Young earth evidence.

It's been a while since we had a thread on this, so let's try again.

I would like to see the positive scientific evidence for a young earth.

That is:
* Evidence which does not rely on the Bible, but on physical things we can go out and test or measure.
* Evidence which actually specifically supports a given age, rather than merely attempting to attack the evidence for an old earth.

In other words, imagine that I were to throw out all the evidence that anyone has ever provided for an old earth, and say simply "I have no idea how old the earth is".

How would you show me that it's young?

One more thing: Please don't post saying that you don't think any will be forthcoming, or otherwise create a hostile environment. I would like to see what the evidence is; a couple of our posters have claimed that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for a young earth, and I'd like to see this evidence which actually affirms a young earth.

Once again, no "here are flaws with other methods". Ignore the other methods; show the positive evidence. For the sake of this discussion, I am assuming that the only claims I can affirmatively make are that the world is at least three or four thousand years old, because we have written history going back that far.

__________________
Save me / And when you see me strut / Remind me of what left this outlaw torn
I follow Christ; therefore I am
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. I affirm the Nicene Creed.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39

Should be a short thread.

Oh and by the way:

Dr. Charles Ferguson of the University of Arizona has, by matching up overlapping tree rings of living and dead bristlecone pines, carefully built a tree ring sequence going back to 6273 BC (Popular Science, November 1979, p.76).

I make that 6273 + 2003 = 8276 years.

scientificly we don't know how old the earth is, but we can look at how old it's not:

The folowing is factual proof of the posible maximum age of existance and must be disproven before any older age indications can be found to have a scientific basis:

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape. the worle pool galaxies found by the hubble counter previous destiny wave theory. The only resonable explanation is that the universe is less than a few hundred million years old, OR that we are randomly in the right part of space time to make our own galaxy and those around ours look as if they are spiral.

it's simply outside the relm of likely hood that the latter is the case, we're talking science here, not faith.

comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years.

Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e., mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. That process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 24 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.

Every year, river and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. The remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates. It could be that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

The folowing is acknowledgment that their are other indications of the maximum age of existance, but these findings are in scientific doubt, this doubt shows that the facts have yet to be concluded.

Much other evence based on geologic ages exists, but injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’ Strong geologic evidence exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone of the Ute Pass fault west of Colorado Springs was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the time it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time scale. This does not prove any age atall but does make any data colected by this means scientificly questionable.

Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ages to a few years, Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were eather deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart or the ‘Orphan’ Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, implys drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates. The latter being something scientificly unfounded, the former at verlyleast brining into question geologic ages.

Some anthropologists say that the stone age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies. Buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the stone age was much shorter than those anthropologists think, a few hundred years in many areas. This does not prove that the stone age was a few hundred years, but it does bring into doubt the scientific credibility of the 100k year pojection or the population of the earth.

Scheffler, H. and H. Elsasser, Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352–353, 401–413.

D. Zaritsky et al., Nature, July 22, 1993. Sky & Telescope, December 1993, p. 10

Whipple, F.L., "Background of modern comet theory," Nature 263 (2 Sept 1976) 15.

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.

Hay, W.W., et al., ‘Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction’, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No B12 (10 December 1988) 14,933–14,940.

Gentry, R.V., ‘Radioactive halos’, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) 347–362.

Gentry, R.V. et al., ‘Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification’, Science 194 (15 Oct. 1976) 315–318.

Deevey, E.S., ‘The human population’, Scientific American 203 (Sept. 1960) 194–204.

Ever considered any initial non axisymmetric distribution in the disk will be amplified and then maintained by the self gravity of the disk. i.e. a density wave

Also start off with two featureless disks of stars and have them pass by each other and spiral density waves are created in the disks due to the physics of the encounter.

Comets - explain why long period comets have orbits from any direction but short period ones don't. Because they are replenished from a distant source (Oort cloud.)

Ever heard of plate tectonics and subduction - the sediments get subducted.

The sodium argument is a joke. By the same methodology the Earth according to Aluminium levels in the oceans is less than a hundred years old. Check out some websites on ocean chemistry. These dating arguments by ocean salt levels have been refuted for decades.

I'm not debating this in this thead lest the origonator changes the rules, my facts stand sourced as they are, but i would like to point out that many of your arguments are speculative at best, the counter's often being provided in the text alredy posted.

An exception is in the salt argument, whare we must both say that the ocian was created with elements alredy in it.

I'm not saying that the earth isn't 3.5billion years old, i fully belive that evolution can fit into scripture as the word morning means to start work day means time when you do work and evining means the end of a period of work. I am saying i've got no reason to have faith in an old earth when it requieres conjecture used for the dismissal of facts to support it.

Finaly plese respect the origionators wishes, he didn't ask for a debate whare you show off your faith, but rather some evedence. you have proveded nothing but your own conjecture, and even if you did give support: it wouldn't be part of what was asked for.

First of all I don't need your permission to post.
Second, most threads die on the vine without some side thoughts or counter argument - that is why the forum is here.
Third, you didn't give evidence but well known claptrap. When you quote Gentry you are quoting a zealot who doesn't know what he is talking about. Try checking out his cosmology posts on www.arxiv.org
I didn't provide conjecture. Try modeling via N body models the interactions of galaxies. I have - and spiral structure shows itself everytime.

I was under the impression that the Oort cloud has not been proven to exist but is only hypothetical.
How do you know that this Oort cloud is in fact real and that this cloud actually supplies these comets?

because the bickering my have obfuscated that i poted counter to your point prior to you even posting a counter point:

i posted references for what i said, you can look it up, you can see how the hubble has cast serious doubt on the destiny wave theory. you can read what i wrote, and ascert that you honestly are saying that we are in the perfict time-space that our and many galaxies around us, via interactions of galaxies, come out spiral. Please, ad hominim atacks are meaningless.

you are aparently unfamiliar with buliten board edtiquit, if you'd like me to explain it fully i will, but otherwise:

try speaking as if you would to any other of your brothers in Christ, if you are given to name calling and randome insults in real life as you are here then you should honestly stop focusing on the highly un-important issue of creation and start focusing on your relatinship with the Lord... in otherwords keep in mind the later part of Galatians.

I agree it is unobserved BUT the evidence is there from statistical and circumstantial arguments. Hence my comment about long period comets and their differences in orbital elements from short period comets.

It wasn't an idea plucked out of Jan Oort's backside to give creationists fits. Heck I doubt Oort even gave creationism a thought. It was hypothesised based upon known properties and observations or solar system comets.

Then why did you present it as fact in the post above?

isn't that considered as bad science and lying?