Evolutionist, what do you think about this video on the earths age?

Question

Is it really milliions/billions of years old really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YkfUkW5-A

I understand if you choose not to view this but please don't comment if you don't.
†

Answer 1

There is plenty of evidence AGAINST EVOLUTION:.

First, the 'Cambrian explosion'...... the millions of fossil types in Cambrian rock (oldest fossil bearing rocks) appear suddenly and fully formed and without any previous forms...IOW, there are no transitional forms.

Most well educated evolutionists, when forced to, will admit it, but very unwillingly, and even then they always want to seem to make new excuses for it. Usually they just don't say anything about it and hope noone finds out.
....
It is amazing to me that those who push evolution theory so vehemently don't even know what most evolutionary scientists have said about the fossil record....

Even Charles Darwin was honest when he confesses in 'Origin of Species'; " But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" -Charles Darwin

To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree...." New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change". - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22)

"The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the 'trade secret' of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagarms) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13)

The thing to remember is that evolution is still just a theory - a hypothesis, a speculation, an unproven assumption, and certainly is NOT supported by the fossil record.

According to Scripture NOTHING evolved but everything was created "AFTER THEIR KIND"....which is directly consistent with the fossil record.

Answer 2

I watched. EVERY SINGLE ONE of his arguments are horribly filled with holes.

o Saturn's rings are not as old as the solar system
o The asteroids are constantly 'stirred' by Jupiter
o Trees - especially petrified ones, don't necessarily lie down when they die. The may leave stumps projecting through the strata
o The change in the earth's magnetic field is not linear over billions of year. In fact it flips poles every 100,000 years or so.

Which is, by the way, one of the many 'clocks that show the age of the planet: the mid-oceanic spreading ridges have bands of alternating magnetic fields, according to the planet's poles at the time they were laid down. And there are LOTS of these bands.

o The Mississippi is also a great deal younger than the Earth - as is the sea into which it empties. All the continents were joined ages ago.
o His silly figures for 'DNA forming by chance' may well be true - BUT THAT'S NOT HOW DNA FORMED. Look up abiogenesis and get a clue.

In short, utter, worthless nonsense propaganda.

CD

Answer 3

All this is, is a non-scientist talking about things he does not understand to an audience which doesn't understand those things either. He repeats creationist lies that have been discredited to the point that 'Answers In Genesis' even tells creationists not to use those arguments anymore. His so-called scientific facts are other than factual, but he is aware that his core audience will merely nod their heads and babble something about how great god is. In brief, it's utter drivel.
The earth's age is what the scientific evidence shows it to be. Numerous pieces of evidence corroborate this in different ways, and all come up with the same answer - around 4.5 billion years. You really ought to start facing reality, instead of denying it in favor of an outmoded concept of biblical inerrancy. Just because parts of the bible are not LITERALLY true, does not mean there is no truth in the bible. You just have to put forth a bit more mental effort to find it, something fundamentalists have been avoiding forever.

Answer 4

I think the video is awfully bad. Numbers are tossed that have no actual relation to what's being talked about - at least not if, unlike Creationist Charly, you've also heared of plate tectonics and geology: No *real* scientist ever claimed that the Mississippi river has been steadily running it's current course for four billion years.

Also, every *real* scientist knows that current level of helium enrichment of the atmosphere is largely man-made with modern technology as oppose to a natural occurence and can't just be extrapolated back in time like that.

Furthermore, every *real* scientist has heared of magnetic field variations and reversals (including empirical evidence for the latter) and thus won't assume it's been decaying at a steady rate for billions of years.

A *real* scientist would know it's generally referred to as Poynting-Robertson Effect, with a mere many hundreds Google hits as opposed to the whopping twelve Creationist Charly's Robertson-Poynting effect will get.
A *real* scientist would also not be stuck in so simplicistic a world view as to assume all dust starts at the same distance from sun and that there's no new dust created by any processes.

Charly is not a real scientist. He depends on you to be too blindly faithful to question whether he's actually refuting science or whether he's merely tossing random numbers and terms that you will be too ignorantly lazy to actually concern yourself with.

Oh, by the way: There's *real* creationist scientists out there, too. One notable difference between them and Charly is they know what they're talking about; the other is that unlike Charly and other fundamentalists, they're willing to accept the bible might be full of metaphors (not just in those places where Jesus Christ specifically states so!) and don't see a need to be hell bent on "prooving" Earth is under 10,000 years old. The last one is they tend to get along just nicely with most of us non-creationists.

I just wonder if there was any point to my taking the time for this... but I guess not. You wouldn't have even posted this if you could be cured of Charly fandom.

Answer 5

Can't get video - I'm on dial-up. E-mail me and explain the theories in words, please. Then I'll answer.

Oi you! The one underneath me! Fossilisation only occurs in the event of a cataclysm which suddenly buries a life form. You and me probably won't get fossilised. THAT'S why the fossil record is incomplete. It's snapshots throughout the history of the earth. What ended the Cambrian period was a global cataclysm.

As for transitional forms, everything's a transitional form. How about the gradual emergence of bird-style hips in bipedal dinosaurs, which eventually evolved into birds?

Quoting scripture? That's REALLY going to have an effect. How much did the bloke who wrote the scripture know?

Answer 6

I watched part of the video. Really did need to watch the whole thing. Nothing he said had anything to do with dating the earth. It is all a bunch of double talk.
We can date the earth by dating the earth. Radiometric dating (very accurate) puts the earth at around 4.5Billion years old.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Have a look at the web sites above. Lots of info on the age of the earth and evolution

Answer 7

Complete rubbish, just like this question. I am absolutely disgusted that you would post such a horrendously idiotic and ignorant (not rude, but lacking knowledge) video.

Nothing makes me angrier than seeing some pathetically weak and feeble attempt to use this garbage 'science' against real scientific evidence. Like so many other young earth believers, you are more than willing to use this garbage 'science' to refute evolutionist theory and other real scientifically accepted ideas... and yet will not consider the scientific evidence in favor of those legitimate scientific ideas.

It makes you look nothing short of a complete moron.

Answer 8

The earth is undoubtedly billions of years old. The physics that support this are the exact same physics that allow the sun to burn, and nuclear reactions to take place. The ignorant Christians who try to convince people that radiometric dating is inaccurate do nothing but cherry pick specific inconsistencies to try and support their swiss cheese arguments. When applied properly, radiometric dating is quite accurate, and can easily be verified by multiple, independent test methods. Of course, the fundies never mention this.

Answer 9

Yeah it is. No clue what the video is on since I can't view Youtube at work. Feel free to research Radiometric dating.

Here is a link to a Christian site with info on it:


http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

Answer 10

look at this video. Some guy is correcting all the stuff that the person is saying in the video that the question is asking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QneFUaAGn3M

Answer 11

you do realize that it is entirely possible (and actually probable) that some planets are older than others right?

this guy tries to claim that if the earth is so many years old, then everything else in the entire universe must be the same age. we know for a fact that this isn't true. different bodies formed at different times.

and what's that crap about no transitional fossils? we have THOUSANDS of transitional fossils. this guy is a freaking idiot.

this isn't science. it's creationist mumbo-jumbo.