more admin hypocrisy

 

 

 

 So this guy advertises his group to me.  

 "I recently created a new group and after seeing some of the Political Talk in America group posts you have participated in I think you would be a great addition to it.

You are welcome to invite anyone you want, we hope to see you there."

 

 

 

then later...

Zack Schofield Are you seriously here to promote young earth creationism?

We don't allow any stating of opinion as fact, particularly in regards to matters of scientific consensus.

Unless you have published peer reviewed papers supporting your claims you will be in direct violation of the rules.

Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 7:46pm

Zack Schofield Matt SIngleton,

Think through your next post please.

Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 7:47pm

Matt SIngleton Should I be offended that I have cited dozens of peer reviewed journals there while you try to misrepresent my paper?

Like · Reply · Yesterday at 7:53pm

Zack Schofield The earth is 4.54 billion years old, the end.

This is accepted by the consensus of experts working in relevant fields and the idea of young earth creationism is laughed at by the entire scientific community. The concept of YEC is rejected by every single worldwide science academy and is demonstrably false via dozens of fields. We do not spread insane anti science rhetoric in this group.

Please follow the rules, if you have a specific peer reviewed paper supporting this claim I will be willing to read it, but I have no interest in reading fanatical religious propaganda.

You will not be warned about this again."

NO WHERE DOES ZACK SCOHFIELD CITE PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS FOR HIS ASSERTION!  HE HAS VIOLATED HIS RULES!

A Mature look at age

 psalm 33:⁶ By the word of the Lord were the heavens made;
and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
⁷ He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap:
he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
⁸ Let all the earth fear the Lord:
let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
⁹ For he spake, and it was done;
he commanded, and it stood fast.

How old is the earth?  What is it made of and how did it form?
    vs.       

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ² And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
:⁹ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. ¹⁰ And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good."


Biblical teaching states that the earth has liquid/watery origins.  Wet mud drying does not require a massive timescale.   
The volcanic planetary evolution requires that a molten fireball earth descended from the sun and this required millions/billions of years to cool down.
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2013/02/rock-of-ages.html



The traditional Uniformitarian view from a christian old earther
"Most ASA members accept the consensus scientific view on the age of the earth. Already in 1949 based on radiometric dating techniques, ASA member Laurence Kulp said, "One of the most probable facts in geology, I believe, is that the earth is close to two billion years old..." Kulp's early paper supporting the old earth position and criticizing YEC is featured in the collection below. A paper written for the ASA web site, "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by physicist Roger Wiens has proved to be one of the most popular in terms of electronic downloads. Many of the resources here simply review the scientific claims for an old earth and then seek to understand that great age in light of what the Bible says."
 http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
   Sounds fair enough.  But something odd is sticking out.  You may notice it if we give an earlier quote of there's...
"Using radiometric dating modern science has concluded that the earth is 4.54 billion years old."
The pioneer of this institution (American Scientific Affiliation) has dated the age of the earth over 2 and half billion years earlier than the current estimate. His date is closer to the young earth estimate than the Old Earth estimate.  In light of the current date he could be labeled a young earther!! Worse then that.  Both estimates are based upon radiometric dating techniques. And while we can simply say they measured further in the past with better technology.  The Fact is that dating methods are not supposed to give us certainty.
When ever we hit historical problems we can ignore the need for revision and simply invent time!
  Let's say you are watching your favorite crime scene investigation show.  In order to recreate the crime scene,  are the investigators capable of piecing together a scenario where the victim dies before the body was found?  Or how about a scenario where the man was dead years ago even though the victim was scene alive?  How can any fact the detective finds refute his current assumptions? All he has to do is add more speculation without any accountability.  Maybe the suspect had a look alike etc.
When we give an infinite timescale We have jumped into the world of science fictions.  Our historical observations only go back a few thousand years.  So the further back we go the more all certainty falls apart. 

      We are not so deep! Deep time like deep space and similar concepts assumes long scale concepts that surpass our observations in order to preserve naturalism.
 They make the Uniformitarian assumption which would assume that nature has always been the same.  Then they ignore historical observations.  Instead of asking Historic record, they fantasize of an era of prehistory

 Historical dating( Genealogies)
"Origin of agriculture. Secular dating puts it at about 10,000 years and yet that same chronology says that modern man has supposedly been around for at least 200,000 years. Surely someone would have worked out much sooner how to sow seeds of plants to produce food."
Marshak, A., ‘Exploring the mind of Ice Age man’, Nat. Geog. 147(Jan. 1975) 64–89.
" Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 10⁴³ people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it."http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people


 How do you handle buried treasure?
 
    If you were to find a buried treasure chest filled with coins.  You would look at a coin and find the date. 1675.  From that date you would know that the ship must not have sank before 1675.  Because the coin would not have existed to be placed on the ship before that.  As you look further you find a coin dated 1742.   The ship must not have sank before 1742 because both coins would have existed afterwards.  Yet only one coin existed prior to 1742. Obviously the most current coin which you can find will determine how recent the ship sank.   This same principle applies to dating the age of the earth. If an essential element of the earth is recent then the rest of the earth must be recent,
Is the hourglass reliable?
" Before 1955, ages for the Earth based on uranium/thorium/lead ratios were generally about a billion years younger than the currently popular 4.5 billion years. The radiometric evidence for a 4.5 b.y. old Earth is reviewed and deficiencies of the uranium/lead method are discussed. The basic theory of radiometric dating is briefly reviewed. Since 1955 the estimate for the age of the Earth has been based on the assumption that certain meteorite lead isotope ratios are equivalent to the primordial lead isotope ratios on Earth. In 1972 this assumption was shown to be highly questionable. Despite this, the momentum gained in the two decades prior to 1972 has made 4.5 b.y. a popularly accepted “universal constant” even though the foundations on which it was based have been virtually removed. Some evidence is also presented to show that radiometric results that are in agreement with the accepted geological time scale are selectively published in preference to those results that are not in agreement."
       "One third of lead ores are regarded as anomalous, since they have negative ages, that is ages extending billions of years into the future, in some cases.
The geological time scale and an age for the Earth of 4.5 b.y. rely heavily on the uranium/thorium/lead radiometric dating methods.¹ Because it is not generally appreciated that the assumptions on which the radiometric estimates are based are a virtually impossible sequence of events, let us refresh our minds on the fundamentals of the method by turning to the hourglass analogy (Fig. 1).

• the hole does not clog up,
• the sand always flows at a known and reproducible rate,
• we know how much sand is in the bottom at the beginning,
• no sand is added or subtracted during the timing run. In other words, it has to be a closed system.

    This system of measuring time works well providing that:In general, dates in the ‘correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and published, but those in disagreement are with other data are seldom published.  Since radioactive decay constants are believed to be unalterable, the requirement of an absolutely reproducible rate is hopefully met. Therefore, all one has to do in general terms is to find a radioactive mineral which has been a closed system since the time of mineralization, and for which the amount of the daughter product at the beginning is known, the so-called primordial amount, and the absolute age may be calculated from the present amount of parent and daughter isotopes in the mineral.
Briefly, the weakest points in this method are that (a) truly closed systems probably do not exist in nature,⁴ (b) the primordial concentration of isotopes is an intractable problem and the value chosen can only be based on assumptions and (c), even the invariance of decay constants is now under question.^{5– 12} More than a dozen radioactive isotopes are known to have easily altered decay constants, by up to 4%^* by merely changing the chemical form of the isotope. Therefore, the following is simply a statement of the obvious;

“As in the case with radiometric ages determined from almost any rock unit it is impossible to establish unequivocally that the ages reported here reflect the time of original crystallization or emplacement of the bodies from which they are derived.”¹³

 http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-age-of-earth   Ralph W. Matthews, Ph.D.

Time is running out(the 2nd law of thermodynamics)
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state. "
http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html
So if all energy is wasted, then how could we start with such a maximum energy?  If there is not an infinite creator where did all the energy come from?


Did you check to see if the faucet is leaking?
 
But what about the long ages? Shouldn't a late date prove aging?  Think about it like this.  You step into a kitchen and find a sink with a bucket of water in it.  The faucet is leaking a drip into the bucket. You therefore reckon that if you measure the water in the bucket and divide it by the weight of the drip, you could convert it to the timing of the drip in the faucet to determine how long the water has been dripping in the faucet.  This sounds like a good scientific strategy.  However, you have made some assumptions.  How do you know that the faucet has maintained the same drip?  What if someone was in the room before and they had turned the faucet all the way on?  What if the water instantaneously filled the bucket?  What if the drip was off an indefinite time and then it started up later?  You see while it may be possible that the drip filled the bucket like it is doing now, it is impossible to be certain about it.

 Mt. St Helens columns
 



If we simply looked at the geologic columns of Mt. St. Helens and these pics with many layers we could make the uniformitarian assumption that these layers took several million years.  But we observed this volcanic eruption in the 1980's/ Proving how rapid a catastrophe can make a landscape appear to age.  This begs the question if other supposedly ancient geological formations were in truth formed rapidly.


http://www.britannica.com/science/radioactive-isotope
 "Radioactive isotope, also called radioisotope,  any of several species of the same chemical element with different masses whose nuclei are unstable and dissipate excess energy by spontaneously emitting radiation in the form of alpha, beta, and gamma rays."

Incompatible ages)  The christian world has an intelligent Sovereign God to correct man's mistakes.  But for evolution to function all reality must stand upon it's own justification.  If we can not rely upon God as the objective source then we must
http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-and-old-ages-in-disarray
"To form a radiohalo, there must be over 10⁹ atoms concentrated into a very tiny spot, about 1 μm in diameter. There cannot be too many atoms or the alpha damage causes a dark diffuse sphere, making it difficult to recognize the type of halo. With ²³⁸U halos, colouration initially develops after 100 Ma worth of alpha decay, becomes darker after about 500 Ma worth, and very dark after about 1 billion worth at today’s rates. Within the biblical time frame, halos provide further evidence for accelerated radiometric decay.
The uniformitarian problem with halos is that the half-lives of polonium are much too short for the assumed slow cooling of magma. The polonium isotopes have decay half lives of 164 microseconds for ²¹⁴Po, 3.1 minutes for ²¹⁸Po, and 138 days for ²¹⁰Po."

scholarly irrational-ism:
"Scientific investigation has helped Christians reevaluate what earlier generations thought about the age of the earth, for example, so that no evangelical scholar today would hold that the world was created in 4004B.C." Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology pg. 273
 It is is a shock to the system to realize that most of christian academia operates irrationally. What happens is that information in the West is all gathered with a secular interpretation.  The vast majority of Christians in academia assume that the information is unbiased and therefore must reconcile the secular interpretation with their worldview.  As a result the education Christ is left only asking how much of their belief system should be compromised.  However the two forms of logic are contradictory.  Either miracles happen or they don't.  Either there is a God or their is not.  Either God is Sovereign or He's not. http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-genesis-1-is-essential.html
2 Corinthians 10:³ For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: ⁴ (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) ⁵ casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; ⁶ and having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled."

Old earth cosmology a hindu invention.
Big bang egg is shockingly similar to Hindu egg.
 
"Rigveda (10.121) also mentions the Hiranyagarbha (literally, golden embryo/womb/egg) that existed before the creation. This metaphor has been interpreted differently by the various later texts. The Samkhya texts state that Purusha and the Prakriti made the embryo, from which the world emerged. In another tradition, the creator god Brahma emerged from the egg and created the world, while in yet another tradition the Brahma himself is the Hiranyagarbha.^{[19]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution
"} Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg"."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
" Hindu creationists claim that species of plants and animals are material forms adopted by pure consciousness which live an endless cycle of births and rebirths.^[9] Ronald Numbers says that: "Hindu Creationists have insisted on the antiquity of humans, who they believe appeared fully formed as long, perhaps, as trillions of years ago."^[10] Hindu creationism is a form of old earth creationism. According to Hindu creationists the universe may even be older than billions of years. These views are based on the Vedas which depict an extreme antiquity of the universe and history of the earth.^{[11][12]" 
So as we see here the OEC model is not a result of scientific evidence but instead it is based upon mythological antiquity. Thus we have an ulterior motive.}

I kissed modern dating methods good bye!

(not endorsed)
^{"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.  Age estimates on a given} geologic stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years).  There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'  William D. Stansfield, Science of evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977),p.84.






I saw the light!.....stop?
" To break the minute barrier, George Heinze and colleagues at the University of Darmstadt, Germany, fired a control laser at an opaque crystal, sending its atoms into a quantum superposition of two states. This made it transparent to a narrow range of frequencies. Heinze’s team then halted a second beam that entered the crystal by switching off the first laser and hence the transparency.
The storage time depends on the crystal’s superposition. A magnetic field extends it but complicates the control laser configuration. Heinze’s team used an algorithm to “breed” combinations of magnet and laser, leading them to one that trapped light for a minute."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23925-light-completely-stopped-for-a-record-breaking-minute/#.UnA2NVN4nHs

"While slow-speed light now is just a laboratory plaything for top physicists, Lene Vesergaard Hau, the Danish scientist who led the project, said practical applications could be a few years away. She envisions improved communications technology, switches, even night-vision devices.

The atoms were contained in what is called a Bose-Einstein condensate, a condition created when matter is cooled almost to absolute zero, the lowest temperature theoretically possible. That’s 459.67 degrees below zero.

“We have really created an optical medium with crazy, bizarre properties,” Hau said. “Everybody knows that light is something that goes incredibly fast. If you could possibly slow it down to a real human dimension. That was really fantastic.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99111

"Using a technique called Stimulated Brillouin Scattering, the researchers were able to slow down or ratchet up the speed of light like the gas pedal on a car. They succeeded in reducing the speed of light by almost a factor of 4 (although that's still plenty fast at 46,500 miles per second), but even more dramatically, the team was also able to speed up the speed of light.
Light in a vacuum travels at approximately 186,000 miles per second, but a popular misconception is that, according to Einstein's special theory of relativity, nothing in the universe can travel faster than this speed."
http://www.livescience.com/396-scientists-mess-speed-light.html
  If light can be manipulated to stop and speed up, it is no longer a constant. In nature light is no longer guaranteed to be constant which destroys our modern physics and cosmology.



How did we get the age of the earth?

 "To begin with, is the earth approximately 4 billion years old? Actually, the latest estimates suggest a date of 4.57 billion years. But this figure wasn’t established by radiometric dating of the earth itself. Most people are not aware of this. The truth is that the age of the earth has been established by dating meteorites, which are not earth rocks. They have come from somewhere else in the solar system, and their source is assumed to have formed at the same time as the earth. Therefore, the age they supply is an interpretation based on that assumption and is emphatically not “irrefutable proof.” How do we know for sure that the meteorites came from another body in the solar system that was formed at the same time as the earth? That’s an assumption, not “irrefutable proof.”"Dr. Andrew Snelling "Radiometric Dating and Proof" https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-and-proof/

Polonium halos found in granite


"Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.
The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.
A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.
An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation."  www.halos.com
Dr.  Robert Gentry has about a dozen peer reviewed articles in secular science journals discussing this phenomena.  He has an amazing story available on the website and documented in His book Creation's tiny mystery.  http://www.amazon.com/Creations-Tiny-Mystery-Robert-Gentry/dp/0961675330/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1444150058&sr=8-1&keywords=creation%27s+tiny+mystery
 Some creationist have debated Dr. Gentry's hypothesis that the granite is necessarily the original rocks of creation.  My speculation based upon my NYC Cosmology would be that a gamma ray burster conducted into the earth radiating the earth's subterranean waters and cooked the granite and and lead igniting the polnium halos and other isotopes.
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-fall-of-lucifer-nyc-pt6.html
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Accelerated-Decay-Theoretical-Considerations.pdf
   Nevertheless,  the point of these facts in light contemporary dating methods destroys the uniformitarian hypothesis.


Helium)
"Air is mainly nitrogen (78.1%) and oxygen (20.1%). There is much less helium (0.0005%). But this is still a lot of helium—3.71 billion tonnes. However, since 67 grams of helium escape from the earth’s crust into the atmosphere every second, it would have taken about two million years for the current amount of helium to build up, even if there had been none at the beginning. Evolutionists believe the earth is over 2,500 times older—4.5 billion years. Of course, the earth could have been created with most of the helium already there, so two million years is a maximum age. (It could easily be much younger, such as 6,000 years in age.)
Also, the rate of helium buildup would be slower now than in the past, because the radioactive sources have decayed. This would put an even lower upper limit on the age of the earth."
http://creation.com/blowing-old-earth-belief-away-helium

isochron discordance)" It could be argued that the robust Rb-Sr whole-rock and mineral isochron “ages” are in error, but an adequate explanation for the error has not been offered. The geological context of these Precambrian rocks places severe limitations on possible explanations for isochron discordance. Inheritance of minerals, slow cooling, and post-magmatic loss of daughter radioisotopes are not supported as processes causing isochron discordance in Beartooth amphibolite or Bass Rapids diabase. Recently, geochronologists researching the Great Dyke, a Precambrian layered mafic and ultramafic intrusion of Zimbabwe in southeast Africa, have documented a similar pattern of radioisotope discordance. Alpha-emitting radioisotopes (¹⁴⁷Sm, ²³⁵U, and ²³⁸U) give older “ages” than β-emitting radioisotopes (⁸⁷Rb and ⁴⁰K) when applied to the same rocks. Therefore, it can be argued that a change in radioisotope decay rates in the past could account for these discordant isochron “ages” for the same geologic event. Conventional radioisotope clocks need repair."http://www.icr.org/article/do-radioisotope-clocks-need-repair

carbon 14

1. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
2. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
3. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
4. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work. See: Objections.

http://creation.com/carbon-14-dating-explained-in-everyday-terms
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth (51-54

Potassium argon "In conventional interpetation the K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geologic time scale."
 Hayatsu, A. "K-Ar Isochron age of the North Mountain  Basalt, Nova Scotia," Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences,  Vol. 16 April, 1979 pp. 973-975

"Gregory Brennecka of Arizona State University and colleagues measured the relative amounts of Uranium 238 to Uranium 235 from several samples taken from the large Allende meteorite, named for the village in Mexico near where it landed in 1969. With the more sensitive instrument, they detected small differences in isotope ratios from different inclusions within the same meteorite.¹ Isotopes are versions of an element with differing nuclear components. The full technical report appeared in the January 22, 2010, issue of the journal Science.
The differing amounts of material that were found in separate samplings of the same meteorite were unexpected. The current standard age assigned to the solar system of 4.6 billion years was determined by studying the Uranium-to-Lead decay systems in meteorites, which are assumed to have formed before the planets did. This age was based on the belief that the rate of decay has been constant, and that Uranium 238 will be present in a known ratio to Uranium 235. The varying quantities of these isotopes call into question the calculated age of the solar system, since “one of the equation’s assumptions — that certain kinds of uranium always appear in the same relative quantities in meteorites — is wrong.”²
“This variation implies substantial uncertainties in the ages previously determined by Pb-Pb [lead-lead] dating of CAIs,” Brennecka stated in an ASU press release.³ CAIs are “calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions” found in the meteorite. Though the measurements of these elements are very precise, the assumptions upon which their usefulness as a clock rests are questionable at best. In a Wired Science article on Brennecka’s findings, Gerald Wasserburg, emeritus professor of geology at Caltech, commented, “Everybody was sitting on this two-legged stool claiming it was very stable, but it turns out it’s not.”²
To be fair, however, it wasn’t “everybody” who claimed this. For years, creation researchers have published ample data to refute the assumed reliability of nuclear decay clocks in general, as well as specifically for Lead. For example, in 1979, John Woodmorappe catalogued scores of discordant dates “determined” by isotope decay systems, all published in secular literature.⁴ In 2003, Andrew Snelling published more discordant “ages,” taken from isotope measurements at Australia’s Somerset Dam.⁵ Another study tested the reliability of ages based on radioisotope systems from Grand Canyon and other formations. It found disagreeing “ages” from different isotope systems for the same rock.⁶ These discordant dates should not be evident if the assumption of rate constancy—which underlies radioisotope dating of igneous materials and is used to support the “billions of years” age for the solar system—is accurate.
In 2005, sedimentologist Steve Austin performed a test of the lead-lead isotope clock assumptions in earth material, and found data that nullified the idea that the decay rate has been constant.⁷ So, it is not surprising that Brennecka’s team has now found a need to tweak the age formulas used for dating meteoritic material.
Although it is apparent that millions of years worth of decay—at today’s slow rates—has occurred in isotope decay systems, it is clear that the decay occurred rapidly, during a period of extreme acceleration. Only in this way could Helium have become trapped in granites,⁸ Polonium radiohalos have left their signatures,⁹ and other microscopic scars called “fission tracks” have formed.^10"
http://www.icr.org/article/its-official-radioactive-isotope-dating/

1. Grossman, L. Age of Solar System Needs to Be Recalculated. Wired Science. Posted on wired.com January 4, 2010, accessed January 12, 2010.
2. Staab, N. ASU researchers recalculate age of Solar System. Arizona State University press release, December 31, 2009.
3. Woodmorappe, J. 1979. Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 16 (2): 102-129.
4. Snelling, A. A. 2003. Whole-Rock K-Ar Model and Isochron, and Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isochron, “Dating” of the Somerset Dam Layered Mafic Intrusion, Australia. In Ivey, R. L., ed. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 305-324.
5. Snelling, A. A. 2005. Isochron Discordances and the Role of Inheritance and Mixing of Radioisotopes in the Mantle and Crust. Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling and E. F Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society.
6. Austin, S. A. 2005. Do Radioisotope Clocks Need Repair? Testing the Assumptions of Isochron Dating Using K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotopes. In Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling and E. F Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society.
7. Humphreys, D. R. 2003. New RATE Data Support a Young World. Acts & Facts. 32(12).
8. Snelling, A. A. 2002. Radiohalos—Significant and Exciting Research Results. Acts & Facts. 31 (11).
9. Snelling, A. A. 2005. Fission Track in Zircons: Evidence for Abundant Nuclear Decay. In Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling and E. F. Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society.

Rate of sea salt in the Oceans)
"In 1899, John Joly estimated (on the basis of measurements) the amount of Na+ coming in each year, a result which is still regarded as extraordinarily accurate. He used it to estimate the age of the earth, as follows.
If the oceans began with fresh water, and the average inflow was basically unchanged, they would have reached their present salt level in 80-90 million years. Many scientists accepted this as the age of the earth. Notice, of course, that if marine creatures were created as Genesis teaches, the sea would already have to have had salt in it. Joly’s results can therefore fit a young-age creation model, but seem to give an age far too young for evolutionists.
Creationists have used such methods to support recent creation. Some other substances give much shorter times.
Joly’s age of the earth using Na+ began to contradict evolutionary timespans of billions of years. His ‘age’ for the earth came to be regarded as ‘spuriously low’. It was therefore believed that somehow salt must leave the ocean as quickly as it enters it. In other words, the sea must have reached such a ‘steady state’ a very long time ago."
" A major research paper by two scientists from the Institute for Creation Research shows this steady state belief to be plainly false. Geologist Dr. Steve Austin and physicist Dr. D. Russell Humphreys presented their joint paper in August 1990 to an international creationist conference.²
In it, they carefully assessed and inventoried all known and conjectured processes by which salt (Na+) is entering the sea, and all by which it could possibly be leaving it, such as sea spray, burial of pore water, and alteration of basalt."

"The results overwhelmingly show that the ‘steady state’ belief is mythical. The sea salt shows a massive imbalance, even using assumptions which are very generous for the long-age model. Of the amount pouring in each year, only 27 per cent (not 100 per cent, as evolutionary belief insists) is removed. Even if we allow the sea to have started as fresh water, this gives a maximum age of 62 million years, not the 3,000 million years or more that evolution requires. So where is all the salt with which the sea should be choked by now?
Geologists once said that the missing salt could be accounted for as rock salt (halite) buried in the geologic strata record. A world-wide inventory of rock salt has shown this ‘sink’ to be insufficient for the ocean’s missing sodium. The sea is not salty enough for evolutionary taste.
These results fit very comfortably with a recent age for all things, including a sea created salty to begin with. Unless a way can be found to somehow explain the sea’s missing salt, this evidence speaks strongly against the evolutionary belief system, and is instead strongly supportive of biblical creation."http://creation.com/sea-salt-loses-its-savour-for-evolutionists
 S.A. Austin, D.R. Humphreys, ‘The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists’, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh PA, August, 1990, Vol. 2, p. 17-33. (Available from Creation Science Fellowship, 362 Ashland Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15228, USA.)
Assuming the uniformitarian model abiogenesis would start roughly 3 billion years ago inside a solid rock of salt!!

coral reef's) http://coralreef.noaa.gov/deepseacorals/about/facts/dsc_oldest.html

"The longest lived coral colony on record is from a species of black coral from the genus Leiopathes that had an estimated age of 4,265 years old using radiocarbon dating methods – making it perhaps the oldest known living marine organism.

This black coral from Hawaii is the same genus (Leiopathes sp.) as the specimen estimated at over 4,200 years old. Named for the color of their skeletons, black corals come in many colors. Photo Credit: Texas A&M University

Researchers from Stanford University, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the University of California at Santa Cruz used radiocarbon dating to estimate age and growth rates of specimens of gold coral of Gerardia sp. and black coral of Leiopathes sp. collected off the coast of the Hawaiian Islands.^[a] The longest-lived Gerardia sp. and Leiopathes sp. specimens were 2,742 years and 4,265 years, respectively. They estimated that the average radial growth rates of these specimens were as low as 4-35 micrometers per year. For scale, 50 micrometers is about the size of a dust speck and the diameter of a human hair is approximately 80 micrometers."
So living organisms right in time for a YEC date.


coal bed's "Evidence for rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds speaks against the hundreds of millions of years normally claimed for this, including Z-shaped seams that point to a single depositional event producing these layers."
 http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
"South-East Australia’s Latrobe Valley has some extremely thick deposits of brown coal which are mined to fuel several huge power stations. One bucket-wheel excavator removes the relatively thin overburden and exposes the coal seam. Another excavator digs the coal and drops it onto a moving conveyor belt for the power-station boilers.¹
The machines are immense, towering over the people who work on them. Indeed, a person could easily disappear inside one of the many buckets. Each excavator can dig up to 60,000 tonnes of coal each day.¹ Yet the coal seams are so thick that they dwarf these massive excavators, which must traverse the seam several times before the coal is completely removed.
The coal seams occur within thick layers of clay, sand and basaltic lava, which together form a 700-metre (2,300-foot) sequence of rocks, known as the Latrobe Valley Coal Measures.² These lie in a large, deep depression, called a ‘basin’, shaped like a triangle 300 km (190 miles) long and 300 km (190 miles) wide (see diagram below). Most of the basin lies under the ocean off the southern coast of Australia. Offshore the coal measures are estimated to be almost 5 km (3 miles) thick."
"How would such a great amount of vegetation collect together in one place? No-one alive today has ever observed such a process. All scientists can do is to invent plausible explanations based on what they think may have happened.  It is consistent with the devastation of Noah's Flood, which would have uprooted the entire pre-Flood biosphere and buried it with huge quantities of sand and mud.
For those who believe the Bible, the presence of such great quantities of buried vegetation is easily explained. It is consistent with the devastation of Noah’s Flood, which would have uprooted the entire pre-Flood biosphere and buried it with huge quantities of sand and mud." http://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood



Evidence for rapid petrifaction of wood speaks against the need for long periods of time and is consistent with an age of thousands of years.


 Radical folding at Eastern Beach, near Auckland in New Zealand, indicates that the sediments were soft and pliable when folded, inconsistent with a long time for their formation. Such folding can be seen world-wide and is consistent with a world-wide flood.

"The amount of salt in the world’s oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah’s Flood, which is consistent with a young age of the earth."
 "In 1984, scientists measured the amount of salt accumulated in Australia's largest salt lake — Lake Eyre in South Australia. They found that it would have taken about 73,000 years to accumulate, assuming a flood occurred every 50 years.¹
However, the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service in 1991 stated that 'almost all its area is covered on average once in 8 years.'² This reduces the time period for accumulation to only 12,000 years. This has to be a maximum time because the fossil evidence suggests that inland Australia was much wetter in the past, being covered in rainforest during the Tertiary Period when the lake was supposedly formed. With flooding every year, as could have occurred in the past, the minimum time for accumulation would be 1,500 years.
Evolutionists date the Tertiary between two and 65 million years ago. Even if Lake Eyre formed two million years ago, and we assume floods every eight years, 99.4 per cent of the expected salt is missing. If we assume it is older, and take into account the wetter climate of the past, the problem becomes even greater, with up to 99.99 per cent of the expected salt missing."

"The amount of sediment on the sea floors at current rates of land erosion would accumulate in just 12 million years; a blink of the eye compared to the supposed age of much of the ocean floor of up to 3 billion years. Furthermore, long-age geologists reckon that higher erosion rates applied in the past, which shortens the time frame. From a biblical point of view, at the end of Noah’s Flood lots of sediment would have been added to the sea with the water coming off the unconsolidated land, making the amount of sediment perfectly consistent with a history of thousands of years."
 Gordeyev, V.V. et al., ‘The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world’s rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams’, Dockl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 238(1980) 150.
http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world#r5
ron-manganese nodules (IMN) on the sea floors. The measured rates of growth of these nodules indicates an age of only thousands of years. Lalomov, A.V., 2006. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66.

" Pressure in oil / gas wells indicate the recent origin of the oil and gas. If they were many millions of years old we would expect the pressures to equilibrate, even in low permeability rocks. “Experts in petroleum prospecting note the impossibility of creating an effective model given long and slow oil generation over millions of years (Petukhov, 2004). In their opinion, if models demand the standard multimillion-years geochronological scale, the best exploration strategy is to drill wells on a random grid.” —Lalomov, A.V., 2007. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66.

Direct evidence that oil is forming today in the Guaymas Basin and in Bass Strait is consistent with a young earth (although not necessary for a young earth).
rapid formation of  geologic column

Polar ice
     A. buried plane
  http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/plane-found-under-90-metres-of-ice/   It is thought ice cores are a perfect old earth clock.  Yet we see how rapidly these ice layers can form.

Frozen Wooly Mammoths
  The freezing of woolly mammoths implya quick frozen catastrophe.
Giant tree fossils point to different environment in the arctic.  If the arctic was was not a frozen tundra like today and these temperature shifts lasted for centuries,How could the mammoth fossils still be preserved?


https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344-800-mini-ice-age-took-hold-of-europe-in-months/
"Until now, it was thought that the mini ice age took a decade or so to take hold, on the evidence provided by Greenland ice cores. Not so, say William Patterson of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, and his colleagues."


Stalagmite bottle?  For dedcades it has been argued that stalagtites and stalagmites took thousands of years to form.....

 
"In the early 1950s, a worker at Australia’s Jenolan Caves in New South Wales placed this lemonade bottle in one of the area’s many beautiful limestone caves.
The bottle sat beneath a continually active stalactite in what is known as the ‘Temple of Baal’.
In the decades that followed, the ‘bottle stalagmite’ became a public testimony to the fact that stalactites and stalagmites don’t take tens of thousands of years or more to form."https://answersingenesis.org/geology/caves/bottle-stalagmite/




The Earth's Electromagnetic poles
"In the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century¹ (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today²). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook,³ proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s metallic core (see side note). Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth. So the earth must be younger than that."
" The decaying current model is obviously incompatible with the billions of years needed by evolutionists. So their preferred model is a self-sustaining dynamo (electric generator). The earth’s rotation and convection is supposed to circulate the molten nickel/iron of the outer core. Positive and negative charges in this liquid metal are supposed to circulate unevenly, producing an electric current, thus generating the magnetic field. But scientists have not produced a workable model despite half a century of research, and there are many problems.⁴"

• Life would periodically be exposed to deadly solar radiation.
• It cannot explain the lack of a planetary magnetic field on Mars. Mars' rotation is similar to Earth's, so it should have a similar magnetic field.
• It cannot explain the existence of the magnetic field of Mercury. It rotates too slowly to have a self sustaining dynamo and so it should not have a magnetic field.
• It cannot explain the orientation of the magnetic fields of, Uranus and Neptune. The magnetic axis of each planet is tilted about 60 degrees, with respect to the rotation axis, so that the magnetic poles are near the equator. Furthermore the source of each planet's field is offset from the center, by about one third of a planetary radius. According to the dynamo theory, the magnetic and rotation axes should nearly always be closely aligned, except for a very relatively short time during a field reversal. When Voyager 2 passed Uranus, the pundits explained that the planet is in the act of flipping. However, Neptune's magnetic tilt made this highly unlikely, since the odds of two reversals occurring at the same time is too small to explain both fields.
• It cannot explain how planetary magnetic fields get started. It would need a strong enough external magnetic field and no such field exists, nor is there any theoretical basis for such a field.

http://www.creationwiki.org/Geomagnetic_field_decay
   This makes an advanced age impossible.  


Don't call it a comeback!! The moon dust argument never left!
   Early estimates by astronomers 
"If dust had been accumulating at measured rates for billions of years, we could have a problem when we tried to land. Creationists at NASA argued that since the Earth and moon were only about 6,000 years old there was nothing to fear. Not enough dust had accumulated to endanger the landing. After creationists were proven right, and old-age predictions were proven wrong, evolutionists were embarrassed. They tried to deny that they were ever concerned about the depth of the moon dust. "http://www.creationmoments.com/content/proof-moon-young
Here are references to the predicitons of a layer of lunar dust prior to the moon landing.

1. Clark, Maurice. 1984. "Moon Blue?" Ex Nihilo, 2(3)- international ed.
2. Dixon, Robert. 1971. Dynamic Astronomy, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
3. Branley, Franklyn. 1964. Apollo and the Moon pub. for the American Museum-Hayden Planetarium by the Natural History Press, Garden City, N.J.
4. Asimov, Isaac. 1959. "14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year," Science Digest, Jan.
5. Salisbury, Frank and Peter Glaser (editors). 1964. The Lunar Surface Layer. Academic Press, N.Y.
6. Rand McNally New Concise Atlas of the Universe. 1978. Mitchell Beasley Pub., London.


 
   Actually revealing evidence was hidden away concerning the moon dust argument

http://news.agu.org/press-release/rediscovered-apollo-data-gives-first-measure-of-how-fast-moon-dust-piles-up/
 "The annoying particles even prompted a scientific experiment to figure out how fast they collect, but NASA’s data got lost.
Or, so NASA thought. Now, more than 40 years later, scientists have used the rediscovered data to make the first determination of how fast lunar dust accumulates. It builds up unbelievably slowly by the standards of any Earth-bound housekeeper, their calculations show – just fast enough to form a layer about a millimeter (0.04 inches) thick every 1,000 years. Yet, that rate is 10 times previous estimates. It’s also more than speedy enough to pose a serious problem for the solar cells that serve as critical power sources for space exploration missions."
" In his experiment, dust collected on small solar cells attached to a matchbox-sized case over the course of six years, throughout three Apollo missions. As the granules blocked light from coming in, the voltage the solar cells produced dropped. The electrical measurements indicated that each year 100 micrograms of lunar dust collected per square centimeter. At that rate, a basketball court on the Moon would collect roughly 450 grams (1 pound) of lunar dust annually."
At this rate one must again be suspicious that with a 4.6 billion year moon there should then be hundreds of feet of lunar dust instead of 2 cm which meets a young earth scale.
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-mystery-of-moon-dust
Some physicist argued that the machine could have been attracting too much dust electromagnetically.
"It’s possible that an electrical field forms at the terminator line—where sunlight meets shadow—that could knock dust particles aloft. Mihály Horányi, a physicist at the University of Colorado, in Boulder, has demonstrated that moon dust can indeed respond to such electric fields. But he suspects that the mechanism isn’t strong enough to create and sustain the mysterious, glowing clouds."
  So they predicted the dust and failed.  The measured the dust and it gave us a young earth answer and even the secular physicist are in doubt of their best fudge factor explanations...  IT POINTS TO A YOUNG EARTH!
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/dating-methods


 Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth’s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old. See: Transient lunar phenomena: a permanent problem for evolutionary models of Moon formation and Walker, T., and Catchpoole, D., Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe, Creation 31(3):18, 2009. See further corroboration: “At Long Last, Moon’s Core ‘Seen’”; http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/at-long-last-moons-core-seen.html

 Blue moon on Kentucky!
" Friction by the tides is slowing the earth’s rotation, so the length of a day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. This means that the earth is losing angular momentum.⁷ The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum says that the angular momentum the earth loses must be gained by the moon. Thus the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1½ inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it. 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.⁸ NB: this is the maximum possible age—far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks)—not the actual age."
http://creation.com/the-moon-the-light-that-rules-the-night#receding

Solar sytem
mercury's young magnetic field)The presence of a significant magnetic field around Mercury is not consistent with its supposed age of billions of years. A planet so small should have cooled down enough so any liquid core would solidify, preventing the evolutionists’ ‘dynamo’ mechanism. See also, Humphreys, D.R., Mercury’s magnetic field is young! Journal of Creation 22(3):8–9, 2008."

The outer planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields, but they should be long ‘dead’ if they are as old as claimed according to evolutionary long-age beliefs. Assuming a solar system age of thousands of years, physicist Russell Humphreys successfully predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune."http://www.icr.org/article/329/
 Dessler, A.J. "The Neptune challenge," Geophysical Research Letters, 14 (September 1987), 889.
 Humphreys, D.R. "The creation of planetary magnetic fields," Creation Research Society Quarterly, 25 (December 1984), 140-149. Available from Creation


 Jupiter’s larger moons, Ganymede, Io, and Europa, have magnetic fields, which they should not have if they were billions of years old, because they have solid cores and so no dynamo could generate the magnetic fields. This is consistent with creationist Humphreys’ predictions. See also, Spencer, W., Ganymede: the surprisingly magnetic moon, Journal of Creation 23(1):8–9, 2009.

"Volcanically active moons of Jupiter (Io) are consistent with youthfulness (Galileo mission recorded 80 active volcanoes). If Io had been erupting over 4.5 billion years at even 10% of its current rate, it would have erupted its entire mass 40 times. Io looks like a young moon and does not fit with the supposed billions of year’s age for the solar system. Gravitational tugging from Jupiter and other moons accounts for only some of the excess heat produced." http://creation.com/io-volcanoes

 The rate of change / disappearance of Saturn’s rings is inconsistent with their supposed vast age; they speak of youthfulness.
" A puzzle for evolutionary chronology began with the Voyager 1 flyby past Saturn’s rings in 1980. Before then, Earth-bound telescopes provided little ring detail, and planetary rings were assumed to have endured virtually changeless since the emergence of the solar system from the solar nebula—a vast cloud of gas and dust—some 4.6 billion years ago.^1–3 ‘Everyone had expected that collisions between particles in Saturn’s rings would make the rings perfectly uniform.’⁴
For example, Jeffreys had claimed that ‘the frequency of collision [of ring particles] is very great, and ... on account of the loss of relative motion at every collision, the rings must long ago have reached a state in which all the particles are moving in very accurate circles, all in the same plane.’^5–7
 
This view arose from belief in the rings’ great age,⁸ but Voyager 1 showed that the rings are highly structured and probably young,⁹ as there is more structure than can be expected to persist over 4.6 billion years. Efforts to locate sufficient binding forces have failed, and a ‘growing number [of astronomers] believe that the rings of Saturn are constantly ... changing due to fragmentation of moonlets and input of new ring particles.’^10,11
However, there remains a reluctance to associate ring change with ring dissipation,¹² since this could imply a young solar system. This reluctance did not exist before the ascendancy of evolutionary chronology, as in James Maxwell’s day, Saturn’s rings were acknowledged to be rapidly changing and possibly dissipating.^13"

1. Northrup, T. and Connerney, J., A micrometeorite erosion model and the age of Saturn’s rings, Icarus 70:124–137, 1987; p. 124. Return to text
2. Pollack, J. and Cuzzi, J., Rings in the solar system, Scientific American 245(5):104–129, 1981; pp. 117, 125–126, 127, 129. Return to text
3. Soderblom, L. and Johnson, T., The moons of Saturn, Scientific American 244(1):101–116, 1982; p. 101. Return to text
4. Pasachoff, J., Contemporary Astronomy Saunders, Philadelphia, p. 429, 1985. Return to text
5. Jeffreys, H., On certain possible distributions of meteoric bodies in the solar system, M.N.R.A.S. 77:84–92, 1916; p. 84. Return to text
6. Jeffreys, H., Transparency of Saturn’s rings, J. British Astronomical Association 30:294–295, 1920; p. 295. Return to text
7. Alexander, A., The Planet Saturn, Faber and Faber, London, p. 320, 1962, reprinted, Dover, New York, 1980. Return to text
8. Kerr, R., Making better planetary rings, Science 229:1376–1377, 1985; p. 1377. Return to text
9. Burns, J., Hamilton, D. and Showalter, M., Bejeweled worlds, Scientific American 286(2):64–73, 2002; p. 73. Return to text
10. Hartmann, W., Astronomy, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, p. 253, 1991. Return to text
11. Dikarev, V., Dynamics of particles in Saturn’s E ring: effects of charge variations and the plasma drag force, Astronomy and Astrophysics 346:1011–1019, 1999; p. 1011. Return to text
12. Hartmann, ref. 10, pp. 252–253. Return to text
13. Brush, S., Everett, C. and Garber, E., Maxwell on Saturn’s Rings, MIT, Cambridge, MA, p. 7, 1983. Return to text

 The orbit of Pluto is chaotic on a 20 million year time scale and affects the rest of the solar system, which would also become unstable on that time scale, suggesting that it must be much younger. (See: Rothman, T., God takes a nap, Scientific American 259(4):20, 1988).

“Near-infrared spectra of the Kuiper Belt Object, Quaoar and the suspected Kuiper Belt Object, Charon, indicate both contain crystalline water ice and ammonia hydrate. This watery material cannot be much older than 10 million years, which is consistent with a young solar system, not one that is 5 billion years old.” See: The ‘waters above
"Recent data¹⁹ from spectral analysis of the surface of Quaoar in 1 to 2.5 μm band indicates Quaoar’s surface is at least covered with crystalline (as opposed to amorphous) water ice and ammonia hydrate, both of which contain water. This is consistent with the composition originally being part of the water that was separated from the ‘waters below’. Moreover, it has been stated that both of these types of crystals should be destroyed by energetic particle irradiation over timescales of 10⁷ years.¹⁹ These crystals still being present, though consistent with a young solar system, is evidence against a 5 billion-year-old solar system. To counter this, the authors, thinking within the evolutionary long-age mindset, concluded that Quaoar must have recently been resurfaced by impacts or cryovolcanic outgassing."http://creation.com/the-waters-above
Jewitt, D.C. and Luu, J., Crystalline water ice on Kuiper belt object (50000) Quaoar, Nature 432:731–733, 2004.

 The maximum expected lifetime of near-earth asteroids is of the order of one million years, after which they collide with the sun. And the Yarkovsky effect moves main belt asteroids into near-earth orbits faster than had been thought. This brings into question the origin of asteroids with the formation of the solar system (the usual scenario), or the solar system is much younger than the 4.5 billion years claimed. Henry, J., The asteroid belt: indications of its youth, Creation Matters 11(2):2, 2006.

 The faint young sun paradox. According to stellar evolution theory, as the sun’s core transforms from hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, the mean molecular weight increases, which would compress the sun’s core increasing fusion rate. The upshot is that over several billion years, the sun ought to have brightened 40% since its formation and 25% since the appearance of life on earth. For the latter, this translates into a 16–18 ºC temperature increase on the earth. The current average temperature is 15 ºC, so the earth ought to have had a -2 ºC or so temperature when life appeared. See: Faulkner, D., The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system, Journal of Creation (TJ) 15(2):3–4, 2001. As of 2010, the faint young sun remains a problem: Kasting, J.F., Early Earth: Faint young Sun redux, Nature 464:687–689, 1 April 2010; doi:10.1038/464687a; www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/full/464687a.html

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 estimated at to 10–12 km/s. At these speeds, the stars should have dispersed in 100 Ma, which, compared with the supposed 14,000 Ma age of the universe, is a short time. See Fast stars challenge big bang origin for dwarf galaxies.

 The aging of spiral galaxies (much less than 200 million years) is not consistent with their supposed age of many billions of years. The discovery of extremely ‘young’ spiral galaxies highlights the problem of this evidence for the evolutionary ages assumed.

 Biological evidence

1. DNA in ancient fossils "Some scientists have also reported reviving bacteria from the gut of a bee, supposedly 15–40 million years old.² And more recently, researchers have claimed to have revived bacteria from rocks said to be 250 million years old.³
Because the chemistry of DNA tells us that it could not last millions of years, even under ideal storage conditions,^4,5 the claims of finding ancient DNA (let alone ancient intact bacteria) have been disputed. One expert, Svante Pääbo, found that a few hours after death, DNA breaks up into chains 100–200 units long, that water alone would completely break it down within 50,000 years, and that background radiation alone would eventually erase the DNA information, even in the absence of water and oxygen."http://creation.com/bugs-in-brine

1. Reviving ancient germs? Creation 18(1):9, 1996. Return to text.
2. Oard, M.J., Aren’t 250 million year old live bacteria a bit much?, 27 June 2002. Return to text.
3. Lindahl, T., Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA, Nature 362(6422):709–715, 1993. Return to text.
4. Pääbo, S., Ancient DNA, Scientific American 269(5):60–66, 1993

Mitochondrial eve "Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) indicates that all women have descended from a single woman, called mitochondrial Eve.¹ This does not prove that she was the only woman alive at the time, but is consistent with it. High mutation rates indicate that this ancestor lived at about the time of the biblical Eve as well."   http://creation.com/mitochondrial-eve-and-biblical-eve-are-looking-good-criticism-of-young-age-is-premature

3. dinosaur blood cells and soft cell tissue



‘The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, “You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!”’²
Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist ‘Dinosaur’ Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, ‘So far, we haven’t been able to.’http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report
Mark Armitage discovers soft cells in triceratops horn.
"Attorneys for a California State University, Northridge scientist who was terminated from his job after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops fossil have filed a lawsuit against the university.
While at the Hell Creek Formation excavation site in Montana, researcher Mark Armitage discovered what he believed to be the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site, according to attorney Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute.
Upon examination of the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Dacus says Armitage was “fascinated” to find soft tissue on the sample – a discovery Bacus said stunned members of the school’s biology department and even some students “because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/
Here is my interview with this hero of science.
 http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bible-smack-radio/2015/03/07/not-another-bloody-dinosaur


One theory to try to debunk this phenomena is using iron preservation.  Mark Armitage addresses the theory here on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXXNJB8U2Fs




4.Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.http://creation.com/correcting-the-headline-coelacanth-yes-ancient-no
 

5.  Pollen:"Finding fossil pollen grains in rock classed as ‘Precambrian’ (long before seed plants are thought to have evolved) is as devastating to the whole evolutionary framework as finding a human bone in a Carboniferous coal seam. Geologist Dr Clifford Burdick, a creationist, was the first to report finding fossil pollen grains of seed plants in the so-called Hakatai Shale, a layer of the Grand Canyon classified as ‘Precambrian’"
" At each sample site, the first three to four inches (7.5 to 10 centimetres) of exposed rock was chipped off, to avoid any surface contamination (the pores in the rock are in any case too fine to allow pollen to penetrate to any significant depth). Then the rock beneath was sampled, taking care to avoid any cracks and fissures. The team opened previously sealed, sterile plastic bags just long enough to allow freshly flaked-off rock to drop in. They quickly resealed them. In addition, the collection was done in winter, with snow at the canyon top and all shrubs and trees dormant.
Great care was taken in the laboratory to avoid contamination. In addition, control experiments were performed in which, among other things, slides were exposed to the air in various actively used laboratories for a total of some 400 slide-exposure-days. Each slide was exposed for between seven and 57 days. In that time, only three possible pollen grains appeared on the exposed slides, although there were many other contaminants found - fungal spores, plant hairs, epitheleal cells (skin tissue), and even cells resembling blood cells. Thus, the chances of pollen from the air falling on to the slides in the short time they were exposed during preparation were extremely small.
The Results
      From the nine samples taken (three from each formation), 43 slides were made. Sixteen of these showed the pollen of seed plants and/or cells of cryptograms (spore-bearing plants; a fern, moss or fungus is a cryptogram). Identification was assisted by the independent assessments of a professional palynologist (someone who studies pollen) who did not know that the specimens came from ‘Precambrian’ rock.
The accompanying photo shows just one of the finds. Interestingly, all the pollen was found in the Hakatai Shale specimens. One would expect air-borne contamination to have an equal chance of contaminating specimens from all three layers."








sun)Dr. John A. Eddy, PhD (astrogeophysics) of the High Altitude Observatory at Boulder, Colorado observes:
“I suspect…that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the earth and sun (approximately 6000 years). I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.”

Acts 17: ²² Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. ²³ For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. ²⁴ God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; ²⁵ neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; ²⁶ and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; ²⁷ that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: ²⁸ for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. ²⁹ Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. ³⁰ And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: ³¹ because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

³² And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. ³³ So Paul departed from among them. ³⁴ Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them."