Evidence that the earth is Young

Evidence that the earth is Young 1

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2217-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young

Rational scientific interpretation and inference lead to the conclusion that the earth is very very old. About 7500 years old.

Dinosaurs and birds were created as distinct kinds and existed simultaneously, not in a linear evolutionary sequence. The concept of dinosaurs evolving into birds is often contested because there is evidence, such as the complexity of avian lung structures and distinct anatomical features, which suggests that birds were a separate creation from the beginning.

Regarding dinosaur bones, the discovery of soft tissue in some dinosaur fossils challenges the notion that these bones are millions of years old. If the bones were as old as claimed, it would be unlikely for soft tissue to be preserved. This points towards a much younger age for these fossils, aligning with a young Earth timeline. Carbon-14 dating is not applicable to dinosaur bones according to mainstream science, but its presence in some fossils raises questions about their age.

The evidence for macroevolution is not as concrete as often portrayed. The fossil record does not show a continuous, gradual change from one kind of organism to another. Instead, it shows a sudden appearance of fully formed species, which aligns more with the idea of separate creations rather than evolutionary transitions.

In discussing homologies and convergent evolution, it's important to consider that similar features in different organisms don't necessarily indicate a common ancestor. They could just as easily signify a common design used by the Creator. The concept of convergent evolution, where different species independently develop similar traits, further supports the idea of a purposeful design rather than random evolutionary processes.

The mechanism of natural selection is observable and real, but it does not lead to new kinds of organisms. It only works with existing genetic information, enabling species to adapt within their kinds. For instance, different dog breeds arise through selection of existing genetic information, but they remain dogs. The development of entirely new structures, like a uterus in mammals, cannot occur by random mutations and natural selection because these mechanisms cannot generate new genetic information.

The concepts of "punctuated equilibrium" and "gradualism" in evolution theory suggest different patterns of change, but neither aligns with the idea of a young Earth or the sudden appearance of fully formed kinds as described in the Genesis account. Punctuated equilibrium, with its rapid bursts of change, and gradualism, with its slow, steady change, both require vast amounts of time, contradicting the young Earth timeframe.

The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is crucial. Microevolution involves small changes within a species, like variations in bird beaks or dog sizes, and is observable and consistent with the Biblical account of creation. Macroevolution, which requires one kind of organism to evolve into a completely different kind, lacks empirical support. The belief that small changes can accumulate to result in a completely new organism over time is not corroborated by observational science. This is a significant distinction, as the kind of change required for macroevolution goes beyond what can be achieved through mere variation within a created kind.

The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at a rate that suggests a young Earth. If the Earth were billions of years old, we would expect the magnetic field to have decayed to a level much weaker than what we observe today. This decay rate aligns more closely with a timeline of thousands of years rather than millions or billions.

The amount of helium in the Earth's atmosphere also points towards a younger Earth. Helium is produced by radioactive decay in the Earth's crust, but it escapes into the atmosphere and eventually into space. If the Earth were billions of years old, we would expect much more helium in the atmosphere than what is currently observed, suggesting a much younger Earth.

The presence of soft tissues in fossils, such as flexible blood vessels, red blood cells, and various proteins, in specimens alleged to be tens of millions of years old, strongly suggests a younger age for these fossils. These biological materials degrade rapidly and their presence in such "old" fossils is more consistent with a young Earth timeframe.

The relatively small amount of sediment on the ocean floors, compared to what would be expected if the Earth were billions of years old, supports a younger Earth. Erosion and river sediment deposition should have deposited much thicker layers on the ocean floor over vast eons.

The rapid rate of erosion of continents contradicts the idea of a very old Earth. At the current rate of erosion, continents would have eroded away many times over if the Earth were billions of years old. This suggests a much younger age for the Earth.

The discovery of carbon-14 in coal, diamonds, and dinosaur bones, all of which are supposed to be millions to billions of years old, is inconsistent with their alleged old ages. Carbon-14 decays so quickly that no measurable amounts should be present in samples older than 100,000 years, yet it is found in these ancient materials.

The human population growth curve is consistent with a recent creation. Starting from a small population, the current number of humans could have been reached in a few thousand years, which aligns with a young Earth model and the Biblical account of human history.

These points are often raised to challenge the claim of an old Earth of billions of years.

The Theological Importance of Recognizing Adam and Eve as Historical Persons.
If you deny a real Adam and a real Eve, many of the doctrines of the Bible (including the gospel) would be inconsistent. On many occasions, New Testament authors connect a historical Adam and Eve to the fundamental doctrine and it makes no sense if Adam and Eve were mythological.
Consider the following passages that refer to a historical Adam and Eve.
Jesus affirms the special creation of Adam and Eve at the beginning (Mark 10:6).
Luke connects Jesus' human lineage to Adam (Luke 3:38).
Jesus links the doctrine of marriage to Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4–6).
Paul connects church doctrine to Adam and Eve (Ephesians 5:30–32).
Paul defends the family order because of Adam and Eve (1 Corinthians 11:8–12).
Paul attributes the origin of sin in the world to Eve (1 Timothy 2:13–14).
Paul also connects death for sin to Adam (Romans 5:12–14).
By connecting to their actual existence and activities, the New Testament overwhelmingly affirms the historicity of Adam and Eve.








- Soft tissue in dinosaurs
- Evidence of Noah's flood ( many ancient civilizations have reports on the great flood )
- Noah's ark found on Mount Ararat
- Mitochondrial DNA
- The faint sun paradox
- Granite which makes up most of the continental crust cannot be formed from a melt state. Deep Time says the earth was molten at the formation of the earth.
- Polonium radiohalos
- the Mayan calendar began on 13 August 3114 B.C. Hindu Kali Yuga calendar began on 18 February 3102 B.C. Hebrew calendar now year 5773. Chinese calendar year 4709 B.C. Civilizations thousands of miles apart, different races, culture, and religions.
- Any oil beyond a few thousand years old would be totally degraded or consumed by hungry microbes 1

There are many lines of scientific evidence for a young earth of just a few thousand years old. Here are just some of the best ones.

1. Radiogenic helium from the Helium Diffusion Dating method far exceeds what should be present in zircon. Given the known thermal history of these sites, helium diffusion rates match YEC predictions exactly, but are off by a factor of 100,000 from old earth predictions.
2. Soft tissue in dinosaur remains. All the decay studies on proteins show they cannot remain intact for more than 1-2 million years, even under the most ideal circumstances. Yet we find intact proteins in soft, stretchy tissue in dinosaur bones that have experienced very sub-optimal conditions such as water, bacteria, freeze-thaw cycles, and summer heat.
3. C-14 in every natural carbon source regardless of supposed age, including coal, dinosaur bone, and diamond. The amount of subterranean radiation that would be necessary to produce this would make these sites very productive uranium deposits.
4. Salt in the ocean. The ocean grows saltier over time because water evaporates while salt does not. Even the most conservative estimates, with the most generous assumptions for long ages, give a maximum age for the oceans of around 60 million years.
5. Cold slabs of continental crust deep in the mantle. At present subduction rates, these slabs should reach thermal equilibrium with the surrounding mantle rocks as quickly as they are subducted, but instead are more than a thousand degrees C cooler.
6. Recession rate of the moon. The moon grows farther away due to tidal friction. The measured rates of recession are not consistent with the proposed age of the earth-moon system.
7. Expansion rates of supernovae remnants are consistent with young earth chronology.
8. Mitochrondrial DNA shows that the most recent female ancestor of all humans lived about 6,000 years ago, and that all humans have since descended from one of three women (Noah's daughters in law). This clock comes straight from measured mutation rates applied to the measured differences in mitochondrial DNA among humans. In other words, unlike the official age given to "Mitochondrial Eve" in the mainstream model, this calculation is based solely on data rather than fudge factors.
9. The earth's crust is literally covered with evidence of a global flood. This includes many separate features such as rapidly buried organisms, ephemeral markings like ripple marks and animal tracks, the huge lateral extent of individual layers (often covering hundreds of square miles and crossing continents), polystrate fossils, lack of erosion between layers, folding of multiple layers together, the predominance of aquatic fossils, sequence of fossils consistent with a flood scenario, and many other lines of evidence. If Genesis did not mention a global flood, then secular geologists would have adopted that as the best explanation of earth history long ago.

Creationism Revisited – 2020 – A Defense of Recent Creation by an Agnostic By James Stroud
https://www.tiptopwebsite.com/files/knightsofgod3.pdf

About radiometric dating:
how do you know radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years? Especially when we find examples of decay rates changing in electrical fields, or in correlation to solar activity? Do you know when the last time the decay of uranium 238 was actually counted? The only way science refutes a young earth is if you assume dozens of assumptions are correct. If even one of them is wrong, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The circular reasoning used to link radiometric dates with the geomagnetic polarity timescale with dendrochronology is just silly. And as far as astronomy goes, nothing beyond the range of parallax can be known for certain, because there is no way to check our assumptions about color and intensity.

- at the current rate of erosion the entire earth would have been eroded flat several times over in the long age model
- the magnetic field has been decaying for as long as we have been measuring it. Using uniformitarian assumptions, back millions of years ago the earth's field would have been so strong as to melt it.
- the moon is receding from the earth Millions of years ago it would have been close enough to have been captured by the earth's gravity
- the rate of salination and desalination of the earth's waters don't match where they should be in long ages
- the human genome is decaying at an approximate rate of 100-300 inheritable mutations per generation. To paraphrase one prominent evolutionary geneticist 'why haven't we gone extinct several times over?
- every single member of the famous 'monkey parade' is classified either as an ape or human. Nothing in between
- living fossils, punctuated equilibrium, stasis, homology, homoplasy, and so on are just-so stories fabricated to explain the data which don't match the evolutionary hypothesis
- magnetic fields in planets which should not have them
- the Cambrian explosion, as mentioned
- soft tissue, proteins, and DNA in over 40 dinosaur bones - not fossils
- c14 (or 14c, depending on how you want it) found in coal, diamonds, and bones, when NONE should exist even if they're 'only' 100,000 years old
- comets (as you mentioned)
- flat gaps (such as between the Hermit Shale and Coconino Sandstone) extend for hundreds of miles, undisturbed by any signs of erosion, animal burrows, etc
- Sloan Sky Survey indicates concentric circles (likely spheres) of galaxies roughly centred on our galaxy
- virtually all of the fossil record has been buried by water-borne sediment in a catastrophic event
- planation surfaces, erosional remnants, water gaps, and many other geological features defy long-age explanations, but are often well-explained with an understanding of global flood dynamics
- radiometric dating has given wildly erroneous ages for rocks of known age, and the SAME rocks tested with different methods have yielded wildly different ages as well
- the MZT (maternal to zygote transition) effectively prevents the child from taking over its own development until a certain stage has been reached. Also, the 'framework' for the 'grandchild' is transferred with similar protection, such that evolution could not possibly work, as changes are required in successive generations. This also applies to plants
- historical records of all European people groups trace their ancestry back to the sons of Noah
- some 400-500 cultures have similar flood stories around the world
- thousands of artifacts, sculptures, carvings, and drawings indicate dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans
- Marco polo describes what sounds a lot like a T-Rex
- Japanese and Hebrew letter forms bear striking resemblances
- ancient Chinese characters support a flood narrative, and a creation account, built right into their letter forms
- the origin of languages is a huge mystery for long-agers, but entirely supports a post-flood dispersion and confusion of languages as described at Babel

If the earth is about 6,000 years old, day 6 is right at the beginning of creation. If it is 4.56 billion years old, the creation of Adam and Eve were right at the end of creation, last few seconds.
And if Adam and Eve were created on the 6th 24 hour day, standing on top of thousands of feet of dead things, including dead hominids, from which Hugh Ross says we descended, death came before sin.
And God called everything He had made very very good at the end of day 6. So He calls millions of years of suffering, cancer, thorns predation, and death, very very good, if the fossil record was laid down before Adam sinned.
Romans 5: 12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world
through one man,
and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience, the many will be made righteous.
Death before sin undercuts the foundation of the gospel itself.

Whether a day means a 12-hour workday, a 24-hour solar day, a period of time, "in David's day", his lifetime or a specific time is demonstrated by the context more clearly in Hebrew than it commonly is in English.
The Hebrew word Yom, day, is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. We know precisely in what sense the word is used everywhere, except, of course, in Genesis 1
Sometimes the word means "time" in the day of the Lord" or "in the day(s) of the Judges" where the word is not plural in Hebrew, the word means "time"
So how do we determine when the word means a literal 24 hour period?
Outside of Genesis 1,
The word is used 410 times with the word day PLUS A NUMBER, and it always means a 24 hour period.
The word Yom is used WITH EVENING AND MORNING 38 times and always means a 24 hour period.
It is used WITH MORNING 23 times and WITH EVENING 23 times and each time it means an ordinary day.
The word day is used WITH THE WORD NIGHT 52 TIMES and each time it means a 24 hour day.
To sum up, outside of Genesis 1, Yom means 24 hours when it is used with a number (six days), whenever the phrase "evening and morning" or "evening" or "morning" is used with yom, and whenever the word is used with the word night.
No one ever questions whether Joshua might have marched around Jericho for 100,000 years or millions of years because day with a number always means a 24 hour period or daylight period.
What if we apply these tests to Genesis 1, we have in Genesis 1: 5, night, evening, morning number, 1:8, evening, morning, number, 1:13, evening morning number, 1:18, evening, morning, number, 1:23, evening morning number, and 1:31, evening morning number. So God's intention is clear.

Lindsay Harold: YEC is definitely defensible on evidential grounds, but it's difficult to make the case to most people because it takes digging into multiple lines of evidence and looking at a cumulative case of which explanation fits the most observations. Both sides have unanswered questions. There's no easy, slam dunk position. It's about weighing the overall case. And it requires understanding the difference between data and interpretation. Most people don't have the patience to learn all that, so they just follow the mainstream consensus and figure that many people couldn't be wrong. Or they just stick to the straightforward Biblical interpretation and figure scientists must be wrong. Few actually study the scientific evidence deep enough to decide on evidential grounds.

Radiocarbon dating is not trustworthy:
Mathematically, you can extrapolate functions backwards, including decay curves. However, that does not mean the time periods you extrapolate into actually happened. I'm a physicist and I have to say that the modern radioactive techniques are ingenious, but they all have assumptions, not the least of which is that "deep time" happened. If there is a recent t=0 for earth history then the dating methods are calculating back into negative time. Mathematically okay, but meaningless.

Some facts to ponder re radiometric dating:
* Mt. Etna – erupted 2100 years ago, but rocks were dated 25 million years ago.  
* Sunset Crater, Northern Arizona – erupted in 1065 AD, but rocks were dated 200,000 years old.  
* Lava flows at Mt. Ngaurhoe, New Zealand – erupted in 1949, 1954, but rocks dated 275,000 yrs old.  
* Hualalai basalt, Hawaii erupted 200 years ago, but rocks were dated 1.4 to 22 million yrs old.  
* Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily, erupted in 1971, but rocks were dated 140,000 to 350,000 yrs old.  
* Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, but rocks were dated up to 2.8 million years old.
What does this say about the accuracy of our dating methods?

Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum The Book of Genesis Dr. , page 73 
One more point needs to be discussed before dealing with the actual six days of creation relative to the Hebrew word for “day,” which is yom. People who want to fit Genesis 1 into evolutionary and geological theories try to claim that the word yom does not have to mean twenty-four hours but could mean a longer period of time, even millions of years. Now it is true that when the word yom is used by itself it could mean a longer period of time (though no example exists where it means millions of years). For example, the Day of Jehovah is a period of seven years. However, whenever the word is used with a number or numeral, it always means twenty-four hours. Throughout Genesis 1, each time the word day is found; it is used with a numeral: day one, day two, etc. This alone shows that the days of Genesis are twenty-four hour days. However, there is more: Not only is the word day followed by a numeral, it is also followed by the phrase evening and morning, and this phrase again limits it to twenty-four hours. Furthermore, the Sabbath law, as given to Israel in the Law of Moses, is based upon the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest. These laws would become meaningless if these were not twenty-four hour days. Finally, with the fourth day, there is the mention of days, years, signs, and seasons, showing that already within Genesis 1 there is the normal system of time in operation. These terms also would become meaningless if these were not normal twenty-four hour days. By itself, Genesis 1:2 says nothing insofar as it being an old earth or a young earth, and the evidence for one or the other must be based on arguments outside this verse. However, the six days of creation were literal twenty-four hour days.
https://libgen.pw/view.php?id=929039

Faulkner, Universe by design, page 101
The first chapter of Genesis tells us that the creation was accomplished in six days, which would seem to contradict the vast periods of time that would be necessary for the big bang and an old earth. Nearly all who are old universe, old-earth creationists respond by appealing to the day-age theory, that the days of creation were vast periods of time. They point out that the Hebrew word for day, yom, can mean a period of time. That claim is true, but an important question is whether this is the intended meaning in Genesis chapter 1. There are compelling reasons that the days of the creation account are meant to be 24-hour days. On the first day of the creation week, light was created and was separated from darkness. God called the dark night and the light He called day. A verse later the text states that there was evening and morning of the first day. There are no verse divisions or punctuation in the Hebrew, but it is very clear from the context that all of the discussion of the first day represents a thought, perhaps equivalent to a paragraph in English. To use a single word with two very different meanings within a thought without clarifying which meaning is intended in either case would be very confusing and thus is sloppy writing. The first use of the word “day” is in the context of daylight and dark, and according to all rules of interpretation, grammar, and style, this is the definition that should be observed in what follows, but especially within that thought.

Each of the days of creation is preceded by an ordinal, or number (first day, second day, etc.). In ancient Hebrew when an ordinal is used with a day, it almost always refers to a 24-hour day. Some proponents of the day-age theory respond to this by pointing out that the only text of ancient Hebrew that we have is the Old Testament, and while that rule may be followed elsewhere in the Bible, is there any guarantee that that rule is indeed a rule of ancient Hebrew? That question can be answered several ways. One is to point out that Scripture must be interpreted with Scripture. If the rule concerning ordinals applies elsewhere, it should apply in the Creation account as well. Second, we do have examples of other ancient, non-Hebrew, Semitic texts, and they apparently follow this rule as well. Third, this is a rule generally followed in all languages. There is nothing mysterious about the Hebrew word yom — it has many of the nuances of our English word day. In English, if one numbers days, it is universally understood that 24-hour days are what is meant.

Exodus 20:11 states “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh.” This was written in the context of the command to observe the Sabbath. It is obvious that the Hebrews’ workweek was six days. If the model that the Hebrews were to follow was the creation week, then it makes no sense that the days were long periods of time. The exegesis of day-age gets a little weird here, for it would lead to the nonsensical statement that first the Lord created in six time periods, and then much later He used this motif when giving the Law to the ancient Hebrews to hold His people to a very strict and literal interpretation of the demands of a seven-day week, but the model upon which it was based is to be taken rather loosely.

This brings us to another objection to the day-age theory. When the modern version of the day-age theory began to be developed in the 19th century, it was hoped that the days of creation could be matched to geological ages. However, when one carefully compares the details of what modern science says about the history of the earth with the biblical creation account, one finds that there are marked differences. For instance, not only were plants created before the sun (the third day as opposed to the fourth day), but also the plants that are specifically mentioned are flowering plants, plants that according to evolution appeared very late, after the time of many of animals created on days 5 and 6. There are many other examples. Given that the events of the six days of creation cannot be matched to the order of events that science professes, the original attempt to match creation days with geologic ages has utterly failed. However, the proponents of the day-age theory press onward anyway. How do these people propose to do this? Hugh Ross, one of the leading proponents of the day-age theory today, has taught that the days of creation overlapped, so that creative acts of single days actually happened over several days. For example, Ross claims that dinosaurs, which as land creatures were created on day 6 according to Genesis, were created on day 5. How did Ross discover this? Unfortunately, not by studying the Bible, but instead by studying science and imposing his preconceptions and conclusion upon the Bible. In the absence of the pronouncements of modern science about origins, it is inconceivable that anyone would come up with such an understanding of the creation account. With such loose rules of interpretation, anything is possible. This sort of Bible exegesis would be viewed as heretical if applied elsewhere, but is ignored here because the alternative would not be palatable to so many.

Rick Swindell  The influx of salt into the oceans from all sources set at its absolute minimum and all possible sources of escape of salt from the ocean set at their absolute maximum give an upper limit to the age of the earth's oceans at 62 million years from a single differential equation, much too little time for evolution. The recession of the moon from the earth is caused by the the tides that the moon pulls along since the earth rotates faster than the moon revolves about the earth. This tidal force pulls on the moon and accelerates it, (when the astronauts want to go up in orbit, they accelerate).  Since this rate of recession is varying constantly, decreasing constantly because the gravitational force is measured as the mass of object 1 times the mass of object 2 times the gravitational constant divided by the radius between the centers of mass squared, the further apart the objects are the smaller the gravitational pull and the less the force between them. If you do the math correctly this puts an upper limit to the amount of time the moon has been moving away from the earth at about 1.4 billion years, at which point it would have fallen into contact with earth.  These are only two of the ways the age of the earth can be measured and there are many others that set much shorter possible upper limits on its age. The question about the age of the earth and the universe is a major reason that naturalists use to justify their rejection of the Bible. They think it contrasts scientific consensus, and geologic dating methods are more relevant and trustworthy than a book written thousands of years ago by sheep herders. It is actually an integral point in the framework of atheistic thinking. Since the bible got it wrong, and the earth cannot be six thousand years old, the entire bible amongst other fairies, like talking snakes, can be rejected - so they think. And remain by it, without looking further if an explanation without a creator makes sense. Even most of the intelligent design people, many of whom I very much respect, believe in ancient earth. But it is apparent to me that they are not reading what the creationist papers are saying. Radiometric dating doesn't work.

It should not work in theory because the assumptions behind it are either known to be false or impossible to know whether they are true or not. A volcano at the top of the Grand canyon dates from its lava flow very close, just a little older, than the age of the basal rocks beneath the Cambrian level, and that by isochron dating repeated 5 times. Rocks that have appeared in human history date 99% of the time in the hundreds of thousands, millions, and even occasionally billions of years. The atheists get angry and say we know radiometric dating does not work for very young rocks.  Why should we trust it for rocks we don't know the age of? We find high levels of carbon 14 in what are supposed to be billion year old diamonds, where the lattice is too strong for contaminants to enter. We find about the same levels of carbon 14 in oil and coal, which are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old. If the entire earth were made of carbon 14 there would not be a single atom of it left after a million years Soft tissue has been found in a great many dinosaur species now, and with several individuals from each of the several species, with proteins that we simply know cannot last for millions of years even under absolutely perfect conditions with respect to temperature and humidity. About 6 of these species, with samples from several individuals, have been carbon 14 dated by the Atlanta lab, the best in the country, and all dated between about 20,000 and 40,000 years. When the lab discovered that the samples they were dating were dinosaur tissue they repudiated their own work. Creationists now have 3 different theories of how light can reach the earth quickly from stars millions of light years away.. One might be right or none, but we know what the Bible says, and God cannot lie. I'm just getting started, but not many will read this much. Refuting Compromise, Dr. Johnathan Sarfati, Creation Answers Book, Genetic Entropy, Dr Johnathan Sanford, inventor of the gene gun, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, Dr. Jason Lisle. Starlight and Time, Dr. Russell Humphreys, the writings of Brian Thomas, specialist in dinosaurs at the Institute for Creation Research.

Charles Gillihan A seven day week was for our instruction to show us to be creative and have dominion over the created order and to cease this work on one day to worship God. An old-earth would not symbolize such.  Foremost is that allowing these days to be long periods of time undermines the foundations of the message of the Cross. If people use Scripture to try to justify that the days of creation are long periods of time, they usually quote passages such as 2 Peter 3:8, “. . . one day is with the Lord as a thousand years . . ..” Because of this, they think the days could be a thousand years, or perhaps even millions of years. However, if you look at the rest of the verse, it says, “. . . and a thousand years as one day“. The word, ‘thousand’ is symbolic. The bible says, ‘the cattle on a thousand hills are the Lord’s’. Psalm 50:10. If we take that literal, who owns the cattle on hill #1001? This particular verse is telling people that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time—He is not limited by natural processes and time. This has absolutely nothing to do with defining the days of creation. Every time the word yom is used with a number, or with the phrase “evening and morning’, anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day. In Genesis chapter 1, for each of the six days of creation, the Hebrew word yom is used with a number and the phrase, “evening and morning’. There is no doubt that the writer is being emphatic that these are ordinary days. 

If you think about it, an infinite Creator God could have created everything in no time. Why, then, did He take as long as six days? The answer is given in Exodus 20:11. Here we find that God tells us that He deliberately took six days and rested for one as a pattern for man—this is where the seven-day week comes from. The seven-day week has no basis for existing except from Scripture. If one believes that the days of creation are long periods of time, then the week becomes meaningless. 
The Bible tells us that Adam was created on the sixth day. If he lived through day six and day seven, and then died when he was 930 years old, and if each of these days was a thousand or a million years, you have major problems! On the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:14-19), we are given the comparison of day to night, and days to years. If the word “day” doesn’t mean an ordinary day, then the comparison of day to night and day to years becomes meaningless.

One evidential fact not comfortable for atheists/evolutionists; the Mayan calendar began on 13 August 3114 B.C. Hindu Kali Yuga calendar began on 18 February 3102 B.C. Hebrew calendar now year 5773. Chinese calendar year 4709 B.C. Civilizations thousands of miles apart, different races, culture, and religions. If the earth is millions of years old, why did calendars wait so long to be formed?

Things are however far from that clear.

Most people go to school to learn a profession, which will permit them to get a decent job, make professional career, be successful financial wise - they grow in terms of professional education - but most remain like little babies in regards of forming a consistent epistemological framework that permits them to make safe conclusions on fundamental questions and aspects of life. Where do we come from, where do we go, what happens when we die, what is the meaning of life, does God exist, which is the right organized religion etc.

Usually, people give little importance to these questions, and go through life, without ever spending time and dedication to scrutinize the various models of thought coming from philosophy, theology, and science.
Most also pre-select, what fits THEIR needs, and adopt their world-view to what pleases them. It's like going to a three-star Michelin restaurant, and select the most tasteful menu. Presuppositionalism at its best.

The quest of the age of the earth is IRRELEVANT to elucidate if God does exist.

Try to infer the age of the earth by the scientific method, is like asking a layman that has very limited understanding about how an airplane is built, to visit a Boeing factory, showing him all the single parts of the airplane, and ask him to imagine how it is built together, and then infer what model the airplane is. It's a daunting task, basically impossible.
It's like you arrive at an archeological site, and find a fraction of the remainings of an artifact, and have to find out what it was. Fact is, many kinds of evidence are not available to us for scrutinize.

- the dating methods seem to presuppose and assume for example what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed. And then, depending on the assumptions made, obtain any date.
- we do not know how long soft tissue like collagen can remain preserved.
- old earthers visit the Grand Canyon and think it provides hints to millions of years of sediment deposits
- young earthers visit it and think the opposite
- some old bones are found in Somalia, and some say they are apes, others argue they are our ancestors.

So that leaves ALWAYS room for speculation, and the " I am right " vs " no. I am right " kind of debates usually provide just frustration and mutual accusations, without changing the mind of anybody.
i remain without any conclusion based on science about the age of the earth. But based on what the bible tells me, as a matter of faith, I believe the earth is young.
The only reason I approach the issue from time to time is to advance my understanding of specific issues, but I don't think during my lifetime evidence will emerge, which will permit to make informed conclusions based on a clear picture. Fortunately, there are other topics of origins, where the situation is crystal clear like water from Swiss mountains.

The first question I ask when an atheist ridicules a young earth interpretation is if he has an education in geology and dating methods. If he doesn't ( which is 99,9% the case ), I deduce he is a gullible parrot that bases his position on blind faith, on hearsay, and based on that, he thinks he has a basis to make fun of others position.

Dr. T. J. Tofflemire EVIDENCES FOR GOD AND HIS CREATIONS: NATURE, THE FLOOD, AND THE BIBLE,  page 16
Mortenson noted the following in Chap 14 of his book Coming to Grips With Genesis, “Luther, Calvin and Wesley on the Genesis of Natural Evil.” by T. Ury: The 3 founders above held Genesis 1-11 as real history and the flood as global and catastrophic(p.401). Wesley wrote about the 6 day creation, and also affirmed the flood as 1656 yrs. from the creation. Also Anglican bishop Hugh Latimer held this view. This was based on careful exegesis of the scriptures. Hall claimed in Chap. 2 of Mortenson (D. Hall p.53) that the reformation church fathers held to a 6 day creation. Also Thomas Horn, an Anglican, did a lengthy three volumes titled “Introduction to the critical Study of the Holy Scriptures” in 1818. A condensed version published in 1827 that was widely used in seminaries and also held this view. It was only after the scientific opinion shifted in the late 19th century, that other long age positions developed to accommodate a scientific view. Hall’s write up covers 25 pages and 116 references in tracing the history of creation from Luther to Lyell. Dr. Morris(2007 p.26-32) notes that most of the other theological views of creation with long ages became popular after the theories of uniformitarianism and evolution became dominant; they are an attempt to make the Bible fit science. Snelling(p.186,479), in the section on geology, traces the history of these theories and how Lyell had a prior agenda to be rid of biblical geology and flood catastrophes. Lyell issued a false report on the erosion rate of Niagara Falls, which when corrected, fits better with biblical timelines (web 58).

Coming to grips with Genesis, Terry Mortenson, page 33
The important early North African Trinitarian theologian Tertullian (A.D. 115–222) asserted that the “whole orb” was “overrun by all waters.” His proof was that “To this day marine conchs and tritons’ horns sojourn as foreigners on the mountains, eager to prove to Plato that even the heights have undulated.”82 Tertullian also referred to the deluge as “that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things.”83
Tertulliam, On the Apparel of Women 1.3, in ANF, vol. 4.

Gregory of Nazianzus (A.D. 329–389) was a Bishop of Constantinople (380–381) and one of the anti-Arian “Three Great Cappadocian” theologians. Gregory pointed to Noah as having been “entrusted with the saving of the whole world from the waters” and as having “escaped the Deluge in a small Ark.”84 And the great western theologian Augustine climaxed the fathers’ affirmation that the Noachian Flood was worldwide. Augustine argued against an exclusively allegorical interpretation by asserting that the Flood was “so great” that its waters rose “fifteen cubits above the highest mountains.”85 Further evidence of the fathers’ consistency of the worldwide Flood view is given by Young, who relates that Procopius of Gaza (c. A.D. 465–528) in his Commentary on Genesis and Pseudo-Eustathius (n.d.) in his Commentary on Hexaemeron argue for the worldwide extent of the Flood by recalling that
marine remains (e.g., shells, various types of fish) had been found on high mountains. Pseudo- Eustathius claimed that the fish must have been “gathered together in the caves of the mountains when they were caught in the mud.” Young notes that Pseudo-Justin (probably Theodoret of Cyrus — c. 393–466) was the only extant father to suggest the possibility of a local Flood.86

It now appears that the history of post-1800 exegesis is much like that: it has dodged one theoretical toss or thrust after another. In the process, these evolving-to-fit-current-theory views have become so contorted or mutated that the historic view is no longer recognizable. However, once realized, that should be a methodology to avoid.116


Genesis 1 and 2–3 as complementary accounts of the creation week
Biblical scholars often separate Genesis 1 from chapters 2–3, which actually begin at 2:4. The two accounts of creation are said to have come from different sources, but whatever original sources might have been used for these chapters by the editor of the text we have, they are now side-byside in the final form of Genesis, and are evidently expected to be interpreted in light of one another.

Traditionally, chapter 2 was understood by the rabbis to be a recapitulation of the sixth day of creation from chapter 1, in greater detail. The two chapters are tied together by 2:4, the first of ten editorial headings throughout Genesis. This poetic couplet introduces what follows as:  “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created // in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.” This is not contradicting chapter 1 and saying that God made the world in one day rather than in seven. Rather, “the day” when earth and heaven were made, refers most naturally to one specific day from among the seven, and clearly not the final day when God rested from creating. The sixth day in Genesis 1 the only day of creation which is said to be “the day” (1:31), rather than “a day” – “a fifth day” – for all the others. The sixth day is also referred to using very similar language in 5:1-2, and the events of Genesis 2 closely reflect those of the sixth day in chapter 1 – the creation of man, woman and animals.

Some, however, object to seeing Genesis 2 as a retelling of the sixth day, pointing to contradictions between the two accounts: Genesis 1:11-12 puts the creation of vegetation on Day Three, but 2:5 suggests a lack of plants before man’s creation. Genesis 1:24-27 has animals created before man on Day Six, but in 2:18-19, God creates them after declaring man to be lonely. Genesis 1:20-23 clearly states that fish and birds were created on Day Five, but chapter 2 equally clearly says that birds were created along with the animals after man’s creation. As a fourth point, some also find internal contradiction within chapter 1, where light is created on Day One, before the creation of sun, moon and stars on Day Four. Do these four points prove that Genesis 1–3 was not intended to be read as a coherent story of the week of creation?

In fact, these supposed contradictions were explained by careful readers long before even the rabbis. First, cultivated crops (“plants of the field”) as a distinct sub-category of vegetation (2:5; 3:18) were logically not created until after the man able to cultivate them, and similarly spiny desert shrubs growing “in the field” were a consequence of human sin according to chapter 3,23 even though other plants had existed on earth since the third day of creation. Second, Day Six in Genesis 1 records that mankind, male and female, was created after the animals. This is consistent with chapter 2, where ‘mankind’ was completed with Eve’s creation, after the animals were made. A resolution to the third and fourth problems of the creation of birds and of light can be found in Psalm 104 – perhaps the earliest clear interpretation of Genesis 1–3 in its current form.

Contrary to what we've been told over and over by the mass media and the modern scientific establishment there are numerous Geophysical and astronomical plots which points to a young age for the earth solar system and the universe in fact such young indicators are actually in the majority but because the scientific establishment and the media are biased against a creator and because evolution requires an older to appear even plausible the public at large is rarely told about a mounting evidence that contradicts the believing and older and the many holes and evolution the scientific evidence actually points to a younger it is about 6,000 years old which would support the interpretation of six literal 24-hour days of Genesis creation as recorded in the Bible. 

We are looking at the same fossils we are looking at the same layers of sediments we are looking at the same radiographic dating of rocks no one disputes the facts the difference comes from how these facts are interpreted because no one was there to see what happened we cannot directly observe and measure history we must look at what we have in the present and follow that evidence to wherever it leads us and evidence for younger or outweighed billions of years while there are many many evidences for our young as along with the 5 evidences that the earth is about 6,000 years old and not billion but I encourage you to look more into this as well the oldest living tree on earth is either an Irish oak or a Bristlecone pine if we assume a growth rate of one crewing per year then the oldest trees are between four thousand five hundred and four thousand eight hundred years old the fact that these trees are still alive and growing all there means that we don't yet know how old they will get before they die it also strongly suggests that something happened around four thousand five hundred to four thousand eight hundred years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth in per year which would shorten these estimated ages also with regard to fossil earrings

I have been unable to find any documented instance of fossil trees that be more than about 1,500 dreams this is significant since we are told that God literally made the earth and all that is in it only about 1800 years before Noah  so I described in the book of Genesis the Earth's magnetic field is decaying into rages about 5% every 100 years this means that about 1450 years ago it was sliced as strong as it is today and two thousand nine hundred years ago it was four times as strong thereforassuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent force then only 10,000 years ago the Earth's magnetic field was 128 times as strong as it is today so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on earth at the very least this data suggested that life on Earth is not much older than about 10,000 years which fits in perfectly with the Bible and the young earth the fact that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying is well-documented this was brought out by a recent Nova special in fact at the present rate of decay the earth may not even have a magnetic field in 1,000 years from now and although the Nova special suggested that this may simply mean that the earth is getting ready for another reversal this still does not explain the implications of no life on Earth 

Only 10,000 years ago carbon-14 is produced in radiation from the Sun strikes nitrogen-14 atoms in the Earth's upper atmosphere the Earth's atmosphere is not yet saturated with c14 this means that amount of c14 being produced is greater than the amount that it is decaying back to n 14 it is estimated at a state of equilibrium would be reaching as little as thirty thousand years thus it appears that Earth's atmosphere is less than 30 thousand years old in fact the evidence suggest is less than ten thousand years because it has not yet reached equilibrium and also carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidences for creation and the young earth

Radiocarbon cannot remain naturally in substances for millions of years because it decays relatively rapidly for this reason it can only be used to obtain ages in the range of tens of thousands of years scientists from the RIT II project examined diamonds that evolution is considered to be 1 to 2 billion years old and related to earth early history diamonds are the hardest known substance and extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange yet the RIT II scientists discovered significantly detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds getting them to thousands of years

The gravitational pull of the moon creates a tidal bulge on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly because of this effect the moon would have been closer to the earth in the fall based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time if the earth is only 6,000 years old there is no problem because in that time the moon would have moved about 800 feet or 250 meters but most astronomy books teach that the moon is over 4 billion years old which poses a major dilemma less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth 

Today the Earth's population doubles every 50 years if we assume only half of the current growth rate and start with just one couple it will take less than four thousand years to achieve today's population a biblical age of the earth about six thousand years is consistent with the numbers yielded by such a calculation in contrast even a conservative evolutionary age of fifty thousand years comes out to staggering impossibly high figure of thing to the 99th power greater than the number of atoms in the universe clearly the claim that humans have inhabited the earth for chains or hundreds of thousands of years is absurd four thousand years after Noah's Flood puts perfectly

These are just a few of many more such as the agriculture is two reasons comets that disintegrated quickly and can't last more than 10,000 years oil that is still under pressure although after about ten thousand years little to no pictures should be left also the Sun is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour that 11 million 200,000 years ago the Sun would have physically touched the earth and yet they claimed the Sun is billions of years old also in recent years there have been many findings of wondrously preserved biological material is supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils one such discovery that is less evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus Rex firmer with flexible connective tissue branching blood vessels and even insect cells according to proponents of evolution these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way and likely none possible or biological material to last more than thousands of years could it be that evolutionists are completely wrong about how recent these dinosaurs lived the biblical account of the age of the universe is well in accordance with the evidence God's Word is true and he created everything in six 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago but I encourage you to look more into this as well I will leave links in the description including 101 evidences the young thanks for watching guys may you all have a blessed day

the breakdown of the various calendars falling into the Biblical timeline.
" the Mayan calendar began on 13 August 3114 B.C.
Hindu Kali Yuga calendar began on 18 February 3102 B.C.
Hebrew calendar now year 5773.
Chinese calendar year 4709 B.C.
Civilizations thousands of miles apart, different races, culture, and religions....

From Adam to Jesus was a total of 4,000 years. Below is the Biblical chronology of this.
* Adam to Seth 130 yrs (Genesis 5:3) *
* Seth to Enos . 105 yrs (Genesis 5:6) *
* Enos to Cainan . 90 yrs (Genesis 5:9)
* Cainan to Mahalaleel.. 70 yrs (Genesis 5:12)
* Mahalaleel to Jared 65 yrs (Genesis 5:15)
* Jared to Enoch . 162 yrs (Genesis 5:18 )
* Enoch to Methuselah.. 65 yrs (Genesis 5:21)
* Methuselah to Lamech.. 187 yrs(Genesis 5:25)
* Lamech to Noah 182 yrs (Genesis 5:28-29)
* Noah to the Flood. 600 yrs (Genesis 7:6)
* Flood to Arphaxad . 2 yrs (Genesis 11:10)
* Arphaxad to Salah. 35 yrs (Genesis 11:12)
* Salah to Ebe... 30 yrs (Genesis 11:14)
* Eber to Peleg .. 34 yrs (Genesis 11:16) Peleg to Reu . 30 yrs (Genesis 11:18 ) *
* Reu to Serug 32 yrs (Genesis 11:20)
* Serug to Nahor . 30 yrs (Genesis 11:22)
* Nahor to Terah 29 yrs (Genesis 11:24)
* Terah to Abraham ... 70 yrs (Genesis 11:26)
* Adam to Abraham..... 1948 yrs (This same geneology is in Luke 3:34-38) Abraham to Isaac ... 100 yrs (Genesis 21:5) *
* Isaac to Jacob .... 60 yrs (Genesis 25:26) *
* Jacob to Egypt .. 130 yrs (Genesis 47:28)
* Abraham to Egypt 290 yrs *
From Egypt to Exodus ........ X yrs Jacob and his family went to Egypt Jacob went to Egypt (Genesis 46:8,11) Levi went to Egypt (Jacob's son) (Genesis 46:8,11)
Kohath went to Egypt (Levi's son) (Genesis 46:8,11) Kohath had a son named Amram (Exodus 6:18)
Amram had a son named Moses (Exodus 6:20) --- Moses to the Exodus ..... 80 yrs (Exodus 7:7) Acts 7:21-23, 29-30) From Egypt to Exodus: X = (Kohath to Amram to Moses ) In Wilderness ..... 40 yrs (Numbers 32:13, Deuteronomy 2:7, 29:5 *
* Wilderness to death Joshua ... 30 yrs (Joshua 14:7,10, 24:29)
Exodus to death Joshua 70 yrs PERIOD OF THE JUDGES Under King Cushanrishathaim .. 8 yrs (Judges 3:8 )
* Under Othniel .. 40 yrs (Judges 3:10-11) Under King Eglon.. 18 yrs (Judges 3:14)
* Under Ehud .. 80 yrs (Judges 3:15,30) Under King Jabid . 20 yrs (Judges 4:1-3) Under Debora.. 40 yrs (Judges 4:4, 5:31) * * Under Midianites ... 7 yrs (Judges 6:1)* Under Gideon... 40 yrs (Judges 6:7, 8:22,28 ) * * Under Abimelech ..... 3 yrs (Judges 8:32-35, 9:22) * Under Tola .... 23 yrs (Judges 10:1-2) * Under Jair..... 22 yrs (Judges 10:3)
* Under Ammonites..... 18 yrs (Judges 10:5-8 )
* Under Jephthah....... 6 yrs (Judges 12:7)
* Under Ibza.... 7 yrs (Judges 12:8-9)
* Under Elon .... 10 yrs (Judges 12:11)
* Under Abdon ...... 8 yrs (Judges 12:13-14)
* Under Philistines..... 40 yrs (Judges 13:1)
* Under Samson......... 20 yrs (Judges 13:24, 15:20, * 16:30-31)
Under Eli/Samuel ..... 40 yrs (I Samuel 4:15,18, *
* 7:15, 8:1,4-7,19-22, 9:1-2)
* Judges to Samuel 450 yrs (Acts 13:20) * THE KINGS OF JUDAh
* Under King Saul .... 40 yrs (Acts 13:21) *
* Under King David .... 40 yrs (I Chron 29:26-27) *
* Under King Solomon .... 40 yrs (I Kings 11:42-43) *
* Under King Rehoboam .... 17 yrs (I Kings 14:21) *
* Under King Abijam .... 3 yrs (I Kings 14:31,15:1-2)*
* Under King Asa ..... 41 yrs (I Kings 15:8-10) *
* Under King Jehoshaphat ....... 25 yrs (I Kings 22:41-42,50) *
* Under King Jehoram ... 8 yrs (II Chron 21:5) *
* Under King Ahaziah .... 1 yr (II Chron. 22:1-2) *
* Under Queen Athaliah .... 6 yrs (II Chron. 22:10-12) *
* Under King Joash ..... 40 yrs (II Chron. 23:13,15, *
* 24:1) *
* Under King Amaziah .. 29 yrs (II Chron. 25:1) *
* Under Uzziah ....... 52 yrs (II Chron. 26:3) *
* Under Jotham .......... 16 yrs (II Chron. 27:1) *
* Under Ahaz ........... 16 yrs (II Chron. 28:1) *
* Under Hezekiah ....... 29 yrs (II Chron. 29:1) *
* Under Manasseh ............... 55 yrs (II Chron. 33:1) *
* Under Amon ................... 2 yrs (II Chron. 33:20-21) *
* Under King Josiah ............ 31 yrs (II Chron. 34:1) *
* Under King Jehoahaz ..... 3 mon (II Chron. 36:1-2) *
* Under King Jehoiakim ........ 11 yrs (II Chron. 36:3-7) *
* Under King Jehoiachin ... 3 mon (II Chron. 36:9) *
* Under King Zedekiah ... 11 yrs (II Chron. 36:11-21) * KINGS OF JUDAH 513 yrs * SUMMARY OF THE TIME FROM ADAM TO JESUS Adam to Abraham..... 1948 yrs
Abraham to Egypt ................. 290 yrs
From Egypt to Moses: (X) Let X = 63 63 yrs * X = (Kohath to Amram to Moses) Moses to the Exodus..... 80 yrs
* Exodus to death Joshua ....70 yrs
Judges to Samuel .. 450 yrs (Acts 13:20) *
* Kings of Judah ................... 513 yrs Babylonian Captivity ............. 586 B.C.E. Adam to Jesus 4000 yrs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq6kUbLzYCc&feature=youtu.be



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QpE8mtRb1A&fbclid=IwAR1mnsggObdkRZXIDK8kSlI7KNFloC9WvhPFgMi81z_0I99WbcKlKudFy8o


Level 3
Zircon-Lead Ratios
Atmospheric Carbon
Earth's Magnetic Field
Amino Acid Racemization
Lunar Radioactive Heat
Zircon-Helium Ratios
Argon Diffusion
Coral Reefs
Ocean Salt
Lunar Gases
Lunar Isotopes
Lunar Phenomena
The Receding Moon
The Mississippi River
Mitochondrial DNA
The Cooling Earth
Ocean Sediments
Fossils Form Quickly
Atmospheric Oxygen
Organic Material in Fossils
Ocean Minerals
Dendrochronology
Earth's Slowing Rotation
Mountain Uplift Rate
Mutation Load
Fossil DNA
Fossils
Level 2
Planetary Diversity
Atmospheric Helium
Stone Age Skeletons
The Niagara River
Polystrate Fossils
Dead Sea Salt
Bent Strata
Meteorites
Topsoil
Level 1
Ocean Erosion
Continental Erosion
Missing Drainage Systems
The Oldest Recorded Date
Population Growth
Oil Seepage
Oil Pressure
Volcanoes



How does radiometric dating deceive so many? OEC's bought a shell game. There are 9 basic assumptions to radiometric dating, and it is inevitable that dating ranges get cherry-picked. fast releasing isotopes get skipped over before exhaustion.

1.  https://libgen.pw/view.php?id=929039
1. http://straightforward.wikidot.com/young-earth-evidence
2. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/PIbvWK5JL5U/y8jFrGkVzBAJ
http://kgov.com/list-of-not-so-old-things

A Brief Earth History
a survey of earth's geology through time and its possible causes
by Barry Setterfield
http://www.setterfield.org/earlyhist.html

The Seven Days of Creation in Ancient Israelite Thought
http://otsem.blogs.uni-hamburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Patrick_Oxford_Seven-Days-of-Creation_Paper.pdf

Here are 18 evidences from various fields of science. See creation.com/age for 101 evidences (literally!).
https://creation.com/young-universe-evidence
Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is much younger.3
The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly harmful mutations added each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago.4
Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels and proteins are not consistent with their supposed age, but make more sense if the fossils are young.5
Thick, tightly bent rock strata with no signs of melting or fracturing. These wipe out hundreds of millions of years of time and are consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood.6
Polystrate fossils—for example, broken vertical tree trunks in northern and southern hemisphere coal that traverse many strata indicate rapid burial and accumulation of the organic material that became coal, eliminating many millions of years.7
Flat gaps—where one rock layer sits on another rock layer but with supposedly millions of years of time missing, yet the contact plane lacks significant erosion. E.g. Redwall Limestone / Tapeats Sandstone in the Grand Canyon (more than a 100 million year gap).8
The amount of salt in the world’s oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age consistent with its formation after Noah’s Flood.9
Erosion at Niagara Falls and similar places is consistent with a few thousand years since the Flood.10
Measured rates of stalactite and stalagmite growth in limestone caves are consistent with an age of several thousand years.11
Carbon-14 in all coal suggests that the coal is only thousands of years old.12
The amount of helium, a product of decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years.13
The amount of lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones is similar. But there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the long ages supposed. If the ages are only thousands of years, this would explain the similarity.14
Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth’s moon contradicts the supposed vast age—it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old.15
Presence of magnetic fields on Uranus and Neptune, which should be “dead” according to evolutionary long-age beliefs. Assuming a solar system age of thousands of years, physicist Russell Humphreys accurately predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune.16
Methane on Titan, Saturn’s largest moon—it should all be gone in just 10,000 years because of UV-induced breakdown to ethane. And the large quantities of ethane are not there either.17
Speedy stars are consistent with a young age for the universe. For example, many stars in the dwarf galaxies in the Local Group are moving away from each other at speeds of 10–12 km/s. At these speeds, the stars should have dispersed in 100 million years, which, compared with the supposed 14 billion-year age of the universe, is a short time.18
Spiral structure in galaxies should be lost in much less than 200 million years. This is inconsistent with their claimed age of many billions of years. The discovery of ‘young’ spiral galaxies highlights the problem of the assumed evolutionary ages.19
The existence of short-period comets (orbits of less than 200 years), is consistent with an age of the solar system of less than 10,000 years.20

1) Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder has an old Earth time dilation model that harmonizes the 6 literal days of creation with a 14 billion year old Universe (see: http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=53 ). If you are determined to read Genesis 1 concordantly and are willing to go so far as to postulate time dilation to make everything work out, why not at least pick the cosmological model that better matches up with our current understanding of physics?
2) If you are willing to think outside the box and read the text non-concordantly, the Framework Hypothesis is very compelling and a beautiful way to read Genesis 1: https://www.opc.org/OS/html/V9/1c.html



https://www.tiptopwebsite.com/files/knightsofgod3.pdf

Six Biological Evidences for a Young Earth
https://www.icr.org/article/six-biological-evidences-for-a-young-earth/

Evidence for a Young Earth and Creation
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-vs-evolution/evidence-for-young-earth-creation/?fbclid=IwAR1qAEh9RQkveK6mdFmdypLV6fxCfFlKTXgS6TY1VzzPuF_L2XpAUuYtGZM

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN APPARENT AGE AND MATURE CREATION
https://thecreationclub.com/distinguishing-between-apparent-age-and-mature-creation/?fbclid=IwAR2feIU0_RQ6Pk0iaiq08ruOR5nF3l4CUTCemjQDV0cedsxf5FSFtEXz3Rs

Six Evidences of a Young Earth
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/?fbclid=IwAR3Qgy3Y2KYzWRW1Hp7piUOYDHwN8LrOqjeOOL3yKU7Dxz4Tg7IJQCcJGf0

A 6000 year old universe! Who Says? Who Cares? Jim Mason PhD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkJxn4PPalc&fbclid=IwAR3Sx91YGbgjDWr6BIXjHGgpyCCw_rCtIsNuqKCb2Pjm_dSXDuypItYa6zw

Our Created Solar System - What You Aren't Being Told
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI&fbclid=IwAR3JdeO5a_f_i2Rq-SISs0LtUSk1HvdRpYZm64ECUad7gyXDm2TMqHFZcS4

http://creationwiki.org/Young_earth_evidence#Zircon_lead_ratios

Evidences for a Recent Creation
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/Evidences.htm

1. https://www.icr.org/article/microbes-siljan-crater-no-surprise/

Sciencedan The Sun: Evidence Against the Old-earth Model November 4, 2015  
Scientists who believe the earth is old recognize this problem, and refer to it as the “faint young sun paradox.” Carl Sagan and a colleague discussed this problem and proposed an increased greenhouse effect “solution.” 
https://scienceandevidence.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/nuclear-fusion/

James Stroud Creationism Revisited – 2020 – A Defense of Recent Creation by an Agnostic 
YEC and biblical exegesis It is important to touch on a few points of biblical interpretation so we can compare and contrast YEC and OEC viewpoints to establish whether we have enough information to say that an exegetical reading of Scripture fits better theologically with a particular understanding. I leave it to readers to reach their own conclusions as to the virtue of each argument. 65 Young-earth creationists believe that the creation days of Genesis 1 were six literal (24-hour) days, which occurred 6,000–12,000 years ago. They believe that about 2,300–3,300 years before Christ, the surface of the earth was radically rearranged by Noah’s Flood. All land animals and birds not in Noah’s Ark (along with many sea creatures) perished, many of which were subsequently buried in the Flood sediments. Therefore, creationists believe that the global, catastrophic Flood was responsible for most (but not all) of the rock layers and fossils (i.e., some rock layers and possibly some fossils were deposited before the Flood, while other layers and fossils were produced in postdiluvian localized catastrophic sedimentation events or processes). The biblical arguments in support of this view can be briefly summarized as follows:

1. Genesis is history, not poetry, parable, prophetic vision, or mythology. This is seen in the Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 1, the fact that Genesis 1–11 has the same characteristics of historical narrative as in Genesis 12–50, most of Exodus, much of Numbers, Joshua, 1 and 2 Kings, etc. (which are discernibly distinct from the characteristics of Hebrew poetry, parable, or prophetic vision), and the way the other biblical authors and Jesus treat Genesis 1–11 (as literal history). 
2. The dominant meaning of yôm [Day] in the Old Testament is a literal day, and the context of Genesis 1 confirms that meaning there. Yôm is defined in its two literal senses in verse 5. It is repeatedly used with a number (one day, second day, etc.) and with evening and morning, which elsewhere in the OT always means a literal day. It is defined again literally in verse 14 in relation to the movement of the heavenly bodies. 
3. God created the first animate and inanimate things supernaturally and instantly. They were fully formed and fully functioning. For example, plants, animals, and people were mature adults ready to reproduce naturally “after their kinds.” When God said “let there be…” He did not have to wait millions of years for things to come into existence. He spoke, and things happened immediately (Psalm 33:6–9) …. 
4. Exodus 20:8–11 resists all attempts to add millions of years anywhere in or before Genesis 1 because Exodus 20:11  says that God created everything in six days. The day-age view is ruled out because the plural form of the Hebrew word for day (yôm) is used in both parts of the commandment. The days of the Jewish work-week are the same as the days of Creation Week. God could have used several other words or phrases, here or in Genesis 1, if He meant to say “work six days because I created in six long, indefinite periods.” But He didn’t. These verses also rule out the gap theory or any attempt to add millions of years before Genesis 1:1 because God says He created the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them during the six days described in Genesis 1. He made nothing before those six days. It should also be noted that the fourth commandment is one of only a few of the Ten Commandments that contains a reason for the commandment. If God created over millions of years, He could have not given a reason for Sabbath-keeping or He could have given a theological or redemptive reason as He did elsewhere. 
5. In Jesus’ comments about Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc., He clearly took the events recorded in Genesis as literal history, just as did all the New Testament writers. Several passages show that Jesus believed that man was created at the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning (as all old-earth views imply), which confirms the youngearth creationist view (Mark 10:6 and 13:19 and Luke 11:50–51). His miracles also confirm the young-earth view. From His first miracle of turning water into wine (which revealed his glory as the Creator, cf. John 2:11 and John 1:1–5) to all His other miracles (e.g., Matthew 8:23–27, Mark 1:40–42), His spoken word brought an immediate, instantaneous result, just as God’s word did in Creation Week. 
6. The Bible seems to teach that there was no animal or human death before the Fall of Adam and Eve. If this is true, the geological record of rock layers and fossils could not have been millions of years before the Fall otherwise there was millions of years of death before the Fall…. 
7. The global catastrophic Flood of Noah was responsible for producing most (but not all) of the geological record of rock layers and fossils. Both a casual reading and careful exegesis show that this was not a local flood in Mesopotamia. It is most unreasonable to believe in a global, year-long Flood that left no geological evidence (or that it only left evidence in the lowlands of the Fertile Crescent, as some suppose). The global evidence of sedimentary rock layers filled with land and marine fossils is exactly the kind of evidence we would expect from Noah’s Flood. If most of the rock record is the evidence of the Flood, then there really is no geological evidence for millions of years. But the secular geologists deny the global Flood of Noah’s day because they deny that there is any geological evidence for such a flood. So, the fossiliferous rock record is either the evidence of Noah’s Flood or the evidence of millions of years of geological change. It cannot be evidence of both. If we do not accept the geological establishment’s view of Noah’s Flood, then we cannot accept their view of the age of the earth. So, it is logically inconsistent to believe in both a global Noachian Flood and millions of years. [In other words, you can have millions of years or Noah’s non-local Flood, but you cannot have both]…. 
8. The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 give us the years from Adam to Abraham, who virtually all scholars agree lived about 2000 BC. This sets the date of creation at approximately 6,000 to 8000 years ago. Some young-earth creationists say the creation may be 10,000–12,000 years old [but there is simply no way of getting millions or billions of years from what the bible gives us]…. 
9. For eighteen centuries the almost universal belief of the Church was that the creation began 4,000–5,500 years before Christ. So, youngearth creationism is historic Christian orthodoxy. It was also Jewish orthodoxy at least up to the end of the first century of church history. In light of this fact, it seems inconsistent with the truth-loving nature of God revealed in Scripture to think that for about 3,000 years God let faithful Jews and Christians (especially the writers of Scripture) believe that Genesis teaches a literal six-day creation about 6,000 to 8,000 years ago but that in the early nineteenth century He used godless men (scientists who rejected the Bible as God’s inerrant Word) to correct the Church’s understanding of Genesis.66

Proof for a Young Earth
Evidence for a Young EarthThe Age of the Earth: Part Five
Does it not seem odd that there are NO televised debates between evolution-believing scientists and creation scientists?  Could it be because of scientists like Dr. Duanne Gish, who for many years did debate such issues on college campuses, yet because he either "held his own" or won,  little by little, evolutionists became unwilling to debate.  Kent Hovind noticed the same thing and explains why in a presentation he gave at U.C. Berkeley in 2004.  This is because the facts of science do not support the assertion (or belief) that no intelligence or Intelligent Being was needed to create life and/or its vast and varied forms.  

In fact, more and more people are realizing that since they didn't make themselves, then  Somebody else must have done so, and that a Creator is necessary to Create.Living things are so complex that even people with college degrees in science are realizing that life could not have made itself even in trillions of years.  In this regard Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA's structure, proposed that life must have come from outer space -- simply because of its complexity and because nobody can explain where the information in DNA came from: at least not apart from an Intelligent Being.  Even water itself works against the creation of life from non-life.  

Introduction: 
Contrary to what we've been told over and over by the mass media, the "scientific" establishment, and old-Earth (slow) Creationists, there are numerous geophysical and astronomical clocks which point to a  young age for the earth, solar system, and universe.  In fact, such young earth indicators are in the majority.  But  because the scientific establishment and the media are biased against a Creator, and because evolution requires an old earth to appear plausible, the public at large is rarely told about the mounting evidence that contradicts the belief in an old earth and the many holes in evolution.  
In the pages that follow we discuss 22 clocks, or indicators that the Earth and Universe are young.  Or to say it another way: there is a LOT of scientific evidence that suggests the Earth is perhaps only thousands of years old, and that the 4.5 billion year age that evolution-believing "scientists" have LOUDLY and repeatedly proclaimed to be a fact, is actually based on a strong desire to eliminate God from His own Creation  rather than on scientific facts.

Time Clocks:
A "clock" is any geophysical or astronomical process that is changing at a constant  rate. Clocks may be used to estimate how long a process has been taking place.  All clocks (including  radiometric ones) require the use of  at least  three assumptions. These are:

1. The rate of change has remained constant.
2. The original conditions are known.
3. The process has not been altered by outside forces.
In each of these cases it is not possible to prove that the assumptions are true.  For example flooding can greatly alter sedimentation  rates, and with  clocks over 5,000 years old, the original conditions cannot be known with certainty.  Therefore scientists  must  make a guess with regard to what they believe the original conditions might have been.  The shorter the time involved, the more likely that a specific process has been constant, and unaltered by external influences.


1.  Receding Moon:  
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth’s oceans to have tides.  The tidal friction  between the Earth’s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added  to the Moon.  This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon." 1  This tidal friction also causes the Earth’s rotation to slow down, but  more importantly,  the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from  the  Earth.1, 2   The rate  of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3  however, according to Physicist Donald DeYoung:  

"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects.  In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long’ ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1

Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system. 4
Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists.  Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems.  It is a complete mystery — unless it was designed that way from the beginning.
See also: [url=http://www.earthage.org/intro/A Closer Look at the Age of the Earth.htm#And What Does the Moon Have to say about all this?]What does the Moon have to say about this[/url] ... ? 


2.  Oil Pressure:  
When  oil  wells are  drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a  problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous.  For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure.  However, for some reason it doesn't.  Perhaps because our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood only about 4600 years ago?  Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left. 5,6,7,8Here's More. 

3.  The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one  million  years ago that no life could have survived.  And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. 9,10,11,12Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old,  then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is seems to be what the evidence points to.  
See also: The Young Faint Sun Paradox, Global Warming - Is the Sun to Blame?, and  Speedy Star changes Baffle Long-Agers

  4.  The Oldest Living Thing:  
The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine.  If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old.  The fact that these trees are still alive and growing older means that we don't  yet  know how old they will get before they die.  It also strongly suggests that something  happened  around 4,500 to 4,767 years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. 13,14,15Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees.  Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings.  This is significant since we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1800 years before the Noachian Flood described in the Book of Genesis.  
Note: In 2013 a Bristlecone Pine tree was discovered that has just over 5,000 tree rings. 
See also [url=http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c04.htm#Living Things]Evidence from Living Things
[/url]
5. Helium in the Atmosphere:   
Helium is a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium-238 as it decays into various different elements into its final stable element: lead 206. As it decays, the helium not only accumulates in the rocks themselves, but also escapes from them and accumulates in the earth's atmosphere. As time passes, the amount of  helium in the atmosphere increases. Scientists have estimated the amount of  uranium  in  the earth's crustal rocks.  From this they estimate the amount  of  helium that should be produced, and from these they can calculate how much helium is being added to the atmosphere over a given amount of time.  They also know how much helium is currently in the atmosphere.  
If we use the same assumptions that radiometric dating experts make: i.e. no initial helium in the earth's early atmosphere, a constant decay rate, and that nothing has occurred to add to or take away the helium -- then the earth's  atmosphere is at most 1.76  million years old. 16,17Other estimates say it is much less: or only 175,000 years. 18  
See also: Helium Evidence for a Young World Remains Crystal Clear, and Helium Evidence for A Young World Overcomes Pressure, by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.  

6.  Short Period Comets:   
Short  period comets revolve round the sun once every hundred years or less.19  With each revolution they lose 1/2 of  one percent of their mass.  Thus, after several hundred revolutions they disintegrate.  At present there are over 100 short period comets in our solar system, many of  which  have periods of  less than 20 years.20  Since comets are believed to have originated at the same time as the solar system. 21 This, plus the fact that they have not all disintegrated, suggests that either the solar system is young, or that new comets are continuously being added.
Evolutionists  have come up with  theories to explain the existence of comets, and how new ones are being added. One is called the Oort Cloud theory, named after  J. Oort.  This suggests that a hypothetical cloud surrounds the solar system that is said to extend past the orbit of Pluto.21  The other theory is called  the Kuiper belt theory, and it is directed at short period comets, as opposed to to Oort Cloud theory, which is directed at both long and short period ones. Although some people claim that the Kuiper belt has been discovered, to this author's knowledge that is not the case. Nor has even one hypothetical object (i.e. asteroid of comet material) been observed to transform into a would-be comet.  
The existence of short period comets suggests that our solar system is less than  10,000 years old: otherwise they would have burned out long ago. 22
More evidence of a young Universe is given in [url=http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/young earth refs.htm]number 21[/url] below.  See also the Astronomy section of the Young Age of Earth and Universe Q&A page on thewww.answersingenesis.org web site.

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field:   
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5% every 100 years.  This means  that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and  2900 years ago it was four times as strong.  Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field was 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of  heat  produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on earth. 23,24,25,26  At the very least this data suggests that life on earth is not much older than about 10,000 years.  
The fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying is well documented.  This was brought out by a recent NOVA Special.  In fact, at the present rate of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field only 1000 years from now.  And although, the NOVA special suggested that this may simply mean the earth is getting ready for another reversal, this still does not explain the implications for no life on earth only 10,000 years ago.  
In addition, Dr. Humphreys has done much research in this area.  Some of his findings are quoted below.

"Shortly after that I published a review of the evidence for past polarity reversals, reaffirming their reality (Humphreys, 1988).  Then I developed my dynamic-decay theory further, showing that rapid (meters per second) motions of the core fluid would indeed cause rapid reversals of the field’s polarity (Humphreys, 1990). I cited newly discovered evidence for rapid reversals (Coe and Prévot, 1989), evidence in thin lava flows confirming my 1986 prediction.  Since then, even more such evidence has become known (Coe, Prévot, and Camps, 1995).
The reversal mechanism of my theory would dissipate magnetic energy, not sustain it or add to it, so each reversal cycle would have a lower peak than the previous one. In the same paper ... I discussed the non-dipole part of the field today, pointing out that the slow (millimeter per second) motions of the fluid today could increase the intensity of some of the non-dipole parts of the field. However, I concluded (that) ... the total energy of the field would still decrease.
Despite these ... answers, skeptics today still use Dalrymple’s old arguments to dismiss geomagnetic evidence. Much of that is probably due to ignorance ..., but some skeptics are still relying on the non-dipole part of the field. They hope that an energy gain in the non-dipole part will compensate for the energy lost from the dipole part.
I said, “hope,” because it appears that since 1967, nobody has yet published a calculation of non-dipole energies based on newer and better data. So that is what I will do below. It turns out that the results quash evolutionist hopes and support creationist models." 27

The earth's magnetic field data presents a major problem for old-earth advocates with regard to the timing of the earth's last reversal, which they believe took place 780,000 years ago.  The problem is that at current rates of decay, only about 10,000  years ago the earth would have been so hot that no life could have survived on its surface.  This indicates that the accepted date for the earth's last  magnetic reversal is likely incorrect.  Such data forces old earth advocates to either ignore it or to assume that the earth's magnetic field decayed much slower in the past than today. 
This geological evidence also presents problems for those who believe that the earth's rotation could not be reversed -- in a very short time period: which is exactly what had to occur.  Below is a quote from an article onPossible Earth Events.

"It's important to note that in either case of Earth Crust Displacement, reversing Earth's magnetic field means that the magma would be spinning in the opposite direction in relationship to Earth's crust.  Since the direction of rotation in Earth's crust is directly related to the direction of spinning magma, this also means the crust would have to reverse its direction of rotation to realign with the direction of spinning magma.  In other words, Earth's crust would need to reverse rotation from East-West to West-East."
Therefore, if a magnetic pole shift were to occur rapidly, then Earth's crust would also reverse rotational directions rapidly.  The result would be massive displacement of Earth's crust and oceans.
Any sudden movement in Earth’s rotation will result in the oceans moving in the opposite directions until the oceans reach a new equilibrium. If Earth's crust reverses rotation from the west/east direction to the west/east direction, this would result in a wall of water moving towards every western shoreline on the planet. ...
From the above explanation, one can begin to realize how a 180 degree magnetic pole shift would result in Earth's crust actually stopping rotation and then reversing direction. Although this has been referenced in ancient literature, it is an event that few can imagine and one which most scientists would claim is impossible. However, if it does occur, this means the centrifugal force on the surface of Earth will go from 1670 (kilometers/hour) to zero and then back up to 1670 kph in the opposite direction.

From www.timelinetothefuture.com/prepare/possible-earth-events/pole-shift-magnetic 
Note: one researcher proposed that a comet came very close to the earth in the distant past: something that may explain the above data with regard to the earth's rapid magnetic reversal.  Unfortunately the article called Tectonic Wedge Resonance Theory is no longer online.  
See also: Radiometric Dating, Continental Drift, The Mystery of the Earth's Magnetic Field, and  [url=http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Continental_Drift.htm#Magnetic Evidence on the Ocean Floor]Magnetic Evidence on the Ocean Floor[/url]

8.  Direct Dating of Dinosaur Bones:   
By evolutionary reasoning, dragon bones only occur in the so-called Cretaceous, Jurassic, or Triassic eras.28According to the geological time chart such creatures (now called dinosaurs) died out  between 65 and 220 million years ago.  What is  not well known about these eras is that they are based upon the theory of evolution -- which requires extremely long  periods of time. When evolution-biased scientists say that they "know" such things, they are not being forthright.  For while they may, in fact, believe such things, if  they were honest they would admit that such "dates" assigned to these eras are  highly questionable.   

See Are Dinosaur Bones Millions of Years Old for why dinosaurs probably died out recently.
So how can we date dinosaur bones? 
One piece to the puzzle is the fact that many dinosaur bones are not permineralized or turned into stone. This means they can be directly dated by the Carbon-14 method, the exact same way  a mammoth or  Neanderthal  bone is dated.  This has also been done on numerous occasions by various laboratories  in the United States and Europe, and the dates indicate that dinosaurs were alive from 9,800 -- 50,000 years ago.29,30,31  This author discussed this with Prof. Paul LeBlond at the University of British Columbia.  Dr. LeBlond said that any C14 date over 5,000 years is highly questionable.32  Therefore, despite  what "scientists" may assert, 33  we can establish that all mammoths, Neanderthals, or other bones "dated" over 5,000 years by the C14 method are also questionable.  If  we accept any, then we must accept them all: including those that are incompatible with evolution-based "ages" associated with the Geological Time Chart.  
However, the very fact that many thousands of dinosaur bones contain organic material is a strong indication that these creatures became extinct in  the recent past.  This is discussed in detail in the sections below.  
See also C-14 Dating of Dinosaur Bone Collagen and C-14 Dating. 

9A.  Dino Blood & Ancient DNA:  
Before the existence of  supposedly "ancient" organic material had been well publicized, it was predicted that "no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years." 34  This prediction was based upon the observed  breakdown of  DNA.  
Not long  after this prediction was made, very old  DNA  started turning up.  For example, at the Clarkia Fossil Beds, in Idaho, a green magnolia leaf was discovered in strata that was said to be 17 million years old.35  Because it was so fresh-looking and even pliable,  scientists decided to see if any DNA was present.  And to  their  surprise  they discovered that there was: and that it  matched the DNA of modern  magnolia trees.
Since then, DNA claims have been made for supposedly older material such as dinosaur bones,36,37 and insects in amber.38  It was said that the reason the magnolia leaf was preserved was because it was buried in clay; 39however, the 17 million year date is still doubtful.  Likewise,  scientists say that DNA from the insects was  preserved because they were entombed in amber.
However,  a serious problem arises when we come to the dinosaur bones; for these were not entombed  in amber or clay, but in sandstone.40,41  And because sandstone and bone are both porous, this means that ground and rain water would be able to seep into the rocks, and thus into the bones as well.  The fact that the outer part of one of  these bones was mineralized 42provides strong evidence that water -- and thus oxygen -- had access to the bones.  The fact that the inside of the bones are not mineralized is an indication that they are young.  The fact that the partially  mineralized bone had what looked like red blood cells in it is a  strong  indication that it  is young, probably less than 10,000 years old.43
When Mary Schweitzer first saw the bones under a microscope, she said:

"I got goose bumps,"..."It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone.  But ... I (just) couldn't believe it.  I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all,  are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'" 44Emphasis Added

This is good question indeed; however, the answer from the "scientific" establishment says even more.  For they refuse to consider the likely possibility that the bones are (perhaps) as much as 64,995,000 years younger than what they have told the public to believe.
Note:  Although it was claimed that  DNA was isolated in the dinosaur bones from Montana and Utah, it was so fragmented that the results have thus far not been replicated.45,46,47 However,  laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of collagen and heme and other organic protein molecules in the tyrannosaurus from Montana -- the one with little round things that looked just like Red blood cells. 48,49
Remember that the ancient DNA from the magnolia leaf discussed above was supposed to last for a maximum of 10,000 years before decaying into inorganic matter.  Therefore, if  the 17 million year old "date" is correct, then scientists were off  by a  factor of  1,700  in  their (observation-based) prediction with regard to the breakdown rate of DNA.  So much for using "science" when it seems to hint that something is amiss with the evolution-based Geological Time Chart.
More recently, DNA has been extracted from two 30-million-year-old insects (a beetle and a bee) that were trapped in amber.  In this case they were off by a factor of 3,000 with regard to the observation-based prediction of  DNA  preservation.  However, the organic dinosaur remains present the greatest difficulty for the "scientific" establishment  to overcome.  This is due to the alleged greater age involved and because of the much greater exposure to the elements.  
Because sandstone and bone are porous,50,51 and because the bones were partially mineralized, it is virtually certain that water could (and did) get to these bones.  Because DNA only lasts for about 10,000 years before it disintegrates, it is likely that  no organic matter at all would survive much longer than 20,000 years. This means that the prediction with regard to how long organic matter can survive was off  by a factor of  over  3,000 or that something is seriously wrong with the evolution based dating system and the geological time chart.  Either the scientific methods used to estimate the  rate of  breakdown of  organic matter are grossly in error, or the great ages associated with these organic remains are off by a factor of over 3,000.  This, coupled with the fact that such unfossilized dinosaur bones can be (and have been) dated by the Carbon 14 method, and yield dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old, suggests that the great ages promoted by the evolution-believing establishment are in error.  
See also The scrambling continues  and the Links below for more info.
However, even beyond this are the purported 165 million-year-old Ammonites discussed below, with their organic ligaments still intact, that were buried in mud, and the supposedly 300 million year old fossil wood (impregnated with limestone) that still has its organic [url=http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil_Trees_of_Nova_Scotia_Part_2.htm#Organic Material Intact:]wood structure intact[/url].  Then there is the case of bacteria preserved alive in salt crystals for a purported 250 million years.  
Such anomalies strain the credibility of supposedly objective "scientists" who ignore and/or twist the facts (of science) to promote the Story of how they think life might have arose on earth without any intelligence behind it --against impossible odds -- over millions of years.  Even worse: they Demand that our children be taught such things in school as if they were facts.   

In a More recent article, about: "what appears to (be) a soft tissue inside the bone, with what appears to be blood vessels and cells... similar to a stretchy bone matrix", we are told that:

"the tissue... has revealed organic components that somewhat resemblecells and fine blood vessels. The discovery was quite an unexpected one. The leader of the research team Mary Schweitzer had routinely tried dissolving pieces of the bone to understand its mineral composition, when she found something unusual: a transparent filament that closely resembled blood vessels. She even found traces of what appear to be red blood cells, osteocytes (bone-building cells)."  Emphasis Added

The author speculated that the fossilized bone was " ... some 70 million years" (old) and that:

"It is possible that the outer parts of the leg fossilized while the vessels were trapped within mineralized bone and remained intact all these millennia." Emphasis Added

Of course it is also "possible" that the bones are not 70 million years old, but rather a few thousand.   This, however, is unacceptable to those with an evolutionist mindset, since such dates would eliminate any possibility of evolution playing anything other than an extremely minor role in the Creation of life on Earth, and also point toward a Creator/God: something that old-earth believers find very difficult to contemplate without becoming upset.  And so they continue to speculate about how the [url=http://www.earthage.org/intro/A Closer Look at the Age of the Earth.htm#The]Impossible[/url] just might have took place: a long, long time ago, in a land far away: while ignoring the evidence that strongly suggests that such would simply not happen in trillions of years, even on a so-called suitable planet that was covered with water, and full of Bubblesand lightning: unless an outside Intelligence acted upon and ordered it.   
In other words, the belief that we are a byproduct of Nature is, for all practical purposes, outside the realm of empirical (i.e. observable and testable) science.  Some of these dedicated believers in evolution also claim to believe in God, yet they don't think that the Creator should get much (if any) of the credit for the Creating, but instead Mother nature.  These people think that the words "Creation" and "Creator" must never be mentioned in public classrooms, but rather only such words that support  their beliefs.  
So much for keeping "religion" out of the classroom, while at the same time displaying one's ignorance with regard to what the [url=http://www.earthage.org/index.html#Separation of Church and State:]Founding Fathers[/url]intended,  and which was practiced for over 200 years in the United States of America.  But that was before the modern age of ignorance, political correctness, and the mass media Agenda of coercing the public to believe in things that are based more on wishful thinking than on empirical and testable science.  Some may say I am ranting but check out the facts for yourself and make up your own mind, rather than simply believing what our left-leaning media says:  i.e. that Creation doesn't require a Creator, but simply blew itself into existence -- in spite of the odds and evidence against such a fairy tale belief.
See also: Evidence that Humans and Dinosaurs Lived Together, and Oldest DNA 
Proof for a Young Earth – Earth Age


I agree that we can use our knowledge of the world to help us interpret scripture. However, scripture is not infinitely plastic to fit with our ideas. It does contradict some views. Many of them, in fact. While we can find many figures of speech and non-literal imagery in the Bible, we have to look at context and usage to find out what the text means to convey. We can also look to science to determine things like the age of the earth. When we do so without the assumptions of long ages, we find that the data more strongly support a young earth, which is also more in keeping with the straightforward teaching of scripture when taken in context.

A 1987 article  in the Journal of Paleontology begins with the following statement:

"Hadrosaur bones have been found on the Colville River north of Umiat on the North Slope of Alaska." 52

What is perhaps most interesting about these "many thousands of bones" is that they "lack any significant degree of  permineralization." 53,54  In other words they are not turned to stone.  In fact,  the people who discovered them didn't report it  for 20 years  because they thought they were bison bones.  Because the bones were partially exposed in a "soft, brown, sandy silt," 55and because every year the snow melts and subjects them to the elements for two to three months, these bones also call in question the evolutionary-based ages of dinosaurs, and the Geological Time Chart itself.  See also 8 and 9A above. For more on Dragons and Man living together at the same time seeUnfossilized Dinosaur Bones.  
See also this CBS News story and USA Today article for more on organic dinosaur remains. 

9C.  165 Million Year Old Surprise: 
In May of 1996 it was reported that ammonites in pristine condition have been found in "a 'mysterious network' of mud springs on the edge of the 'market town' of Wootton Bassett, near Swindon, Wiltshire, England." 56  What is so interesting about these purportedly 165 million-year-old ammonites is that:

"many still had shimmering mother-of-pearl shells ... (and) they retain their original... aragonite [a mineral form of calcium carbonate] ... The outsides also retain their iridescence ... And ... in the words of Dr. Hollingworth, 'There are shells (that) ... still have their organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old.'!"57,58Emphasis Added

It is a fact that water is a component of mud.  It is also a fact that oxygen is a component of water. Oxygen allows oxidation to take place.  Oxidation causes things  to break down: including water by a chemical action called hydrolysis.  These mud springs are further evidence that something is wrong with the current evolutionary scheme for dating fossils.

10.  Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands:   
Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands are located in northern Canada, above the Arctic circle. The winters are so cold there that the only "trees" able to grow are small shrubs less than a foot in height.59  However something very strange has been found on these islands that testifies to a very different past: i.e. numerous large trees and tree stumps lying on,  or buried just beneath the surface. 60,61,62
How did they get there?  And more importantly, when did they get there?
It is claimed that the trees are leftover remnants of forests which inhabited this area 40-65 million years ago. 60,61,62 The scientific data suggests otherwise.  For instance, they are not petrified, 60,61,62 but can be sawed and burned.  In addition, pine cones and needles, and leaves are also preserved in the sandy/silty soil. 60,61,62  Another clue to the puzzle is that the roots of these trees are missing 60,61,62--- suggesting that they didn't grow here but were uprooted and later re-deposited (after being transported by a catastrophic event such as a flood).  This is also exactly what happened in to the trees that are at the bottom of Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens; however, the upright trees on the bottom of this lake are still under water.  At some time in the future they may be left standing upright -- looking as if they grew there. 63-70
 In regard to this, Quiring, states:

"During the eruption many trees from the surrounding hillsides were washed into the lake.Today, thousands of logs, protected within the monument,  float back and forth with the changing winds.  As some of  the trees sink, roots first, they settle  upright on the lake  floor to  form a  'sunken forest.'" 71

In regard to the preservation of the organic matter on Axel Heiberg Island, an online article states the following:

"The Axel Heiberg fossils are largely preserved as mummifications.  Although usually compressed, the wood and other remains are relatively unaltered chemically and biologically (Obst et al, 1991). Preservation of the fossils is exquisite, including leaf litter, cones, twigs, branches, boles, roots, etc. Where these are not compressed,they are virtually indistinguishable from equivalent tissues found in the forest floor of modern conifer forests ... The reasons why preservation is exceptional and there is so little mineralization remain obscure. Analysis of the organic remains indicate that they were buried in a fresh-water environment (Goodarzi et al, 1991)." Emphasis Added

Although these trees are frozen for most of the year, each summer the snow melts  and for about three months  the temperature  reaches into the 70 degree Fahrenheit range.72  Such warm  temperatures should, under normal conditions, allow decomposition to take place.  One explanation for the remarkable degree of preservation is the suggestion that these trees were "mummified" by being buried under significant amounts of strata, and then, over time, this overlying strata was eroded.  
This is perhaps possible, however, it is also possible that these trees are not millions of years old, but rather only a few thousand.  The fact that the roots of some of these upright trees are missing suggests that they were uprooted by a catastrophe, and transported by water to these islands (perhaps) in the not-too-distant past. Otherwise they would have decayed.
Similar trees from Siberia are only 7,000 years old.  For example, in "Cataclysms of the Earth," by Hugh Auchincloss Brown, on page 31, Mr. Brown makes the following comments:

"In certain areas of northern Siberia innumerable tree trunks called by the natives "Adam's wood" and said to be in all stages of decay are embedded in the solidly frozen tundra. Because they were once growing trees, of types which do not grow in that climate, they confirm that a change in climate has taken place, such as would be caused by a careen of the globe. They could have been broken by a hurricane or flood. If so, they will show a clean break on the side on which the breaking force was imposed and torn fibers on the lee side. A reexamination of the wood, to determine genera and species of the trees, will enable us to establish the latitude range or climate in which these trees grew."   Emphasis Added
"A so called mammoth tree, with fruit and leaves still on it, was discovered and reported after a landslide of Siberian tundra. Such cold storage of fruit 7,000 years old can only be explained by a sudden transportation of the fruit from a warm climate in which it grew to the cold storage climate in which it has been refrigerated. This specimen of fruit, with leaves, and many other specimens of leaves reported found in Siberia also confirm the careen of the globe."   Emphasis Added

Velikovski's "Earth in Upheaval" (1955) reported similarly preserved trees in the frozen tundra of Alaska.
See also Discovery of 260 million year old fossil forest from Antarctica, where we find the following:

"The wood was most interesting to me. In some cases branches were preserved, suggesting that the wood had not been transported far by streams. We found an impression of a piece of bark with a knot preserved clearly – not bad for about 250 million years old! The stumps were not replaced by silica, and thus are not “petrified,” but they have been freeze dried in a way that has preserved the growth rings in some cases. On one tree, we counted 26 annual rings, and it was probably older because not all the growth rings were preserved."  Emphasis Added

For more on these trees and other (supposedly very old) material see:  
Carbon Dating of "Fossil" Wood and Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones.
A Tropical Reptile in the 'Cretaceous' Arctic, by Michael Oard
Sustainability: A Glacial Perspective, Lessons of a 40 Million Year Old Forest, by Richard Jagels
The Oldest Wood in the World  by Carla Helfferich
Axel Heiberg Absurdities and Ellesmere Island Embarrassments from Malaga Bay
Scientists Battle over turf in Arctic land that time forgot by Ed Struzik

11.  Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere:   
Carbon-14 is produced when radiation from the sun strikes Nitrogen-14 atoms in the earth's upper atmosphere.  The earth's atmosphere is not yet saturated with C14.  This means that  the amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying back to N14. It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years.  Thus it appears that the earth's atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old.  In fact, the evidence suggests it is less than 10,000 years old. 73, 74, 75Some of these estimates place the atmosphere's age at 50,000 years and others at 100,000but they each pose serious problems for old-earth (i.e. millions or billions of years old) scenarios.  See also [url=http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#20. %C2%A0Carbon 14 from (supposedly) Very Old Sources:]reference 20[/url] below, and associated Links. 

12.  The Dead Sea:  
The Dead Sea is in Israel. It is receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan  River.  The Dead Sea has a very high salt content.  Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists  have measured the amount of salt added each  year by the  Jordan River; and they  have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea.  From these it  is possible to estimate how long this process has been going on.  Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old. 76,77For more on this subject, Click Here and scroll down. 13.  Niagara Falls:   
Up until the recent past, when the top of  Niagara  Falls was reinforced with concrete, the water was carving a channel upriver toward  Lake  Erie at the rate of about 4-5 feet per year.  Since the channel is now about seven miles long (35,000 feet),  this means that the age of  Niagara Falls is  between  7,000 and  8,750 years old (or less). This, of course, assumes that the rate of erosion has been constant.  The age of  North America, is likely the same.78,79,80 For more details see Ian Juby's article on this topic. 14. Historical Records:  
Depending on which book one consults, historians claim that recorded human history goes back 4,600- 5,400 years -- or perhaps even more;  but, according to Froelich Rainey, 1870 B.C. (plus or minus 6) is the "earliest actual recorded date in human history." 81,82,83With regard to the pioneers of the Carbon 14 method of dating and ancient human history, Sylvia Bakerreports what they actually said as follows:
   

"Professor Libby learned this when he tried to verify his Carbon-14 method.  He said. 'The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was when our advisers informed us that history extended back only 5,000 years... You read statements in books that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old.  We learned rather abruptly(that) these ... ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is at about the time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established.'" 84Emphasis Added

See also How Far Back to the Records Go? 

15.  The San Andreas Fault:  
The San Andreas Fault is one of the most active faults in the North America.  It  runs into the Pacific Ocean at Tomales Bay, just east of Pt. Reyes, about 30 miles north of San Francisco.  It is said to move from 0.5 to 2 inches per year. 85  How long has it  been moving for?  The answer varies greatly.  Some say it  has moved for tens of  miles, and others say perhaps hundreds. The evidence is highly questionable.86  There are a few granite outcrops that hint that it may have moved  12,000  feet; 87 however this too  is questionable since the origin of granite itself  is uncertain.  Some geologists believe most granites are igneous while others believe the majority are metamorphic. 88 If the granite referred to above is of volcanic origin, then it could have come straight up from the ground.
One thing that appears certain is that there is much disagreement with regard to how long this fault has been active. Looking at a geology map of thePt. Reyes area one may note that there are a few features that suggest that the fault has not been moving very long. These are: Sand Point, Tom's Point, and Lagunitas Creek. 89 The fault crosses each of these and yet none of them appear to be offset at all.  This evidence suggests that this  fault is quite young -- on the order of a few thousand years old.  For more details, see Part Two of this series on Continental Drift.

16.  Eve's Mitochondrial DNA:  
Mitochondrial  DNA  is different from nucleus  DNA  in that it  has "only 37 genes, compared to the estimated 100,000... in the cell's nucleus..." 90  It  is also different in that it is only passed on from the mother, 90 -- 93 or at least, so it was once thought; however that is now very much in question, as is brought out in the Links below. 
In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago.90,91,92 This story was widely reported in  the press.  A few years later scientists actually measured  the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and  discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported.94  This means that Eve did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000.  This  greatly  revised date is very close to the Biblical account of Adam and Eve.  Unfortunately for those who want the whole truth, this didn't make the headlines. 
See also: The Demise of Mitochondrial Eve and Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through our Genes.

17.  Population Growth:  
Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years.  If  we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population. 95,96,97 
See Population Statistics for more details. 

18.  Minerals in the Oceans:  
By measuring the amounts of various minerals that are present in the oceans and calculating the amounts of each that are added each year by river runoff, scientists can estimate how old the oceans are.  When doing so the great majority of minerals yield young ages for the earth's oceans -- many of which are less than 5,000 years old, 98  
Cherry Lewis, author of The Dating Game, quotes George Becker, one of the foremost American geologists of his day as follows with regard to the amount of salt in the earth's oceans, in relation to what was being added to them each year.

"If the sodium in the ocean has taken 1400 million years to accumulate, the rivers are now bearing to the sea about 14 times the average percent of the past.  It seems quite impossible to find any explanation of such an increase."  p. 65

This data was published around 1910, when the earth was said to be only 1.4 billion years old: meaning that if it were 4.5 billion years old, then the present rate of salt that is added to the oceans each year is over 42 times more than what is required to support the 4.5 billion year "date" that is accepted by many geologists and who claim that 'science' supports their views.  In other words, the current accumulation rate of sodium that's being added to the earth's oceans coincides with a 'date' of less than 100 million years -- assuming that no sodium was present when they were first formed: meaning that this (100 million year) age estimate is a maximum, and thus contradicts the 'accepted' 4.5 billion year date for the earth's age.  At the very least, we can state that the earth's oceans are  likely less than 100 million years old, or less than half of the currently accepted 'date' for the northern half of the Atlantic ocean: the southern half 'date' being only 20 million years old. 
See also The Sea's Missing Salt, 99 by Dr. Steve Austin.

19.  Rapid Mountain Uplift:  
In March of 2005, Dr. John Baumgardner released his assessment of the "Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains" in an Impact article.  In it he discovered that:

"An ongoing enigma for the standard geological community is why all the high mountain ranges of the world -- including the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rockies -- experienced most of the uplift to their present elevations in what amounts to a blink of an eye, relative to the standard geological time scale.  In terms of this time scale, these mountain ranges have all undergone several kilometers of vertical uplift since the beginning of the Pliocene about five million years ago.  This presents a profound difficulty for uniformitarian thinking because the driving forces responsible for mountain building are assumed to have been operating steadily at roughly the same slow rates as are observed in today's world for... the past several hundred million years." 100

20.  Carbon 14 from (supposedly) Old Sources: 
Carbon 14 is found in organic materials of all types, including diamonds, coal seams, carbonized wood, unfossilized wood and dinosaur bones.  In fact, that is the problem.  In other words, Carbon 14 is found where it shouldn't be -- if the earth were "billions of years" old.  
In a paper titled Measurable 14C In Fossilized Organic Materials, Baumgardner, Humphreys, Snelling, and Austin concluded that:

"The careful investigations performed by scores of researchers in more than a dozen AMS facilities in several countries over the past twenty years to attempt to identify and eliminate sources of contamination in AMS 14C analyses have, as a by-product, served to establish beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of intrinsic 14C in remains of living organisms from all portions of the Phanerozoic record. Such samples, with ‘ages’ from 1-500 Ma (i.e. 1-500 million years ago) as determined by other radioisotope methods applied to their geological context, consistently display 14C levels that are far above the AMS machine threshold, reliably reproducible, and typically in the range of 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon).  But such levels of intrinsic 14C represent a momentous difficulty for uniformitarianism. A mere 250,000 years corresponds to 43.6 half-lives for 14C. One gram of modern carbon contains about 6 x 101014C atoms, and 43.6 half-lives worth of decay reduces that number by a factor of 7 x 1014. Not a single atom of 14C should remain in a carbon sample of this size after 250,000 years (not to mention one million or 50 million or 250 million years). A glaring (thousand-fold) inconsistency that... exists between the AMS-determined 14C levels and the corresponding rock ages provided by 238U, 87Rb, and 40K techniques. We believe the chief source for this inconsistency to be the uniformitarian assumption of time - invariant decay rates. Other research reported by our RATE group also supports this conclusion [7, 23, 42]. Regardless of the source of the inconsistency, the fact that14C, with a half-life of only 5730 years, is readily detected throughout the ... half billion years of time uniformitarians assign to this portion of earth history is likely incorrect. The relatively narrow range of 14C/C ratios further suggests the Phanerozoic organisms (or the entire fossil-bearing strata of the geological time chart) may all have been contemporaries and that they perished simultaneously in the not so distant past. Finally, we note there are hints that 14C currently exists in carbon from environments sealed from biospheric interchange since very early in the earth history. We therefore conclude the 14C evidence provides significant support for a model of earth’s past involving a recent global Flood cataclysm and ... also for a young age for the earth itself."101Emphasis Added

See also: Carbon-14 Dating Shows that the Earth is Young, 102 and What about Carbon 14 103 
Abbreviations: 
Ma = Million years ago.
pmc = percent modern carbon

21.  Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies:  


Although it isn't well known, the galaxies themselves also provide strong evidence that the Universe itself is less than ONE million years old.  That's because almost all spiral galaxies have Blue stars in them.   And since Blue stars are so bright, it is estimated that they can't be older than one million years.  Therefore, it seems likely that the galaxies themselves cannot be any older than that.   
See: Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation, by Jason Lisle, Ph. D., (Acts & Facts, 9/12, p.16) for more details. 

The structure of spiral galaxies themselves also tells us that they cannot be any older than (a maximum of) about 200 million years old: much less than the 13-14 billion years that old earth proponents claim.  This is because laws of physics dictate that spiral arms should lose their "structure," or spiral arms, in only 4-5turns, but for some reason they don't.  Perhaps this is because they are Young?  
See also What Happened to all the Dark Matter?, 104Exploding Stars point to a Young Universe 105 and our article on The Big Bang of this Five-part series on the Age of the Earth.

22.  Zircons:  
Zircons are tiny volcanic crystals.  They also are found to contain far more helium and lead than they should -- if the earth were "billions of years old."  Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, and Snelling have written a paper on this subject as well, and in their summary they said that:

[quote]"We contracted with a high-precision laboratory to measure the rate of helium diffusion out of the zircons ... Here we report newer zircon diffusion data that extend to the lower temperatures ... of Gentry's retention data. The measured rates resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we made based on the reported retentions and a young age. Combining rates and retentions gives a helium diffusion age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This contradicts the uniformitarian age of 1.5 billion years based on nuclear decay products in the same zircons.These data strongly support our hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago.Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic "billions of years" down to the 6,000-year timescale of the Bible." 106 Emphasis Added 

See also: Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay.

How old is the earth?
Refuting Evolution
Evolutionists fallaciously think that billions of years of time makes particles-to-people evolution possible. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Sciencepresents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36–37: man’s existence is in such a tiny segment at the end of a 5-billion-year time-line that it has to be diagrammatically magnified twice to show up.
On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end. If we took the same 15-inch (39 cm) time-line as does Teaching about Evolution to represent the biblical history of the earth, man would be about 1/1000 of a mm away from the beginning! Also, Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ ([url=http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mark 10.6]Mark 10:6[/url]), which would make sense with the proposed biblical time-line, but is diametrically opposed to the Teaching about Evolution time-line.
This chapter analyzes rock formation and dating methods in terms of what these two competing models would predict.

The rocks

The vast thicknesses of sedimentary rocks around the world are commonly used as evidence for vast age. First, Teaching about Evolution gives a useful definition on page 33:

Sedimentary rocks are formed when solid materials carried by wind and water accumulate in layers and then are compressed by overlying deposits. Sedimentary rocks sometimes contain fossils formed from the parts of organisms deposited along with other solid materials.

The ‘deep time’ indoctrination comes with the statement ‘often reaching great thicknesses over long periods of time.’ However, this goes beyond the evidence. Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods. We have already discussed how different biases can result in different interpretations of the same data, in this case the rock layers. It is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one, to prefer the former interpretation. Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. If so, then the rock layers must have formed over vast ages. The philosophy that processes have always occurred at roughly constant rates (‘the present is the key to the past’) is often called uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism was defined this way in my own university geology class in 1983, and was contrasted with catastrophism. But more recently, the word ‘uniformitarianism’ has been applied in other contexts to mean also constancy of natural laws, sometimes called ‘methodological uniformitarianism,’ as opposed to what some have called ‘substantive uniformitarianism.’
It should also be pointed out that uniformitarian geologists have long allowed for the occasional (localized) catastrophic event. However, modern historical geology grew out of this general ‘slow and gradual’ principle, which is still the predominantly preferred framework of explanation for any geological formation. Nevertheless, the evidence for catastrophic formation is so pervasive that there is a growing body of neo-catastrophists. But because of their naturalistic bias, they prefer, of course, to reject the explanation of the Genesis (global) flood.
However, a cataclysmic globe-covering (and fossil-forming) flood would have eroded huge quantities of sediment, and deposited them elsewhere. Many organisms would have been buried very quickly and fossilized.
Also, recent catastrophes show that violent events like the flood described in Genesis could form many rock layers very quickly. The Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington state produced 25 feet (7.6 meters) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!1 And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit 3 to 4 feet (about 1 meter) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field. Sedimentation experiments by the creationist Guy Berthault, sometimes working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers can form by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles.2,3
In one of Berthault’s experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together.4The journal Nature reported similar experiments by evolutionists a decade after Berthault’s first experiments.5
So when we start from the bias that the Bible is God’s Word and is thus true, we can derive reasonable interpretations of the data. Not that every problem has been solved, but many of them have been.
Conversely, how does the ‘slow and gradual’ explanation fare? Think how long dead organisms normally last. Scavengers and rotting normally remove all traces within weeks. Dead jellyfish normally melt away in days. Yet Teaching about Evolution has a photo of a fossil jellyfish on page 36. It clearly couldn’t have been buried slowly, but must have been buried quickly by sediments carried by water. This water would also have contained dissolved minerals, which would have caused the sediments to have been cemented together, and so hardened quickly.
The booklet Stones and Bones6 shows other fossils that must have formed rapidly. One is a 7-foot (2m) long ichthyosaur (extinct fish-shaped marine reptile) fossilized while giving birth. Another is a fish fossilized in the middle of its lunch. And there is a vertical tree trunk that penetrates several rock layers (hence the term polystrate fossil). If the upper sedimentary layers really took millions or even hundreds of years to form, then the top of the tree trunk would have rotted away.
Ironically, NASA scientists accept that there have been ‘catastrophic floods’ on Mars7 that carved out canyons8 although no liquid water is present today. But they deny that a global flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) if it were completely uniform, and even now covers 71 percent of the earth’s surface! If it weren’t for the fact that the Bible teaches it, they probably wouldn’t have any problem with a global flood on earth. This demonstrates again how the biases of scientists affect their interpretation of the evidence.

Radiometric dating

As shown above, the evidence from the geological record is consistent with catastrophes, and there are many features that are hard to explain by slow and gradual processes. However, evolutionists point to dating methods that allegedly support deep time. The best known is radiometric dating. This is accurately described on page 35 of Teaching about Evolution:

Some elements, such as uranium, undergo radioactive decay to produce other elements. By measuring the quantities of radioactive elements and the elements into which they decay in rocks, geologists can determine how much time has elapsed since the rock has cooled from an initially molten state.

However, the deep time ‘determination’ is an interpretation; the actual scientific data are isotope ratios. Each chemical element usually has several different forms, or isotopes, which have different masses. There are other possible interpretations, depending on the assumptions. This can be illustrated with an hourglass. When it is up-ended, sand flows from the top container to the bottom one at a rate that can be measured. If we observe an hourglass with the sand still flowing, we can determine how long ago it was up-ended from the quantities of sand in both containers and the flow rate. Or can we? First, we must assume three things:

An hourglass ‘clock’ tells us the elapsed time by comparing the amount of sand in the top bowl (‘Parent’) with the amount in the bottom bowl (‘Daughter’).
[list="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'PT Serif'; vertical-align: baseline; list-style: none; color: rgb(31, 9, 9);"]
[*]We know the quantities of sand in both containers at the start. Normally, an hourglass is up-ended when the top container is empty. But if this were not so, then it would take less time for the sand to fill the new bottom container to a particular level.

[*]The rate has stayed constant. For example, if the sand had become damp recently, it would flow more slowly now than in the past. If the flow were greater in the past, it would take less time for the sand to reach a certain level than it would if the sand had always flowed at the present rate.

[*]The system has remained closed. That is, no sand has been added or removed from either container. However, suppose that, without your knowledge, sand had been added to the bottom container, or removed from the top container. Then if you calculated the time since the last up-ending by measuring the sand in both containers, it would be longer than the actual time.

[/list]
Teaching about Evolution addresses assumption 2:

For example, it requires that the rate of radioactive decay is constant over time and is not influenced by such factors as temperature and pressure—conclusions supported by extensive research in physics.

It is true that in today’s world, radioactive decay rates seem constant, and are unaffected by heat or pressure. However, we have tested decay rates for only about 100 years, so we can’t be sure that they were constant over the alleged billions of years. Physicist Dr Russell Humphreys suggests that decay rates were faster during creation week, and have remained constant since then. There is some basis for this, for example radiohalo analysis, but it is still tentative.
Teaching about Evolution also addresses assumption 3:

It also assumes that the rocks being analyzed have not been altered over time by migration of atoms in or out of the rocks, which requires detailed information from both the geologic and chemical sciences.

This is a huge assumption. Potassium and uranium, both common parent elements, are easily dissolved in water, so could be leached out of rocks. Argon, produced by decay from potassium, is a gas, so moves quite readily.

Anomalies

There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.9 Another example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The ‘dates’ ranged from < 0.27 to 3.5 million years—but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975!
What happened was that excess radiogenic argon (40Ar*) from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature also lists many examples of excess 40Ar* causing ‘dates’ of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape.10

• If excess 40Ar* can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?
  

Another problem is the conflicting dates between different methods. If two methods disagree, then at least one of them must be wrong. For example, in Australia, some wood was buried by a basalt lava flow, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by the K-Ar method at c. 45 million years old!11 Other fossil wood from Upper Permian rock layers has been found with14C still present. Detectable 14C would have all disintegrated if the wood were really older than 50,000 years, let alone the 250 million years that evolutionists assign to these Upper Permian rock layers.12[Update: see also Radiometric dating breakthroughs for more examples of 14C in coal and diamonds, allegedly millions of years old.]
According to the Bible’s chronology, great age cannot be the true cause of the observed isotope ratios. Anomalies like the above are good supporting evidence, but we are not yet sure of the true cause in all cases. A group of creationist Ph.D. geologists and physicists from theCreation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research are currently working on this topic. Their aim is to find out the precise geochemical and/or geophysical causes of the observed isotope ratios.13 One promising lead is questioning Assumption 1—the initial conditions are not what the evolutionists think, but are affected, for example, by the chemistry of the rock that melted to form the magma. [Update: it turned out that Assumption 2 was the most vulnerable, with strong evidence that decay rates were much faster in the past.  See the results of their experiments inRadioisotopes & the Age of the Earth volumes 1 and 2.]

Evidence for a young world

Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:

• Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.14
  
  
• The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.15
  
  
• Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000 of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.16
  
  
• A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.17
  
  
• The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1½ inches (4 cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).18
  
  
• Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actualage.19
  
  

A number of other processes inconsistent with billions of years are given in the booklet Evidence for a Young World, by Dr Russell Humphreys.
Creationists admit that they can’t prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admits: ‘Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964–68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.’20 Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present processes to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age-dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.
Creationists ultimately date the earth using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which can be shown to be consistent with much data.
Addendum: John Woodmorappe has published a detailed study demonstrating the fallacy of radiometric ‘dating,’ including the ‘high-tech’ isochron method:The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999).

Related Articles

• Creation and the appearance of age
  
  

Related Media

• 
  What the Science says about the Age of the Earth
  
  

References and notes

[1]S.A. Austin, Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, 1:3–9, ed. R.E. Walsh, R.S. Crowell, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1986; for a simplified article, see K. Ham, I got excited at Mount St Helens! Creation 15(3):14–19, June–August 1993. Return to text.
[2]Don Batten, Sandy stripes, Creation 19(1):39–40, December 1996–February 1997. Return to text.
[3]P. Julien, Y. Lan, and G. Berthault, Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures, Journal of Creation 8(1):37–50, 1994. Return to text.
[4]G. Berthault, Experiments on Lamination of Sediments, Journal of Creation3:25–29, 1988. Return to text.
[5]H.A. Makse, S. Havlin, P.R. King, and H.E. Stanley, Spontaneous Stratification in Granular Mixtures, Nature 386(6623):379–382, 27 March 1997. See also A. Snelling, Nature Finally Catches Up, Journal of Creation 11(2):125–6, 1997.Return to text.
[6]Carl Wieland, Stones and Bones, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 1994).Return to text.
[7]R.A. Kerr, Pathfinder Tells a Geologic Tale with One Starring Role, Science279(5348):175, 9 January 1998. Return to text.
[8]O. Morton, Flatlands, New Scientist 159(2143):36–39, 18 July 1998. Return to text.
[9]S.A. Austin, Excess Argon within mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano, Journal of Creation 10(3):335–343, 1986. Return to text.
[10]A.A. Snelling, The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating,’ Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, ed. E. Walsh, 1998, p. 503–525. This document lists many examples. For example, six were reported by D. Krummenacher, Isotopic Composition of Argon in Modern Surface Rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 8(2):109–117, April 1970; five were reported by G.B. Dalrymple, 40Ar/36Ar Analysis of Historic Lava Flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6(1):47–55, 1969. Also, a large excess was reported in D.E. Fisher, Excess Rare Gases in a Subaerial Basalt from Nigeria,Nature Physical Science 232(29):60–61, 19 July 1971. Return to text.
[11]A.A. Snelling, Radioactive ‘dating’ in conflict, Creation 20(1):24–27, December 1997–February 1998. Return to text.
[12]A.A. Snelling, Stumping old-age dogma, Creation 20(4):48–50, September–November 1998. Return to text.
[13]Institute for Creation Research, Acts and Facts 27(7), July 1998. Return to text.
[14]C. Wieland, Sensational dinosaur blood report! Creation 19(4):42–43, September–November 1997; based on research by M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June 1997, p. 55–57. [Update: seeSquirming at the Squishosaur and the linked articles for more recent evidence of elastic blood vessels in T. rex bones.] Return to text.
[15]D.R. Humphreys, Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field During the Genesis Flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 2 (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986), p. 113–126; J.D. Sarfati,The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, Creation20(2):15–19, March–May 1998. Return to text.
[16]L. Vardiman, The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990);J.D. Sarfati, Blowing old-earth belief away: helium gives evidence that the earth is young, Creation 20(3):19–21, June–August 1998. Return to text.
[17]K. Davies, Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.E. Walsh, 1994, p. 175–184; J.D. Sarfati, Exploding stars point to a young universe, Creation19(3):46–49, June–August 1998. See also How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr Humphreys’ cosmological model? Dr Russell Humphreys himself explains …. Return to text.
[18]D. DeYoung, The Earth-Moon System, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. 2, ed. R.E. Walsh and C.L Brooks, 1990, 79–84; J.D. Sarfati, The moon: the light that rules the night, Creation 20(4):36–39, September–November 1998. Return to text.
[19]S.A. Austin and D.R. Humphreys, The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, 1990, 17–33; J.D. Sarfati, Salty seas: evidence for a young earth, Creation 21(1):16–17, December 1998–February 1999. Return to text.
[20]Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, A Review by Dr Will B. Provine; available online from <fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/NAS_guidebook/provine_1.html> (cited 18 February 1999). Return to text.

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth
According to the conventional geologic time-scale, organic materials older than about 250,000 years should be utterly ¹⁴C “dead.” This is because the half-life of ¹⁴C, only 5,730 years, is so short. 250,000 years of decay (corresponding to 43.6 half-lives) reduces the number of initial ¹⁴C atoms by a factor of 7 × 10^-14. A gram of modern carbon contains about 6 × 10^10 14C atoms, so not a single ¹⁴C atom should remain after 250,000 years. The astonishing result, however, is that, almost without exception, when tested by accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record show detectable and reproducible amounts of ¹⁴C! This reality has been established as dozens of AMS laboratories around the world over the last 20 years have sought desperately to understand why organic samples from deep within the geological record, thought to be tens to hundreds of millions of years old, should consistently contain 0.1–0.5% of the modern level of ¹⁴C. 
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radioisotopes-and-the-age-of-the-earth/

List of Problems with Solar System Formation
If the solar system actually were 4.55 billion years old (that third significant digit is added by evolutionists as a psychological device to convince the public of a fictitious precision), by now it should have reached a stasis. Instead, scientists observe a great number of short-lived occurrences (transient phenomena) including:
- Mercury: rapid decline of its magnetic field
- Venus: recent volcanic eruptions  and the apparent signficant slowing  of rotation
- Earth: rapid decline of magnetic field ; inner core melting ; black smokers ; rapidly changing "ancient" geologic features
- Moon: rsr.org/moon#TLP  cites unexpected heat, dust, molten outer core, volcanism, radon & helium emissions
- Mars: eruption of apparent water vapor plumes to 200 kilometers  and outgassing of its moons  Phobos and Deimos
- Jupiter: moon Europa erupting  and Io giving off 10x more heat  than tidal pumping can explain
- Saturn: rings are young  and changing  and Enceladus is erupting  (hear RSR interview  former JPL systems administrator)
- Comets: short-period comets  (and the Oort cloud will never be found, because it does not exist)
- Asteroids: that outgass, that have six tails, the look like comets, etc., see phys.org , NASA , EarthSky , etc .
- TNOs: Trans-Neptunian Objects are thousands of years old because millions of years would have randomized  their perihelions
http://kgov.com/list-of-solar-system-formation-problems

My “Top Five” Reasons for Believing in a Young Earth (Part 2 of 6)
Now that I have the scientific philosophy out of the way, it is time to discuss the major data that lead me to believe in a young earth. The first issue is the phenomenon of planetary magnetic fields. We all know that the earth has a magnetic field. It’s what makes the Boy Scout compass needle point north. If we look at the other bodies in the solar system (planets and moons), some have magnetic fields, while others do not. Mars, for example, has no planetary magnetic field. It has some residual magnetism (which is important), but there is no significant planetary magnetic field. Mercury, on the other hand, has a magnetic field (which is also important).

Scientists have been studying the earth’s magnetic field since 1835, and since that time, its strength has been decaying. Also, it appears that at least a few times in the past, its poles have reversed. Most likely, then, at some points in the past, the Boy Scout compass needle pointed south.

What causes the earth’s magnetic field? Pretty much everyone agrees that it is the result of electrical currents that occur in the core of the earth. Just as a current-carrying wire produces a magnetic field, electrical currents in the core of the earth produce the earth’s magnetic field.

What causes those electrical currents? There’s the sticking point. There are those who think differences in local temperatures in the liquid outer core of the earth coupled with the earth’s rotation cause the currents. A small minority of scientists think that the electrical current started because of the spin alignment of the molecules in the earth at the time of creation. As the molecules relaxed, this would reduce their combined magnetic field, and the resulting change in flux would produce electrical currents in the core.

If you don’t understand all that, don’t worry. Here is the key. There are two basic ideas of how the earth’s magnetic field formed. The first idea I mentioned, the dynamo theory 1, assumes it is the result of processes that are currently happening. The second idea I mentioned, the rapid-decay theory 2, assumes it is the result of the method by which the earth was created. Both assumptions result in detailed mathematical models that can be used to predict the magnetic field of the earth as well as the magnetic fields of other bodies in the solar system.

How do these models compare to the data? Well, the dynamo theory doesn’t do well at all. For example, if you “massage” the model so you get the right magnetic field for the earth, it is wrong for most of the other planets. For example, the dynamo theory predicts that Mercury should have no magnetic field. However, it does. 3 Alternatively, Mars has no planetary magnetic field (or an incredibly weak one), but the dynamo theory says it should have one that is on the same order of magnitude as that of earth. 4

The rapid-decay theory, however, has enjoyed an enormous amount of success in relationship to the data. First, when you “massage” the theory so that earth’s magnetic field is predicted correctly, the theory then correctly predicts the magnetic fields of all the planets of the solar system. This is particularly impressive because two of the magnetic fields (the ones for Neptune and Uranus) were predicted several years before they were measured. 2 Once the measurements were made, the rapid-decay theory’s predictions were correct. The dynamo theory’s predictions were NOT.

In a similar vein, in 1984, the rapid-decay theory was used to predict that volcanic rocks from Mars should show that even though there is no significant planetary magnetic field now, there was one in the past. Well, the data from igneous rocks on Mars do, indeed, indicate that Mars did have a planetary magnetic field, even though it doesn’t have a significant one today. 5

Finally, the rapid-decay theory predicts that all planets’ magnetic fields decay over time. We have seen that with earth’s magnetic field, but that’s because we have been measuring it for neary 200 years. Most planets’ magnetic fields have been relatively recently measured, but Mercury’s magnetic field (the one the dynamo theory says shouldn’t exist) was measured back in 1975. NASA sent another unmanned probe back to Mercury, and though it has not settled into stable orbit yet, it has passed by Mercury. Long before that happened, the rapid-decay theory was used to predict what this unmanned probe would measure, and once again it was correct. 6

So what’s the point here? The ONLY theory of planetary magnetic fields that comes close to being consistent with the data is the rapid-decay theory. Not only can it accurately reproduce all the known planetary magnetic fields in the solar system, it predicted two of them before they were measured. In addition, before it was known, the rapid-decay theory predicted that Mars would show signs of having once had a planetary magnetic field. In addition, it predicted what the new Mercury probe would measure before it happened.

This theory of planetary magnetic fields is everything that you want from a scientific theory. It explains why planets have magnetic fields, and it predicts data that have not yet been measured. When those data are finally measured, the theory’s predictions turn out to be correct. Well, a consequence of this incredibly successful theory is that the earth and the solar system cannot be more than 10,000 years old. That’s a result of the mathematics.

Thus, the ONLY theory of planetary magnetism that successfully predicts the data REQUIRES that the earth and the solar system be very young.

REFERENCES
1. Paul Demorest, “Dynamo Theory and Earth’s Magnetic Field”, 2001, http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/~pauld/etc/210BPaper.pdf
Return to Text
2. D. Russell Humphreys, “The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields”, CRSQ 21,1984, http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html
Return to Text
3. E. N. Parker, “Magnetic fields in the cosmos,” Scientific American, 249:44-54 , 1983
Return to Text
4. Michael Zeilik, Astronomy: The Evolving Universe, p. 188 , Cambridge University Press, 2002
Return to Text
5. Connerney, J.E.P., et al., “Magnetic lineations in the ancient crust of Mars”, Science 284:794-798, 1994
Return to Text
6. D. Russell Humphreys, ” Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young!”, http://creation.com/mercury-s-magnetic-field-is-young
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=82

Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating
As someone who has studied radioactivity in detail, I have always been a bit amused by the assertion that radioactive dating is a precise way to determine the age of an object. This false notion is often promoted when radioactive dates are listed with utterly unrealistic error bars. In this report , for example, we are told that using one radioactive dating technique, a lunar rock sample is 4,283 million years old, plus or minus 23 million years old. In other words, there is a 95% certainty that the age is somewhere between 4,283 + 23 million years and 4,283 – 23 million years. That’s just over half a percent error in something that is supposedly multiple billions of years old.
Of course, that error estimate is complete nonsense. It refers to one specific source of error – the uncertainty in the measurement of the amounts of various atoms used in the analysis. Most likely, that is the least important source of error. If those rocks really have been sitting around on the moon for billions of years, I suspect that the the wide range of physical and chemical processes which occurred over that time period had a much more profound effect on the uncertainty of the age determination. This is best illustrated by the radioactive age of a sample of diamonds from Zaire . Their age was measured to be 6.0 +/- 0.3 billion years old. Do you see the problem? Those who are committed to an ancient age for the earth currently believe that it is 4.6 billion years old. Obviously, then, the minimum error in that measurement is 1.4 billion years, not 0.3 billion years!
Such uncertainties are usually glossed over, especially when radioactive dates are communicated to the public and, more importantly, to students. Generally, we are told that scientists have ways to analyze the object they are dating so as to eliminate the uncertainties due to unknown processes that occurred in the past. One way this is done in many radioactive dating techniques is to use an isochron . However, a recent paper  by Dr. Robert B. Hayes has pointed out a problem with isochrons that has, until now, not been considered.
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=15855

Lindsay Marks Harold
1. Radiogenic helium from the Helium Diffusion Dating method far exceeds what should be present in zircon. Given the known thermal history of these sites, helium diffusion rates match YEC predictions exactly, but are off by a factor of 100,000 from old earth predictions.
2. Soft tissue in dinosaur remains. All the decay studies on proteins show they cannot remain intact for more than 1-2 million years, even under the most ideal circumstances. Yet we find intact proteins in soft, stretchy tissue in dinosaur bones that have experienced very sub-optimal conditions such as water, bacteria, freeze-thaw cycles, and summer heat.
3. C-14 in every natural carbon source regardless of supposed age, including coal, dinosaur bone, and diamond. The amount of subterranean radiation that would be necessary to produce this would make these sites very productive uranium deposits.
4. Salt in the ocean. The ocean grows saltier over time because water evaporates while salt does not. Even the most conservative estimates, with the most generous assumptions for long ages, give a maximum age for the oceans of around 60 million years.
5. Cold slabs of continental crust deep in the mantle. At present subduction rates, these slabs should reach thermal equilibrium with the surrounding mantle rocks as quickly as they are subducted, but instead are more than a thousand degrees C cooler.
6. Recession rate of the moon. The moon grows farther away due to tidal friction. The measured rates of recession are not consistent with the proposed age of the earth-moon system.
7. Expansion rates of supernovae remnants are consistent with young earth chronology.
8. Mitochrondrial DNA shows that the most recent female ancestor of all humans lived about 6,000 years ago, and that all humans have since descended from one of three women (Noah's daughters in law). This clock comes straight from measured mutation rates applied to the measured differences in mitochondrial DNA among humans. In other words, unlike the official age given to "Mitochondrial Eve" in the mainstream model, this calculation is based solely on data rather than fudge factors.
9. The earth's crust is literally covered with evidence of a global flood. If Genesis did not mention a global flood, then secular geologists would have adopted that as the best explanation of earth history long ago. Some have proposed a global flood for Mars (even though that planet has no known source of liquid water).

Critics of the Bible, both atheist and theist, throughout history have used all sorts of arguments and excuses to avoid believing what the Bible is quite clear on, just as the Jews of old. And it's happening on many issues today.

Below are some helpful lectures by many scientists, some of them formerly Darwinians or OEC.

One of the key issues is this:
"The flood wipes away millions of years from the geological record." Marcos Ross, University of Rhode Island, in the brilliant documentary Evolution's Achilles Heels.

The radiometric assumptions ignore the Bible's claims of a catastrophe happening and are based on the assumptions of gradualism, which are just utter poppycock and pseudoscience.

EARTH/SOLAR SYSTEM GEOLOGY:
SHORT: 
1) An improved overview of Dr. Walter Brown's "Hydroplate Theory" documentary (~10 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD9ZGt9UA-U

2) "Rapid Rocks" Dr Tas Walker (short 2 minute clip on how a rock with a model car inside it, found on a beach in Brisbanehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpjc8reIh5Y

Our Created Solar System: This is a scientific presentation by Spike Psarris, a NASA scientist who was an atheist Darwinian but became a creationist first because of the vast scientific evidence which refuted all the materialist claims about origins. AFTER that he became a Christian. He goes through the materialist claims to explain the origin of the planets in our solar system and how some were popular for some time. Then he shows how they were debunked by scientific progress and new findings. He shows the pitiful excuses they make to reject the majority of evidence that powerfully points to creation and shows the fallacious basis of materialist "reasoning". ALL materialistic explanations in this area as with many others have comprehensively failed and been falsified by science. Psarris shows how the vast majority of evidence points to a young created solar system. 

A simple example of this is that Venus is similar in size and appears to be similar in age to the earth. So by materialist "reasoning" it should have similar composition and be a good place for life to get started. But this is of course completely untrue. 

~20:00 Psarris talks about how magnetic fields in the solar system can't be old.
A bit later he talks about the problem of the origin of water. Creationists of course say that God created water on the earth originally. Darwinians claimed that it originated from comets. But there's a lot of deuterium in water from comets, while there is almost none in earth water. So this claim doesn't match the evidence. 
There are 163 moons...but only earth's moon is at the right place and distance for solar eclipses.
~52:00 Psarris investigate the evidence that secular scientists claim. It is often a lot worse than they claim or absent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI

OUR CREATED SOLAR SYSTEM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI

Neil Tyson Degrasse did this repeatedly in his series on Cosmos 
Cosmos Scrubs Religion's Positive Influence from the History of the Scientific Revolution www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/cosmos_scrubs_r083641.html

See this example as well. Neil's Tyson Degrasse and a myriad of others. 
http://www.evolutionnews.org/.../atheists_deserv100751.html

LONGER: 
1) Geology and Deep Time (strong evidence for a global flood) by Dr. Emil Silvestru 
Dr. Silvestru, Ph.D in geology from ‘Babes-Bolyai’ University in Cluj, Romania (where he was associate professor),is a world authority on the geology of caves, published 41 scientific papers & 1 book (The Cave Book) & co-authored two books. He was for years the head scientist at the world’s first Speleological Institute. His seminar summarizes the vast evidence for a global flood with many scientific citations from major secular journals and also with well done illustrations. This is one of the best overviews of the vast evidence supporting a global flood.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-BaMAt4dnE (Start at 36:00. ~54:00 deals with how catastrophic plate tectonics supports the global flood).

2) "Creation Geology: The Key To Unraveling Earth History": By former Darwinian geologist who found that his secular textbooks were cherry picking data to fit an agenda and that the full evidence in geology fits creation science much better.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z4ujq6Nw3sA

3) This is very informative documentary by Dr. Snelling on plate tectonics and how it can only work with a young earth model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_dGbNddNXE

4) A Deluge Of Evidence: Noah's Flood and The Historical Roots of Secularism: This documentary is at a quite easy level. It shows how the founders of modern geology, Hutton and Lyell, were severely biased against creation and tried to exclude it from consideration. It summarizes some of the evidences for the flood simply. Then in the last section it cites some outrageous examples of censorship and demeaning insults towards creationists and how gradualism has set science backwards. There is a great quote at ~45 by a Darwinian about how Lyell sold geologists snake oil against catastrophism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Y7cyE3SWA 

5) NOAH'S FLOOD WASHING AWAY MILLIONS OF YEARS - by Terry Mortenson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTmZs7DKK2k
See also: http://biblicalgeology.net/

6) "The key to the age of the earth argument"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMUiilVIZB4 
https://answersingenesis.org/.../the-key-to-the-age-of.../

7) "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: The Earth's Young After All" An overview of evidence for a young earth, esp. some of the RATE project results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iohAhbf_KrY

8)The Ice Age: Only the Bible Can Explain It: Well done overview of how secular speculations don't fit the scientific data. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOsXoLROGWY

This is one of the more interesting ones, but quite technical.

9) "Hydroplate Theory: The Origin of Earth's Radioactivity" 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDPKD1KbdM

Hydroplate Theory Overview https://www.youtube.com/user/nnlmt28/videos

This is quite technical scientific documentary by a mechanical engineer working in the aerospace and defense industry. He gives solid evidence that tectonic plate movement and well known scientific factors would probably cause heat in the millions of degrees. This would destroy the Darwinian calibrations. If the flood is considered and fair calibrations made, it would fit very well with young earth calculations. See esp. minutes 7-10+ and 25-35+. 

Regarding physics, I'm weaker in that area than some other science, and this is a bit above my understanding...but this summarizes what some with expertise in that area are saying: 

From 20+ Nickel shows how a global flood and radioactivity rates are related but have almost nothing to do with age. The violent movement of tectonic plates acting on granite which is the main rock all over the planet. Granite has up to 27% quartz in it. If quartz is stressed, it creates electrical phenomenon. This is an example of a piezoeletric effect. Eyewitnesses around the world have seen lightning, flames and other effects after earthquakes. The types of cracks that we see in the crust into each other due to flutter sort of like airplanes while flying during earth quakes and produce unique cracks as a result of tension and bending. 

This fluttering/tension/bending caused powerful plasmas arcing within the plates and extremely high temperatures of ~630 million degrees that were enough to melt a few millimeters of rock. The plasma strips elements of electrons. The granite elements were vaporized and stripped and caused nuclear fusion. The rock walls expanded and rebounded like a super charged spring and fused nuclei in many places along plasma paths, producing all sorts of super heavy elements and their isotopes. These elements are relied upon as clocks and evidence of millions of years even though they were created almost instaneously.

Some people claim that a rapid increase in temperatures and changes in radioactive decay would have melted the entire crust and caused the annihilation of all life. But Bryan Nickel shows why while there are tremendous temperatures, they are not all transferred to the surroundings as is assumed from ~29:00+. He cites an academic article about how "in the zone of the self-organized collapse, we are faced with the process of a distinctive "cold repacking" of nucleons which initially belonged to nuclei of the target. This process terminates in the final configuration which corresponds to newly synthesized isotopes...the process is adiabatic (meaning little heat is transferred to the surroundings)." Adamenko, "Full-Rang Nucleosynthesis in the Laboratory," Infinite Energy, Issue 54, 2004, p. 4

Nickel shows how the crust diffuses heat in various ways similar to how engines do with fins and so would only melt a small part of the crust and not melt the entire crust or endanger life on the surface. The extreme heat would though produce supercritical water with high levels of deuterium and oxygen18. Some of these were at different times blasted into space. Scientists have often wondered why many comets show signs of being melted with intense heat and high levels of deuterium even though they are in cold space. Hydroplate explains this better than anything else.

Only at the outskirts of the Milky Way, at more than 10 kpc from the galactic center, this probability drops below 50%. When considering the Universe as a whole, the safest environments for life (similar to the one on Earth) are the lowest density regions in the outskirts of large galaxies and life can exist in only ≈ 10% of galaxies. Remarkably, a cosmological constant is essential for such systems to exist. Furthermore, because of both the higher GRB rate and galaxies being smaller, life, as it exists on Earth, could not take place at z > 0.5. Early life forms must have been much more resilient to radiation.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.2506.pdf

Danny Faulkner, A Universe by design, page 103

Exodus 20:11 states “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh.” This was written in the context of the command to observe the Sabbath. It is obvious that the Hebrews’ workweek was six days. If the model that the Hebrews were to follow was the creation week, then it makes no sense that the days were long periods of time. The exegesis of day-age gets a little weird here, for it would lead to the nonsensical statement that first the Lord created in six time periods, and then much later He used this motif when giving the Law to the ancient Hebrews to hold His people to a very strict and literal interpretation of the demands of a seven-day week, but the model upon which it was based is to be taken rather loosely. This brings us to another objection to the day-age theory. When the modern version of the day-age
theory began to be developed in the 19th century, it was hoped that the days of creation could be matched to geological ages. However, when one carefully compares the details of what modern science says about the history of the earth with the biblical creation account, one finds that there are marked differences. For instance, not only were plants created before the sun (the third day as opposed to the fourth day), but also the plants that are specifically mentioned are flowering plants, plants that according to evolution appeared very late, after the time of many of animals created on days 5 and 6. There are many other examples. Given that the events of the six days of creation cannot be matched to the order of events that science professes, the original attempt to match creation days with geologic ages has utterly failed. However, the proponents of the day-age theory press onward anyway. How do these people propose to do this?

The Book of Genesis Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, page 73 1

One more point needs to be discussed before dealing with the actual six days of creation relative to the Hebrew word for “day,” which is yom. People who want to fit Genesis 1 into evolutionary and geological theories try to claim that the word yom does not have to mean twenty-four hours but could mean a longer period of time, even millions of years. Now it is true that when the word yom is used by itself it could mean a longer period of time (though no example exists where it means millions of years). For example, the Day of Jehovah is a period of seven years. However, whenever the word is used with a number or numeral, it always means twenty-four hours.
Throughout Genesis 1, each time the word day is found; it is used with a numeral: day one, day two, etc. This alone shows that the days of Genesis are twenty-four hour days. However, there is more: Not only is the word day followed by a numeral, it is also followed by the phrase evening and morning, and this phrase again limits it to twenty-four hours. Furthermore, the Sabbath law, as given to Israel in the Law of Moses, is based upon the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest. These laws would become meaningless if these were not twenty-four hour days. Finally, with the fourth day, there is the mention of days, years, signs, and seasons, showing that already
within Genesis 1 there is the normal system of time in operation. These terms also would become meaningless if these were not normal twenty-four hour days. By itself, Genesis 1:2 says nothing insofar as it being an old earth or a young earth, and the evidence for one or the other must be based on arguments outside this verse. However, the six days of creation were literal twenty-four hour days.

1. https://libgen.pw/view.php?id=929039

Another important fact to keep in mind is that the Moon is gradually moving away from Earth, exactly at a rate of 3.8 centimeters, or one inch and a half, per year. This can be scientifically proven today thanks to the Laser Ranging Retro-Reflectors that Apollo mission’s astronauts left on the lunar surface, just firing a laser beam towards these reflectors and precisely measuring the distance. The importance of this fact is that if we go backwards in time, the moon would be more and more close to the Earth, reaching a point when, billions of years ago, the Moon must have been really close to our planet; so close that it could have been appreciated in the sky with enough level of detail to count even the smaller craters (so bad that in those times there was no humans on Earth to appreciate that spectacular show).

So, if we consider that the actual gravitational pull of the moon create the tides, even with the moon being so far away from Earth, then billions of years ago, when the Moon was so close to our planet, the tides produced in the interaction between this two bodies must have been really huge. Incredibly large waves of water would have covered hundreds of miles of the surface. If the tides of our times reach up to tens of meters high, in those early days that height would have been of tens of kilometers. The colossal waves of the early Earth would swept large areas of the ground, dragging in the process high amounts of minerals and chemicals into the ocean depths. This diversity of chemicals and minerals, agitated by the extreme tides, exposed to very high amounts of radiation and energy received from the sun, after millions of years of reactions and interactions, would have form a primordial soup of organic molecules. Once this molecules gain complexity, this would lead to the formation of amino acids, which are the main functional block of proteins, and these occupy a place of utmost importance among the constituent molecules of living organisms and play a key role in life.

https://cosmoquest.org/x/365daysofastronomy/2011/10/18/october-18th-the-vital-importance-of-the-moon-for-life-on-earth/

- at the current rate of erosion the entire earth would have been eroded flat several times over in the long age model
- the magnetic field has been decaying for as long as we have been measuring it. Using uniformitarian assumptions, back millions of years ago the earth's field would have been so strong as to melt it.
- the moon is receding from the earth Millions of years ago it would have been close enough to have been captured by the earth's gravity
- the rate of salination and desalination of the earth's waters don't match where they should be in long ages
- the human genome is decaying at an approximate rate of 100-300 inheritable mutations per generation. To paraphrase one prominent evolutionary geneticist 'why haven't we gone extinct several times over?
- every single member of the famous 'monkey parade' is classified either as an ape or human. Nothing in between
- living fossils, punctuated equilibrium, stasis, homology, homoplasy, and so on are just-so stories fabricated to explain the data which don't match the evolutionary hypothesis
- magnetic fields in planets which should not have them
- the Cambrian explosion, as mentioned
- soft tissue, proteins, and DNA in over 40 dinosaur bones - not fossils
- c14 (or 14c, depending on how you want it) found in coal, diamonds, and bones, when NONE should exist even if they're 'only' 100,000 years old
- comets (as you mentioned)
- flat gaps (such as between the Hermit Shale and Coconino Sandstone) extend for hundreds of miles, undisturbed by any signs of erosion, animal burrows, etc
- Sloan Sky Survey indicates concentric circles (likely spheres) of galaxies roughly centred on our galaxy
- virtually all of the fossil record has been buried by water-borne sediment in a catastrophic event
- planation surfaces, erosional remnants, water gaps, and many other geological features defy long-age explanations, but are often well-explained with an understanding of global flood dynamics
- radiometric dating has given wildly erroneous ages for rocks of known age, and the SAME rocks tested with different methods have yielded wildly different ages as well
- the MZT (maternal to zygote transition) effectively prevents the child from taking over its own development until a certain stage has been reached. Also, the 'framework' for the 'grandchild' is transferred with similar protection, such that evolution could not possibly work, as changes are required in successive generations. This also applies to plants
- historical records of all European people groups trace their ancestry back to the sons of Noah
- some 400-500 cultures have similar flood stories around the world
- thousands of artifacts, sculptures, carvings, and drawings indicate dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans
- Marco polo describes what sounds a lot like a T-Rex
- Japanese and Hebrew letter forms bear striking resemblances
- ancient Chinese characters support a flood narrative, and a creation account, built right into their letter forms
- the origin of languages is a huge mystery for long-agers, but entirely supports a post-flood dispersion and confusion of languages as described at Babel

There is very powerful evidence for creation and against Darwinism. 15 Ph.D. scientists summarize some of it. Watch especially the last part from ~1:18:00 to 1:31:00 on how Darwinism has been very damaging to millions of lives.

The Achille's Heels of Evolution 
15명의 과학자가 밝히는 진화론의 거짓말과 지구의 올바른 역사 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2YG_QByycM

Otangelo Grasso. This is another really good one to watch if you haven't seen it and deals some with the dating assumptions and how they are being overturned by current science.

A key principle to remember is that the Bible says that truth stands the test of time, but lies are exposed with time. Every version of Darwinism in history has been debunked with time. And every estimate of the age of the earth by Darwinians has been abandoned as false after some time of most materialists believing it.

Here are a couple insightful thoughts that relate to these issues as well:
FOSSIL PROGRESSION?, DAVID M. RAUP, Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, "A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: lowlevel textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...One of the ironies of the creationevolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood Geology." New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981

CATACLYSMIC BURIAL, JOHN R. HORNER, "...there were 30 million fossil fragments in that area. At a conservative estimate, we had discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs ...there was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area but a catastrophic inundation. ... That's our best explanation. It seems to make the most sense, and on the basis of it we believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment." DIGGING DINOSAURS, 1988, p.131

RECORD IS CATASTROPHIC, DAVID M. RAUP, Chicago Field Museum, Univ. of Chicago, "A great deal has changed, however, and contemporary geologists and paleontologists now generally accept catastrophe as a 'way of life' although they may avoid the word catastrophe... The periods of relative quiet contribute only a small part of the record. The days are almost gone when a geologist looks at such a sequence, measures its thickness, estimates the total amount of elapsed time, and then divides one by the other to compute the rate of deposition in centimeters per thousand years. The nineteenth century idea of uniformitarianism and gradualism still exist in popular treatments of geology, in some museum exhibits, and in lower level textbooks....one can hardly blame the creationists for having the idea that the conventional wisdom in geology is still a noncatastrophic one." Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin (Vol.54, March 1983), p.2 1

"Some papers give evidence of presenting filtered data. What is meant by filtered data, is that they only present the data that agrees with evolutionary thinking. The other data is eliminated. A very good example of this kind of filtering is a paper by Evernden JF, Savage DE, Curtis GH, James GT: Potassium-argon dating and the Cenozoic mammalian chronology of North America. Am J Sci 1964;22:145-98. This paper is now considered to be a classic paper.

On pages 171-174 they discuss why all but one potassium/argon date for the Rusinga Island bioites was discarded. Yet they use biotite in an uncritical manner in other areas where the dates they obtained matched their expectations. On Page 174, we can also note: "Unfortunately many of the samples that passed field inspection for suitability and were laboriously collected, later proved unsuitable for dating. . . . Thus, of some 65 samples collected by M. Skinner, only 10 could be used." Other creationists such as Paul Giem (in his book, Scientific Theology ), have thought: "It might have been interesting to know why such samples proved unsuitable for dating, and what their potassium/argon dates were." 

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/.../C-deception-carbon... 

Geologist, Tas Walker, writes:
"Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable.
"However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
"Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed. And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like it to be." -- Tas Walker

John Carlisle Age of earth 
The 66 texts written by 40 authors over 1600 years depict a HYPER ACCURATE GENEALOGY with names, dates, places, events, relationships etc etc etc that to this day have not only NOT been disproven but have been WELL PROVEN BY REPEATED ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES ALL OVER THE MIDDLE EASTERN LANDSCAPE. It is THE MOST STRICTLY GUARDED AND KEPT TEXT IN HUMAN HISTORY and is more substantiated by corroborating evidence than any other historical texts BY THOUSANDS more documents both secular and theological. 

It’s the most strictly kept series of HISTORICAL RECORDS kept throughout human history. 

Look how quickly the theories AGED the earth LONG BEFORE radio metric or radio isotope data was available. Then take a look at the IMMENSE FLAWS in both of these dating methods dating a living snail at 3600 years old, a 25 year old geyser spring at over 1,000,000 and Mt St Helens freshly formed rocks at 56,000 yrs old! There IS no accurate means and they’ll run multiple tests only printing the results that match their presupposed beliefs. Other results are thrown out as ‘flawed’.

Comte de Buffon 78 thousand years old 1779
Abraham Werner 1 million years 1786
James Hutton Perhaps eternal, long ages 1795
Pièrre LaPlace Long ages 1796
Jean Lamarck Long ages 1809
William Smith Long ages 1835
Georges Cuvier Long ages 1812
Charles Lyell Millions of years 1830–1833
Lord Kelvin 20–100 million years 1862–1899
Arthur Holmes 1.6 billion years 1913
Clair Patterson 4.5 billion years 1956
Radiometric dating results are only used when we have NO idea the age of the subject and want to support millions or billions. They are and have been proven to be completely unreliable.

So the ONLY substantial ‘DATA’ we have is compiled from supremely well kept historical records regarding familial lineage and genealogy, historical and political events and timelines and corresponding archeological finds. 

THAT and THOSE are SCIENTIFIC. The rest is purely imagined
************************************

Prior to the 1700s, few believed in an old earth. The approximate 6,000-year age for the earth was challenged only rather recently, beginning in the late 18th century. These opponents of the biblical chronology essentially left God out of the picture. Three of the old-earth advocates included Comte de Buffon, who thought the earth was at least 75,000 years old. Pièrre LaPlace imagined an indefinite but very long history. And Jean Lamarck also proposed long ages.11

However, the idea of millions of years really took hold in geology when men like Abraham Werner, James Hutton, William Smith, Georges Cuvier, and Charles Lyell used their interpretations of geology as the standard, rather than the Bible. Werner estimated the age of the earth at about one million years. Smith and Cuvier believed untold ages were needed for the formation of rock layers. Hutton said he could see no geological evidence of a beginning of the earth; and building on Hutton’s thinking, Lyell advocated “millions of years.”

From these men and others came the consensus view that the geologic layers were laid down slowly over long periods of time based on the rates at which we see them accumulating today. Hutton said:

The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now. . . . No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.12
This viewpoint is called naturalistic uniformitarianism, and it excludes any major catastrophes such as Noah’s flood. Though some, such as Cuvier and Smith, believed in multiple catastrophes separated by long periods of time, the uniformitarian concept became the ruling dogma in geology.

So don’t believe the radiological arguments nor the “rock dating” arguments because both are supremely flawed from their onset. 

The age of the earth scientists now spout came from NOTHING more than theorized imaginings of incredulity touted by 17th century geologists and weakly clung to by modern regurgitation.

Additionally there is AMPLE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC DATA including human population numbers, thickness of moon dust, distance of moon from the earth relative to known movement, salinity of the ocean relative to known salinity development and increase rates etc etc etc all point to ‘THOUSANDS not millions’.

Pay attention to the PURPOSE of those who are teaching you and ONLY to the SUBSTANCE they are teaching.

https://youtu.be/3tzSqV0RTbs

Adam to Noah
If we take Adam’s creation by God to be year 0 we can determine the
approximate age of the Earth as follows;

Year 0: Adam and Eve were created by God
Year 130: Seth was born (Genesis 5:3)
Year 235: Enosh was born (Genesis 5:6)
Year 325: Kenan was born (Genesis 5:9)
Year 395: Mahalalel was born (Genesis 5:12)
Year 460: Jared was born (Genesis 5:15)
Year 522: Enoch was born (Genesis 5:18)
Year 587: Methuselah was born (Genesis 5:21)
Year 774: Lamech was born (Genesis 5:25)
Year 956: Noah was born (Genesis 5:28)
Year 1456: Shem, Ham, and Japeth were born (Genesis 5:32)
Year 1556: Flood began (Genesis 7:6)
Year 1557: Flood ended (Genesis 8:13)

Noah to Abraham
Year 1559: Arpachshad was born (Genesis 11:10)
Year 1594: Shelah was born (Genesis 11:12)
Year 1624: Eber was born (Genesis 11:14)
Year 1658: Peleg was born (Genesis 11:16)
Year 1688: Reu was born (Genesis 11:18)
Year 1720: Serug was born (Genesis 11:20)
Year 1750: Nahor was born (Genesis 11:22)
Year 1779: Terah was born (Genesis 11:24)
Year 1849: Abram, Nahor, and Haran were born (Genesis 11:26)

Abraham to Jesus
Year 1949: Isaac was born (Genesis 21:2)
Year 2009: Jacob was born (Genesis 25:26)
Year 2156: Jacob died (Genesis 47:28)
Year 2586: Nation Israel left Egypt (430 years in captivity)
Year 2936: Saul became king (about 1050 BC)
Year 3986: Jesus was born
Year 4019: Jesus was crucified

From the death of Jacob to Jesus is a close approximate as the Bible and Archeology do not pinpoint exact times but we can certainly be sure that these ages are within 100 years of being accurate. Therefore if we add 2015 years (at the time of this writing) we see that Biblically the Earth cannot be more than 6034 to 6134 years old.

The Hebrew word yom, day, is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. We know precisely in what sense the word is used everywhere, except, of course, in Genesis 1.
Sometimes the word means "time" in the day of the Lord" or "in the day(s) of the Judges" WHERE THE WORD IS NOT PLURAL IN HEBREW, THE WORD MEANS TIME. So how do we determine when the word means a literal 24 hour period?
Outside of Genesis 1,
The word is used 410 times with the word day PLUS A NUMBER, and it always means a 24 hour period.
The word yom is used WITH EVENING AND MORNING 38 times, and always means a 24 hour period.
It is used WITH MORNING 23 times and WITH EVENING 23 times and each time it means an ordinary day.
The word day is used WITH THE WORD NIGHT 52 TIMES and each time it means a 24 hour day.
To sum up, outside of Genesis 1, yom means 24 hours when it is used with a number (six days), whenever the phrase "evening and morning" or "evening" or "morning" is used with yom, and whenever the word is used with the word night.
I have heard it said that the creation story in Genesis 1 is a unique genre, since there is absolutely no parallel to it in the rest of Genesis. Not true.
No one ever questions whether Joshua might have marched around Jericho for 100,000 years or millions of years because day with a number always means a 24 hour period or a daylight period.
What if we apply these tests to Genesis 1, we have in Genesis 1: 5, night, evening, morning number, 1:8, evening, morning, number, 1:13, evening morning number, 1:18, evening, morning, number, 1:23, evening morning number, and 1:31, evening morning number. So God's intention is clear. HE IS SPEAKING OF ORDINARY DAYS.
Why do we reject it? Because of what the ATHEISTIC SCIENTISTS say. But forensic science is not observational science. it is an INTERPRETATION of data.
When the atheist sees the results of the flood of Noah, with fish fossils on the mountain tops all the way to Everest, and hundreds and thousands of feet of fossil laden sediment layers that cover whole continents and even extend across continents, he says millions of years of gradual sedimentation. We say the flood of Noah.

A Comparison of the Old Earth and Young Earth Creationist Models

https://www.rae.org/essay-links/oldyoung/

Just a short overview of my position on the old/young earth issue:

Either is possible, but I lean toward a young-earth view for the following reasons:

A literal 6 day creation is the most clear and simple interpretation of Genesis and other scriptures that speak of creation and the 6 days thereof.
Most or all of what we view from a geological viewpoint that would seem to point to an old earth can be explained or interpreted in light of the fact that a great flood (and its geological/meteorological aftermath) utterly transformed the earth and totally altered the geological “record”.
The fossil record can be largely or entirely viewed as a result of the flood.
While there are some unresolved issues/problems with a young earth view, there are an equal number (or more) problems with an old earth view. This fact is largely ignored by “secular” science.
A young earth view is the historic view of the Church and Rabbis in Judaism. Both Rabbis and the post-apostolic fathers wrote of the earth as being young. Some, in fact, believed it would last for 7000 years (2000 years of nations (chaos?), 2000 years of Law, 2000 years of Grace, and 1000 years of Messiah).
Old-earth dating methods are inconclusive, often conflict, and often produce bogus results (giving ancient dates on recent lava flows, living shellfish,etc).
Old-earth views often discount the Flood as of little significance when interpreting geological strata (most “secular” geologists do not believe such a global flood even happened). For example, oldeartherswould view the Grand Canyon as the result of millions of years of sediment deposition and erosion. Young earthers would view the area as a result of massive sediment deposition during the flood, accompanied by land upheaval and massive river flows during immediate post-flood era. Consider what a raging torrent the Colorado River must have been as the flood waters receded!
A “day-age” interpretation of Genesis 1 has some logical problems:
— Just how many millenia did plants live (created “day” 3) without sunlight (created “day” 4), which all land plants are dependent upon for light, warmth, reproduction, photosynthesis, and their day/night cycles?

— Many plants are almost totally dependent upon insects for pollenization and reproduction. Some also depend on birds and animals. Such plants could not have survived for more than a single life cycle much less millions of years (again, plants came on “day” 3, insects day “6”… millions/billions of years later?).

— God did not “give every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth…” as food for “all the beast… birds… creatures… [and] everything that has the breath of life in it…” until day 6. Why would God wait millions/billions of years to declare this? The phrase “And it was so” seems to indicate that it was at the moment that God spoke that this law was established for both man and beast.

How Old is the Earth? (Creation.com)

I’m open to other opinions. [My friend] has made some excellent points that bear consideration. But the evidence that we see on earth can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Old-earthers see it through their rose-colored glasses, young-earthers through theirs.

So I ask, what does the text most plainly say? What has the Church historically taught? To me, both say “young earth”. So, for now, there I stand.

Here's a short list of some dating methods that refute deep time.
Helium in the atmosphere,
Helium in the ground,
Geological activity of the moon,
Roche limit, Build up of carbon 14 [Only enough in the atmosphere for an earth less than 20,000 years old],
Human population,
Natural plutonium,
Erosion of continents,
Earth’s magnetic field,
Oil pressure in the earth,
Natural gas in the earth,
Orphan radio halos,
Neutrons & strontium,
Coral reef growth,
Oldest living plants,
Human civilizations,
River delta growth,
Under sea oil seepage,
Uranium in sea,
Neutrons and lead,
Interstellar gas expansion,
C-14 in meteorites,
Interplanetary dust removal,
Lifetime of meteor showers,
Peat bog growth,
Poly-strata fossils,
Hardening of rocks,
Decay of Saturn’s rings,
Potassium in the sea,
Titan’s methane loss,
Internal heat of Io,
Leaching of chlorine,
Radiogenic lead,
Niagara Falls erosion,
Seafloor calcareous ooze,
Uranium decay,
Squashed radio halos,
rotating spiral galaxies that cannot last billions of years; they would be twisted up beyond recognition,
multitudes of hot blue stars which cannot last billions of years,
decaying magnetic fields,
disintegrating comets,
the horizon problem.
-----------------------------------------
// Continental drift under the current YEC models, you cook all life on earth again due to the heat generated.//
Maybe it has not yet been figured out. That doesn't mean it cannot be. As an example; when the basalt next to the mid Atlantic ridge was drilled through, there was no consistency to magnetic pattern in the underlying rock. That is expected with rapid formation of the basalt from Noah's flood; not with long ages of continental drift.
--------------------------------
I gave some examples above of many bits of evidence that the old earther has to overcome. Both the old earther and the young earther need rescuing devices for many bits of evidence. Neither philosophy can be proven with evidence. THAT is a fact.
The bottom line is that evidence will never convince anyone. The evidence is ALWAYS peered at through the philosophical worldview lens one espouses. The real difference between people like me and those like you is that many biblical creationists are both willing and able to see the evidence through your lens. That is the only way I can see the shortcomings of your claims.
I have yet to meet a God denier who is capable of viewing evidence through the lens of biblical creation. The best they do is like you are right now: They ALWAYS seek just enough information to fulfill their need for confirmation bias and ignore all the problems with their own philosophical worldview.
This is an interesting stance coming from someone who has no explanations at all for any origins. The naturalist doesn't even bother to try to find the original uncaused cause that brought the universe into existence. The origin of life is another the God denier won't touch. The only thing they say is exactly what I said about the heat problem. The God denier appeals to the "I don't know" answer for all things origin related.
Since there are so many things that point to a young earth and universe; and since all the dating methods are based on unknowable assumptions such as the beginning mother daughter ratio and the uniformity of exchange rates through time, the God denier has nothing on which to base his beliefs except guesswork.”