What is some evidence pointing to "young earth"?

Question

Serious answers only, please.

Answer 1

I am not a scientist, but there are men who are scientists who accept the creation account in Genesis as fact. Here are a couple of their websites that can be checked out and see/read their evidence: http://icr.org/ http://www.answersingenesis.org/ http://www.christiananswers.net/ http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton’s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.
Newton’s atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. ‘My! What an exquisite thing this is!’ he exclaimed. ‘Who made it?’ Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, ‘Nobody.’
Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: ‘Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. ‘Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has.’ ‘You must think I am a fool!’ the visitor retorted heatedly, ‘Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is.’
Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?’

Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story (from the book: ‘The Truth: God or evolution?’ by Marshall and Sandra Hall, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI)

Answer 2

I wasn't mindful that folks are being born with out knowledge enamel..... are you definite? Well, they don't seem to be born with them however they develop in later. The appendix honestly does have a role..... they're simply now finding it. Though they consider the long-established role used to be distinctive, this occurs in evolution wherein an organ takes on yet another undertaking someplace alongside the way in which. I do not consider the dwindling of pink heads counts as an evolutionary difference..... a minimum of now not till the ones rattling gingers are all long past! Until then this can be a dwindling that may re-emerge...... so not anything is relatively distinctive besides the quantity within the gene pool. It does not depend till it's long past fully IMO. Humans are becoming fatter, however best since we devour extra and do much less..... thats now not evolution that's elementary chemistry. Calories cross in, no energy cross out manner you get fats. You might stuff a dinosaur filled with different dinosaurs and watch it get fats..... that is not evolution, thats laziness and gluttony. One factor that's fascinating is that the human mind on typical is getting higher. Studying the cranium of a human from ten thousand years in the past and from at present their is a mild broaden in cranium measurement..... which equates to mind measurement.....which equates to mind. I individually suppose that intelligence is now a genetic drawback (shrewd folks have much less youngsters then dumb folks on typical), so this fashion will opposite...... however its nonetheless fascinating.

Answer 3

The Earth is not young. It is several billion years old.

Oh, and the fact that the oldest trees are a certain age does not even come close to being evidence of the Earth's age.

Answer 4

There are no creditable evidence that point to a young earth. But if you still insist that it is and want non-creditable proof then look at the bible.

Answer 5

.
He created all that we know in that short period of time.

What science can't account for is that outside of our limited existence there is something else, where our tangible existence came from.

An artist creation is of a certain age and the media used to create it is from an age before.

He created Adam from dust. Then created Eve from Adam.
No magic or weirdness needed.

Everything on earth was created exactly as Genesis decribes it.

Best wishes,
pup
.

Answer 6

There is absolutely no serious scientific evidence for a 'young earth', quite the contrary.
There is pseudo scientific claptrap with no intelligent foundation which claims a young earth.

Answer 7

In eternity, earth is young in comparism.

Answer 8

Forget radiometric dating,... Ice cores in the arctic and Antarctica can be dated back some 150,000 years in much the same way that trees are dated.

Ice.

150,000 years old.

I rest my case.

Answer 9

The test they use to "prove" evolution in carbon dating has been proven flawed but it's politically incorrect to mention it much! Ever notice how the earth's age keeps getting older and older and older?

Answer 10

desert theory
sun theory
gravitation theory
earth rotation theory

I'd have more time but these come to mind off the top