Why do people think the earth is billions of years old when most evidence indicates it is young?

Question

For example, we can measure how much salt is going into the oceans, how much is going out. On current measurements the oceans can only be thousands of years old.
For example, the moon is receding. Extrapolating backwards, the earth/moon cannot be millions of years old.
For example the earths magnetic field is decaying. Extrapolating backwards, the earth cannot be more than thousands of years old.
For example radiometric dating methods are based on ssumptions and are demonstrably flawed - rock from a recent volcano was dated as millions of years old.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Young.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

How many different evidences of a young earth will it take to convince people?

Answer 1

All of your "evidence" is bogus.



1. Salt is reabsorbed into the earth at subduction points during plate tectonic activity. This keeps the salt concentration roughly constant over billions of years.

2. The distance between the earth and the moon regularly oscillates backwards and forwards over periods of millions of years.

3. If radiometric dating as a process is flawed, then nuclear reactors wouldn't work either. I wouldn't dispute the occasional error (it's often a difficult thing to do correctly, given all the possible error sources), but an occasional mistake doesn't invalidate the principle.

Answer 2

The oldest rocks that have been discovered in the international date to 3.8-3.9 billion, by using a number of radiometric relationship procedures. This establishes a decrease shrink for the age of the earth, it is, all of us recognize for a actuality that the earth is atleast 3.8 billion years previous. the easily age of the earth is measured with a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites, the place 3 isotopes of uranium and lead are measured. The ratio of those are then calculated. If the image voltaic device formed from a uncomplicated pool of count, which grew to become into uniformly disbursed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the preliminary plots for all products from that pool of count might fall on a single factor. it truly is precisely what the info has shown so a procedures, which demonstrates that the Earth is 4.fifty 5+-a million% billion years previous. this might properly be a query that would desire to have been asked interior the technology section although.

Answer 3

The Earth is young in astronomical terms. If the human race dies, the Earth will still be here unless we manage to blow it up along with ourselves. Everything in our universe should be basically the same age. Some entities formed later than others, but it all came from the same cosmic soup. The protons of matter will decay in about : trillion^16x 1 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion years from now. That will be the end of our universe.

Four billion years? I'd say we're still pretty young. Our universe has been expanding ever since it was born and will continue to do so. Changes will come as a result, if your looking at "the big picture". These changes take a looooong time. Did you know that an undersea storm (a storm made of water instead of air) at the bottom of the ocean can last as long as two hundred years? Time is relative to that which you compare it.

Answer 4

It all depends on what you chose to present and what you chose to repress. Did you ever hear of plate tectonics? Major amounts of water (and salt) get subducted along with the seafloor and become recycled into new igneous rocks. I never heard of the moon receding. I never heard of the Earth's magnetic field decaying, although I have heard of reversals in the magneic field. These reversals are used to correlate various oceanic plates across the earth. As for radiometric dating methods being based on flawed assumptions, a study of Carbon-14 dating versus tree rings showed that the Carbon-14 dating underestimated the true age of the tree. Finally, do not use the Bible as a science book unless you are willing to give up all that science has to offer, including the internet.

Answer 5

we can measure lots of things including that the geology of the contains radio carbon isotopes indicate that many rocks layers were laid down millions of years ago, not the 5..6000 that the followers of a religion believe based on a an advertorial for a religon aka the bible)



we can look at sedimentary rocks laid down in 3 separate bands at differning angles which indicate it cannot, irrespectice of what belief says cannot have happened in the time 'calculated' from bibilical references



ther fact that radio carbon dating may or may not be a lot older than the volcano is immaterial (who knows whent he original precuros to theat rock was first formed.



just because the bible / koran / what ever says x is y then that doens't actuially mean it is the truth. After all con merchants have made a killing over the years deludign people into believing their story - and at the end of the day thats all it is a story.

Answer 6

Most of the information indicates a very old Earth. For example, at the speed the Moon is moving away, a couple inches a year, it would take millions of years to move enough to even notice. Another example is that the magnetic field has decayed all the way to zero and back again many times, as indicated by bands of alternating polarity magnetic material in rocks, so the age of those rocks must be at least the time to decay once times the number of alternating layers of opposite polarity.

Answer 7

When will people learn that religion lies to you? You started at the bible and went from there you brainwashed chimp, dont you dare use the the word science in the same paragraph as that clap trap.



The earth is millions of years old. dont let the Christians get to you, ID was dissmissed as bunk a while ago mate they retro fit science to subvert people into beleiving the creationist theory. ID is wrong because you can't prove scientificly that god exists so the rest of the theories are mearly assumtions.



And about the volcanic rocks, it was formed millions of years ago the volcano only just spat it out.



Short answer, you are both wrong and an idiot.



DARWIN! DARWIN! DARWIN!

Answer 8

The difference between science and religion is faith. Religions believe what they read in a book that has been scrabbled together by a roman emperor, while science was born from the corruption of the early catholic church.

Science searches for understanding by finding proof - whether that be reasoned out, from experiments which give results that support or refute current thought.

You are merely ranting - go to college and get a degree in earth science. To understand the earth you have to understand chemistry, physics and maths to be able to understand rocks and their formation. This will give you the tools to understand the argument you are making, and one day you may be able to prove the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Oh, and your site is full of pseudoscience designed soley to preach to the converted who ironically wouldn't see the truth even if it jumped up and bit them in the nose.

Answer 9

Do you actually understand fully the "evidence" you are citing? I don't think you do. Have you done the calculations out for yourself? Have you researched other possible explanations? Or are you just taking someone elses word on all of this?



For example, yes it is true that Earth's magnetic field is decaying. But we have solid evidence that our magnetic field has reversed many many times, so how can you use the current rate of decay to figure out when Earth formed? You must (or rather, the author's of that website must) be making incorrect assumptions.



I am only convinced by direct data, not by what non-scientists tell me based on what someone else told them.

Answer 10

One tiny little example , stand in the bottom of The Grand Canyon, look up, count the layers. Think how long it takes lime mud sand and silt to accumulate ( let alone to be compacted by overlying layers ) .How deep is the Grand Canyon? Look at the fossils. Notice how from the bottom to the top, the forms of life get progressively more complex.

Professor Richard Dawkins was interviewing to a creationist on TV a while ago. He asked him "So how old do you think the earth is?" When he replied with his figure,( a mere few thousand years) The Prof. replied "Ah so the world was created AFTER agriculture had become established in the middle east was it?" Oh the look on that guys face!

Answer 11

Actually, your "factual" claims are a bunch of malarkey, fabricated by creationists to give their religious views the false appearance of scientific validity. At best, the "evidence" you cite is based on faulty assumptions.

The weakening of the magnetic field is not a continuous decline across history; it's part of a cycle. The field weakens, reverses, returns to full strength, weakens again, reverses again, etc. We're heading toward another reversal. THAT is why the field is weakening.

For years, creationists denied the validity of the scientific method. Now, seeing that they're losing the battle for the human mind, they resort to pretending that they're doing science.

"Answers in Genesis?" The very name of the site makes clear its agenda.

I'm gonna say this real loud so you can hear me:



THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEXT!!!

Answer 12

Why do creationists continue to try and dispute facts of science?

Is your religion so off base that you must make up evidence to support it?

Ocean salt? Even creationists like Melvin Cook know this is false:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/salt.html

Calculations based on the recession of the moon's orbit do support an old earth: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html



Magnetic field decay is a farce based on an old outdated theory (what in creationism isn't?) http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html



Radiometric dating is the strongest evidence for an old earth. Check the facts: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html



Where is the creationists evidence? Why don't creationists do any research? Why do creationists only try to disprove scientific evidence?

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm

The facts, about the earth:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

http://geography.about.com/od/learnabouttheearth/a/earthfacts.htm

Answer 13

Your extrapolations aren't particularily scientific. For instance, you assume automatically that the earth's magnetic field is decaying, and at a linear rate. What's your basis for this? How can you tell it is not, for instance, cyclic? Same thing with measuring ocean salinization.



There are many ways to measure age, carbon14 is only one of them. You always double-check with other methods, like comparing tree rings with the known tree ring record, or other kinds of radioactive measurements. Different methods have different spans, for instance Carbon14 can determine the age of biological matter up to 10,000 years old. Then it becomes much too inaccurate. Same thing with young objects, to measure something 40 years old with Carbon14-dating is like cooking eggs with a calendar.



I don't think you've seriously considered the evidence. You need to consider the fact that religious people around you, though well-meaning, have a poor understanding of science. And tend to pick whatever 'evidence' suits their faith.

Answer 14

where are you getting this info. The moon only recedes about a centimeter a year. the moon is millions of miles away and once used to be a mere thousand miles away. Thus, the Earth is very old. Also, the earliest rocks, the first things on earth, have been found and dated to be 4.5 billion years old. There is countless more evidence of the age of the Earth being billions of years old. come on...

Answer 15

More ID propaganda ??



so how do you explain dinosaur fossils ??? the work of the morning star ???



whilst science cannot readily prove or disprove there is a God neither can the bible or any other religious text - all are written and re-written by man and as such there will always be the temptation to alter the content to suit - ever played chinese whispers ?



scientists alter results to fit theories or vice-versa - religious leaders alter / interpret the verse to suit their own ends, valid or insidious.

Answer 16

Au contraire, my friend.



Magnetic field is in invertion situation. All later investigations using mineral orientation shows that earth have it within many different cycles.



Same happened within Ice Ages. happened a lot of times before.

Following layers within rocks, you can find many different beens there. Looking for a Carbono 14 you can undertand how many atoms it lost (its mathematic) and error margin is near to 100 years only. You can prove it using different dates got from Egyptians, Assirians, Chineses, Aztecs.



Following air bubbles within Ice caps shows million of years. Its easy to do this calcule using basic precipitation techniques.



Rocks have different ways to be build. Seems ancient coral fossiles found in Australia shows a more ancient planet that previously thought.



All indications that I got from geology (I did it) shows within this direction.



.... And I've not touch astronomy information like time necessary to light arriving to our planet and different gap between measures about galaxies showing clear expansion.



Take care about sofism. You are right searching for more aditional information to show up true.

Answer 17

I'm pretty sure that the way you are presenting this argument this should honestly be filed under religion.



Your examples are speculative at best and the logic behind them is flawed. For every 2 bit, 1000 word document your leaders have given you there are 1000's of books that give solid scientific evidence to the contrary.



My answer to you, read, learn.

Answer 18

The earth is dated by looking at the layers of rock and dating each layer by sophisticated techniques using isotope analyses (carbon 14) and also radiometric analyses. It is a known fact that we have dated rocks on this planet not only more than hundreds of millions of years old, but close to 4.5 billion....

Answer 19

It will take more than a load of FAKE religious mumbo jumbo to persuade me, I'm afraid.



The web site says it all "our emphasis is on Biblical authority." They don't want a discussion, they want you to blindly believe everything the bible tells you. There is no evidence.



They actually admit this themselves.



A quote from the site

"Since the Bible clearly teaches young-earth creationism, you should need no more evidence. God’s Word says it and that settles it for me."

Blind faith and ignorance.

Answer 20

How many more pieces of evidence does it take to convince a fundamentalist that the creation story in the Bible is an allegory, and not the literal truth?



Why do people seem to think that science and Christianity are mutually incompatible? I mean, come on now, we were put on this Earth to use our brains!

Answer 21

Someone I opened my door to one sunday morning told me that.



It was a shame, she was so good looking too.



How many sources have you consulted to make you come up with such an assumption?

I can only assume that you are a young person who I think should discuss things with others so that you get a balanced view of things which will enable you to make up your own mind.

Answer 22

Yes, we should lock 'em up like we did with Galileo. Everyone knows the earth is really flat. Hah, hah, and heck, how can ANYONE believe the earth travels round the sun! It's OBVIOUS the sun travels round the EARTH! You just have to look with your own eyes! Don't believe a word they say....



Retain the simplistic thinking of a sheep and you will be safe with your shepherd, you won't have to strain your braincell with complicated theories, ideas, exploration, education etc, etc. They say ignorance is bliss.... welcome to heaven.

Answer 23

You could get some books on the subject,

One good book for this is Thousands...Not Billions by D. DeYoung

also try the age if the Solar System by H.S. Slusher and S. G. Robertson. This book brings about evidence, especially from the Poynthing-Robertson effect, that the solar system is too young for evolution to have occured, besides the fact that not one transitional fossil has ever been found, and remember that science findings now are so off that their findings can change as much as every 5 years.

Answer 24

I checked those links and all I have to say is:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



Never saw a bigger collection of bad science in my life. I guess that those web sites have more scientific authority than NASA or any scientific department of any university in the world. More credibility than Einstein, Hawking, Fenway or Sagan. right?

Get a life!



You can believe whatever you want, just stop trying to attack scientific facts to fit your simple minded view of the universe.

Answer 25

The evidence is not what you say it is. Who has mislead you? There is no evidence of a young earth. How much evidence of an earth 4,700,000,000 years old will it take to convince you and your gang?

Answer 26

It is certain knowledge that the Earth is circa 4.5 billion years old.

Fact not fiction.

Answer 27

If God visits me tonight and tells me, then I'll be convinced. Otherwise, I'll stick with science. Real science, not half baked nonsense like you seem to be peddling. Why assume 99% of science is wrong, and the 1% that seems to support you is right? I think you might be deluding yourself.

Answer 28

"most evidence indicates it is young?"



WRONG!



Most evidence indicates its is very old

evidence is provided from the field of science,



Faith is to believe in something, even with most the evidence is against it.



don't try to involve evidence in matters of faith...

Answer 29

I think the smartest folks, based on c14 and fossil evidence, say the Earth is like 4.5 billion years old.

Answer 30

Most evidence does not indicate that the earth is young.

You have bean intentionally misinformed, by people who will not hesitate to lie when they run out of arguments.

Answer 31

Now use some real science and get the real facts

Answer 32

Since none of your statements/examples is true, earth remains old

Answer 33

You have been lied to.

Answer 34

You are WRONG.

Answer 35

???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Answer 36

because people are stupid