How old is the world? Are radiometric dating methods on time? How has Darwinism substantiated itself via scientific evidence and valid arguments? These and other queries are answered in this exciting fully documented work. Do your friends think the earth is billions of years old? Our bold and fresh recently updated book explains why a youthful planet is just common sense.
Young earth evidence
Are you sure you want to delete this answer? Yes Sorry, something has gone wrong. This assumes that the Genesis account is accurate, that the six days of creation were literal hour periods, and that there were no ambiguous gaps in the chronology of Genesis. The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each fathered the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham.
By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and adding up the ages provided in Genesis 5 and 11, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about years old, give or take a few hundred years. What about the billions of years accepted by most scientists today and taught in the vast majority of our academic institutions?
Reference to a case where the given method did not work This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts: First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are “undatable” objects, but rather whether or not all objects cannot be dated by a given method.
The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches. How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth’s oldest rock formations Dalrymple , p.
The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at random does not explain why these “bad results” are so consistently in line with mainstream science. Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope. Creationists often attack these requirements as “unjustified assumptions,” though they are really neither “unjustified” nor “assumptions” in most cases.
Rates of radiometric decay the ones relevant to radiometric dating are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can “tunnel” out of the nucleus of the atom.
Evidence for a Young Earth from the Ocean and Atmosphere
See this page in: Hungarian , Russian , Spanish People who ask about carbon 14C dating usually want to know about the radiometric  dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history.
Claim: A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in from Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of several million years. This shows we should not trust radiometric
Both old earth creationism and young earth creationism seek to solve the apparent conflict between science and the Bible in regard to the age of the earth. What is the apparent conflict? If the book of Genesis is interpreted strictly literally, it seems to indicate that the earth and the universe are around 6, years old.
In contrast, various scientific dating methods place the age of the earth around 4. The options to solve the apparent conflict are as follows: Neither old earth creationism nor young earth creationism teaches that the Bible is wrong. Old earth creationists believe a strictly literal approach is not the correct way to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. Young earth creationists interpret Genesis 1—2 as a literal, historical account of how God created the universe.
Young earth creationists question why, if the rest of Genesis is historical, should the first two chapters be interpreted differently? Young earth creationists contend that the scientific data supporting a billions-of-years-old universe is being interpreted incorrectly. They view old-earth arguments developed by naturalistic scientists as primarily being a defense for Darwinian evolution.
Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
Evidence for a Young World by D. European Southern Observatory Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print usually in the millions of years are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age 6, years always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages.
· In contrast, various scientific dating methods place the age of the earth around billion years and the age of the universe around billion years. The options to solve the apparent conflict are as follows: the Bible is wrong, the Bible is being interpreted incorrectly, or the scientific data is being interpreted ://
Here are several reasons why a young earth simply cannot be true or you could call these facts, evidence of an old earth: If there was no prehistoric world, then how did the earth end up void and darkened. God made the angels and Lucifer upright. Have you ever wondered why heavenly angels always appeared in their own bodies in the Bible, but fallen angels demons always had to have a human or animal host to inhabit? This is speculation, but I believe that the fallen angels lost their bodies when God destroyed the earth in His fierce anger in Jeremiah 4: How else did they end up disembodied spirits?
The Bible mentions over different animals and yet not one mention is made of any of the hundreds of prehistoric species in museums today.
What are some methods of dating the earth that support a YOUNG earth?
They believe OE theory and in the claimed processes of evolution, but maintain that the initial matter and scientific laws were brought into existence by God Gen 8. They would also take a figurative non-literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. On this definition a theistic evolutionist could also be described as a creationist simply because they believe God created all things. But the usual assumption of Creationism is also that no macro-evolution is involved, and so all living organisms were created substantially as they now exist, although it is accepted that small changes micro-evolution within created ‘kinds’ Gen 1.
On this definition it is not necessary to assume an old earth and Young Earth YE Creationism is the belief that the universe and the Earth are just 6, to 10, years old as inferred from a literal interpretation of the Old Testament.
· Question: “How does radiometric dating fit with the view of a young earth?” Answer: Radiometric dating does not fit with the “young earth” view. Radiometric dating is a method which scientists use to determine the age of various specimens, mainly inorganic matter (rocks, etc.), though there is one radiometric dating technique, radiocarbon dating, which is used to date organic ://
Is the Earth Young? The question of whether the earth is young has aroused considerable discussion in creationist circles. I have tended to think that the earth is billions of years old, because so many radiometric dating methods sometimes yield ages in the 4 or 5 billion year range. However, it occurred to me that there is another explanation for this that is consistent with an earth that is only thousands of years old.
We can assume that in the creation, vast amounts of energy were released. This could have caused radioactive elements to decay very rapidly, but at approximately the same relative rates as they do today.
What dating methods have young earthers come up with to test the age of the earth?
How accurate are carbon-dating methods? All methods of radioactive dating rely on three assumptions that may not necessarily be true: Rate of Decay It is assumed that the rate of decay has remained constant over time. This assumption is backed by numerous scientific studies and is relatively sound. However, conditions may have been different in the past and could have influenced the rate of decay or formation of radioactive elements. Evolutionists assume that the rate of cosmic bombardment of the atmosphere has always remained constant and that the rate of decay has remained constant.
· via google just type in [young earth/dating methods] and click and take your pick – also try [young earth/creationism] – wincam
Carbon dates that are corrected by tree-ring dating are called calibrated. Tree-ring dating relies on the fact that trees have annual growth spurts and dormant period. As a result, each year the tree grows a new set of light and dark layers. These rings are easiest to see if the tree has been cut down. However, it is also possible to drill a core sample out of a living tree and inspect the rings that way. The width of tree rings depends on the climate conditions during the year, and it is possible to match the rings of individual trees, so it is possible to create a pattern of rings that covers a much longer time span than the life of a single tree.
It is possible to do this, not only with living trees, but also with trees that have died a long time ago. It’s even possible to use pieces of wood that were used millennia ago, by comparing the rings with those of other trees. As tree-ring dating is done by simple counting and comparing, it is inherently very accurate. If carbon dating is done on pieces of wood that have been dated that way, the two dates can be compared, and the C14 dating corrected as necessary.