Here we go again. Young earth is absolutely 100% not even close to supported by ANY unbiased scientific research. In fact, if you want rock solid proof that the earth isn't young, go outside tonight and look up. In your view of the night sky you will see objects (stars) that are over 15 million light years away.
Conclusively that means that those things have existed for a minimum of 15 million years. There are things detectable by satellite instruments that are estimated to be over 13 billion light years away. Again meaning that the universe is at least that old. Most "unbiased" studies point to the age of the earth as just under 5 billion years.
Apparently you've never heard of the horizon problem. When you solve that problem, and a host of others the big bang theory has, then you can say that "conclusively that means that those things have existed for a minimum of X years". It is statements like this, spoken authoritatively, and as being absolutely factual, that delude people into believing the theory of deep time is proven. If the textbook says it, it must be true, right? What isn't mentioned is that these theories are founded on unproven assumptions, themselves supported by weak, circumstantial evidence. When you heap a bunch of circumstantial evidence together, it looks very weighty, but in actuality is not much more than metaphysics. True science is based on empirical testing, and you cannot empirically test this theory.
I'll show you what Max Planck thought of your "unbiased" studies:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"
Are you somehow unaware that this is a fallen world ruled by sin, and that there is nothing man is involved in that isn't biased?
For some reason Christians tend to want to bash radiometric dating, but within is margins of error the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old.
Within margins of error? Yes, if your margin of error is billions of years, which it often is. This we know because the different methods do not agree with eachother. If each method gives a different date, which one is right? How do you get "accurate" measurements when you have at least 3 unprovable assumptions to do any kind of dating? One, that the initial condition of the rock is known. Two, that the amount of parent and daughter elements hasnt been changed. Three, that the decay rate is constant. Why is it that when we measure rocks that we do know the ages of, they don't give accurate measurements?
And for you to suggest that dinosaurs existed in the last 6000 or so years is quite frankly preposterous. The fact that you would even make a claim like that suggests that you have absolutely no experience or knowledge in the field and are simply repeating what you've heard others say. Others who are probably just as knowledgeable as you.
It this sort of mocking and scoffing that atheists use when we tell them the word of God. This is exactly what people do who want to stifle a free exchange of ideas. Ridicule them until they shut up. Well, that's not how brothers in Christ treat one another. That isn't the way Jesus taught us to act. If you would open your ears and listen there is quite a bit of evidence that Dinosaurs did exist recently.
In the fossil records there are clear timelines which show clearly the development of new traits. There are no fossils of the modern domesticated dog along side T-rex fossils in date. Most things that are alive today are no where to be found in the distant fossil records. Now why do you think that is? There are actually very few species alive today which appear as a closely related species in fossil records, such as Echidnas and Coelacanths. From looking at fossil records we see that over 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct. Why is this? Flood? let me save you the trouble, NO. There are periods of mass extinction which are millions of years apart in the fossil records, each showing VERY distinct different organisms.
Matthew 24:38-39
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Are you saying God lied to us? There most definitely was a flood. This is what the word of God says about it:
Genesis 7:23
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark
Yes, everything was wiped out, except for what Noah took with him in the Ark. This is why most of the species are extinct. The word of God also says this:
2 Peter 3:3-7
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
It says the world has deliberately forgotten that God once judged this world by water, just as He will judge it by fire in the tribulation to come.
The geologic column is not sorted by massive epochs of time, it is sorted by the rate by which organisms died in the flood. The flood was an extended event, taking over 1 year to reach peak elevation. The dieoffs by the various species which occurred were based on many factors, such as their mobility, intelligence, elevation, and environmental tolerances. This is why the bottom dwellers went first, then the free swimming forms, followed by the cold and then warm blooded creatures, and finally human beings.
Of course not everything was neatly sorted, which is why we find anomalous fossils and living fossils, which again completely contradict the evolutionary timeline.
As far as there not being evidence in fossil record, the only 2 ways I can see you coming to that conclusion are 1 you are blind, 2 you have no knowledge of fossil records and are repeating what others have said. There are early mammals that lay eggs, there are reptiles that are very like mammals. There are squirrel like primates with opposable thumbs, there are amphibious fish. Furthermore there are consistent dateing record of fossils that sho that there were no records of primates until a certain time, go back farther and there are no placental mammals, go back farther and there are no marsupials, go back farther and there are no synapsids, go back farther and there are no reptiles.
You're joking, right? Anyone who has studied this subject at any length knows how weak the evidence from the fossil record actually is for evolution. There is far more evidence against it than for it. This is why evolutionists always try to turn the subject away from the fossil record and attempt to prove it through phylogeny. The fossil record is not your friend.
The fact is, you have almost no ancestors for any phyla, you have less transitional series than you did in darwins day, you have every prediction of the theory being overturned by the cambrian explosion; you have a record of stasis, not change. You have a record of sudden appearance of diversity and complexity, which is why you have the theory of punctuated equillibrium:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had been previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven't found any evolution.'
Gould & Eldredge
Paleobiology v.3 p.136
This is a theory which tries to explain why there is no evidence of macro evolution in the fossil record (it happened too fast). If it wasn't such a serious issue I would laugh, but people actually believe this, and it keeps them away from the truth.
There is quite simply nothing but evidence for evolution, that and lose conjecture based on shoddy aberrations in biased and unreliable research.
a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record.
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.
New Scientist 6/81 p. 831
Mark Ridley Oxford