjust his conclusions.

At least, his papers are useful. For example, it is true that different methods of dating will yield different results, sometimes to the point that the results are irreconciliable (e.g., one methods says it cannot be more than 1 million years, the other says it cannot be less than 2 million years).

However, he seems to forget one basic principle: showing that someone else may be wrong is not a proof that you are right.

Having said that, I admit that I would use his data if I were studying lava flows in that region of the planet. I would simply ignore his conclusion which is not based on the data he presents but on the hypothesis that he includes everywhere. I would look for the real reason why two samples, so close together, show such a different age.

But then, that's my way. That's how God made me.

Answer 3

Interesting sleight-of-hand in that argument, to conclude that since analysis shows ages ranging from 1 billion to 2.5 billion years, the assumed age of 6000 years is therefore confirmed.

See the talkorigins link below for a discussion of some of the issues involved. In short, given the methods used, some parts of the samples will reflect the age of the source magma, while others will reflect the age of the lava flow. This is a known effect, and in the right hands can produce information rather than obfuscation.

Of course, the conclusion ignores the numerous results that agree on an age for the Earth of around 4.55 billion years.

Answer 4

If science and religion disagree about a physical fact of nature, then either one or both is wrong. Period. To me, science discovering how everything works, and how it got to be the way it is today doesn't preclude its having being created.

I just get tired of dogma - from BOTH sides of the argument. If the earth is older than 6000 years, then either the Bible was misinterpreted (which is what I believe) or else written down wrong.

And athiests - just because we see how evolution changes organisms, and observe galaxies being formed doesn't mean that it doesn't have a greater power behind it. All you know from experimentation and observation is how it actually works.

The Bible isn't a book about science, so using it to argue for/against science is as irrelevant as arguing about the best way to cook chicken because of the way some chef in a novel cooks it.....

The Catholic Church used the Bible to argue against Galileo that the Earth was the center of the universe, and look what we know now. I don't find this to be a fault with the Bible, but with those using it as an argument.

Use the Bible as a spiritual guide, and don't worry about what truths / theories scientists are coming up with as they observe the universe.

Answer 5

the test are tainted by the conditions that's all-i think my high school said the Rockie mountains were like thirty five millions years old and were a relatively new mountain range if that is factually in concept, blow hole will and always have been a part of change not able fixation to anything-as all things heat eventually either cool or blow up so what was ever blown is now cold and indistinguishable:oceanic inlets on molten eruptions

Answer 6

I question "factual data" that is presented in a forum with a specific hidden agenda (in this case, to promote creationism).
Are the facts presented accepted by the general science community, or just a small group with their own beliefs that may taint their results.

I think it the ultimate hubris (look it up if you don't know the word) that we humans want to limit God's Work in the universe by restricting his Vision to building our small planet in this non-descript part of His universe. His Vision is a lot bigger and eternal than that.

Answer 7

lol...you guys are ridiculous. Unfortunately for the creationists carbon-14 is a natural byproduct of radiactive decay so everything contains it in small amounts...the amounts contained in coal for example vary by geographic location because of the makeup of the surrounding bedrock...if you believe in this other crap so much take the time to go back to school and come up with facts to support it instead of blindy following. you're no better than a sheep that way.

Answer 8

So, let's see, the YOUNGEST the earth can be according to these measurements is 405.1 million years? This is a young earth planet?

But I agree, the USA leads the world in belief in Creationism. Hey, we're free to believe whatever we want!

Answer 9

The age of the earth compared to one Universe revolution is only a drop in a bucket.Let say about one divided by an order of 10^18 seconds is an extreme minute infitessimal fraction of time. And according to the inverse of Einstein time dilation formula the age of the earth could even be extremely be an even shorter time. Whos is going to argue Relativity of time.? Who can prove exactly?Where they there at the begining to scientifically determine it.Only speculation ..speculations.
And our life on earth is so negligle compared to eternal life in Heaven.And it has been scientifically observed that our eartly life is basically short on earth except if you make past 100 years its a little longer.If that is not so who is able to prove other wise?

PS. Creationisn tries to Understand the formation and architecture of the Universe in terms of sequential events as outlined in the "Bereshit" The Genesis Biblical account of Creation.
That is More than any scientist can digest.
We should not be jumping to conclusions about Creationism.A open mind reveals many truths.

Answer 10

The Institute for Creation Research is a false organization made up of roughly equal parts of...

a) People who cling to long-discredited beliefs of their forbears because they are terrified of the present and future realities; and

b) People who are seeking political influence through the now-failing but still widely believed ability of ultraconservatives to influence political systems by appealing to the religious fears of group (a) above on a national scale.

The ICR applies increasingly shrill rhetoric to its unfounded attempts to impose false and unscientific beliefs upon the public mind. None of its ideas is supported by scientific evidence.

All that said, however, it is true that the Earth is young: 4,500,000,000 years YOUNG!!