5 Falsifications of a Young Earth 1. Radiometric Dating
Creationists don't like to accept it, but that doesn't make it wrong. They claim that the assumptions under which the various radiometric dating methods are faulty, but yet are unable to demonstrate why that is while ignoring that some of the claimed assumptions are irrelevant for some methods (e.g., constant half life is not necessarily relevant to an isochron dating technique). Radiometric dating does give us dates much older than YECists claim the earth has exists; that much is a fact. Now, here are the reasons why radiometric dating methods are reasonable methods for acquiring quantitative data:
1. We can predict radiometric dates from other known geologic processes. A great example of this is the Hawaiian Island chain. The rate of plate tectonism is known simply by looking at data received from global positioning satellites, which can observe plate motions. Using that rate and the distances between the Hawaiian islands, formed by the motion of the Pacific plate over a relatively stable hot spot, we can determine what age each island should be. When we date rocks from each island using K-Ar dating, the numbers essentially match. The basic calculations, which anyone can do for themselves, have already been provided in detail supporting this claim:
http://www.christianforums.com/t50891
2. We can cross reference radiometric dates from different techniques. Different nuclide systems such as K-Ar, U-Pb, Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, all have different parent nuclides with different rates of decay and different proportions of decay to the relevant daughter nuclide. We can use different methods on samples from the same site and they remarkably agree:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
If radiometric dating were so fatally flawed, the prediction of radiometric dates and their agreement with dates obtained from different methods should be essentially impossible.
2. Extinct Nuclides
These are nuclides that have short half lives relative to the age of the earth and universe (but not relative to YECist notions of the age of the earth) such as Al-26, I-129, Pu-244, Sm-146, and Hf-182. They are "extinct" in that they have completely decayed. When looking at the composition of solar system meteorites, we find radiogenic decay products that would have formed from the short lived nuclides that were once present. They appear in excess concentrations with respect to the time of solar system formation. An example would be finding anomalous amounts of Xe-129, which decays from I-129, thus the reasonable conclusion would be that it is a decay product of a now extinct nuclide which fits the pattern of observed nuclides. If the earth were so young, we should find such extinct nuclides, as they should still exist.
3. Meteorite Impacts on Earth
Our current data set includes 171 impact craters on earth. Some of them are quite small, but quite a few are large enough to have catastrophic consequences such as Chixculub and Sudbury (the former attributed to the K/T extinction of dinosaurs and other fauna). If the earth is so young, then how could life be so unaffected by such catastrophic impacts happening over such a short period of time? It couldn't.
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDataba...meterSort.html 4. Limestone
Limestone itself is not a falsification of a young earth, but found in large amounts interbedded with other strata does. An example is the Redwall Limestone, which is one of the strata exposed on the Colorado Plateau including in the Grand Canyon where its thickness is roughly 150 meters. We observe limestones forming by precipitation from marine water today at a rate of centimeters per year. In order for this rate to be different, the basic laws of chemistry would have to change drastically because its deposition is dependent on carbonate concentrations of the water (and other factors, such as biological and temperature). The Redwall Limestone is 15,000 centimeters thick, and since limestone forms at a rate of centimeters per year, you might be able to squeeze this rock formation into a young age of the earth, but not when you have to consider the rocks above and below it.
5. Varves
Varves are rhythmite deposits that occur annually. We can take one example of a varve deposit such as the Green River formation, which has millions of biannually deposited laminae. One type of layer is lighter colored and includes sand and freshwater precipitates (carbonates, halite, trona) in warmer temperatures and a darker layer that is chiefly composed of kerogen resulting from algae dying and sinking to the bottom of the lake in colder temperatures. If the earth is as young as YECists claim, then these varves cannot exist, but since they do, we know the earth must be at least millions of years old.
5 Falsifications of a Global Flood 1. Water
This point is simple: there just isn't a sufficient volume of water on earth to completely cover it. Arikay has already done a great job of showing the mathematics behind this conclusion, so nothing more needs to be said except a reference to his work:
http://www.christianforums.com/t37629 2. Non-Marine Sediments
If the geologic record was formed by a global flooding event, we should not see deposits associated with desert, lacustrine, or fluvial environments, especially when they are interbedded with marine deposits. This means (1) the global flooding event was not continuous contrary to what YECists claim, (2) the global flooding event is not responsible for the earth's sedimentary rock record like YECists claim, or (3) the earth's sedimentary rock record is far more complicated than YECists admit, and is not produced by a global flooding event. Obviously the answer is (3). Non marine sediments are not deposited by a marine transgression onto the continent.
3. Paleosols
Related to point #2 are paleosols, which are essentially buried soil layers from earlier in earth's history. Soil forms under conditions of exposure, not submersion. Now, under a global flood scenario, we might be able to expect one layer of paleosol, but we see paleosol layers throughout the geologic column at different stratigraphic layers. If we find paleosols in certain sequences, we can obviously discount them from being formed during a global flood, which inevitably leads to the falsification of such an event.
4. Angular Unconformities
One of the basic principles of stratigraphy is the law of original horizontality which states that wet sediments are deposited flat. Any readjustment of that original horizontality must have occurred after their solidification as lithified rock. Then (generally speaking) tectonic events would result in some sequences being fractured and tilted, then eroded down to a nearly flat surface and flat sediments deposited above them. For an angular unconformity to occur, there must be a difference in time in the formation of the tilted layers and those that lie above them at a different angle. That rules out their formation by a global flood event. In fact, there should be no non-conformable bedding planes between sedimentary strata if the sedimentary rock record was a result of a global flood.
5. Remant Features - Karst Topography, River Channels
Karst topography results from the dissolution of a rock by migrating fluids. Commonly that rock is a limestone (or other chemical rock). This creates caves, sinkholes, and underground passages. When new rock is deposited, the new mass above results in the collapse of these caves and passageways. We observe such collapsed features in the geologic record. This is another indication that the geologic record was not deposited continuously. Another example of a buried, remnant feature would be dried, cracked river channels that become buried under new sediments. For the river channel to occur, the continents must have been exposed, not submerged. These remnant features are indications that the geologic record is not continuous like YECists need it to be for a global flood mechanism to work.
Linear Mode
