More Dismissing Darwinist Lies...The Long Ages Myth...Actually the Earth, Solar System and Universe is Young!!!
Nobody says it better than Creation.com in this case!
I am not going to even use blue for quotes. Just going to give it to you the way it is found on the website. If you have any doubt that Darwinism is dead as dead can be, begin researching ANY aspect of origins on this site. Then consider I have probably listed over 50 excellent creationist sites in my links list. Millions of people have abandoned Darwinism because of the science and thereby find their worldview gets a change as well. Sometimes it happens the other way around. No Creationist has any excuse for believing ANY aspect of Darwinism, it is just Pantheism in disguise. Three articles for your perusal:
Deep time doesn’t make sense!
The Bible rejects ‘deep time’ (see Did God create over billions of years?). There is no hint of deep time within its pages; it says the universe is thousands of years old, not billions. But deep time is the mental furniture of our age. Our culture automatically thinks in terms of ‘millions of years’. It’s just assumed that science has proved deep time.
But what if deep time is fundamentally an irrational idea? No matter how much ‘science’ seems to ‘prove’ it, the point would be moot because deep time in itself simply wouldn’t make any sense. Logic is more foundational than science—science doesn’t have to exist (since nature doesn’t have to exist), but logic does. We can’t talk or reason without logic. Not even science can save an illogical idea.
Of course, deep time is not obviously irrational. It seems to make sense. But how can we test its logical consistency? First, we need to know what sort of idea ‘deep time’ is and what it specifically says. Next, we must remember that deep time is an interpretation of data. Data does not speak for itself. It is always interpreted according to our starting assumptions or axioms. Deep time is no different; it is an interpretation of the data that rests on a few basic axioms. This provides us with the crucial test: if those axioms are false or don’t make sense, deep time has no logical foundation to stand on, regardless of how impressive the ‘science’ of deep time seems.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We have LOTS of evidence for a young age for the Earth and Universe!
Age of the earth
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
Can science prove the age of the earth?
No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called “clocks” they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the “clock” has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.
There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've read many of the articles and posted on most of these evidences since 2004. Evidence is sadly lacking in public schools and colleges. But the internet is your friend! Let me just list one of the many great references for you:
CMI scientific blunder?
Methane, ethane, and pseudogene functions
Published: 9 September 2010(GMT+10)
Image: wikipedia
‘There is too much methane in Titan’s atmosphere for it to be millions of years old.’
This week’s feedback features two correspondents. R.P. from the United States accuses CMI of a scientific blunder in Dr Don Batten’s article ‘Age of the earth’ by saying that methane (CH4) cannot degrade into ethane (C2H6). Dr Jonathan Sarfati, who holds a Ph.D. in chemistry, shows how methane can be chemically broken down to ethane. Dr Robert Carterreceives some positive feedback about his article ‘Splicing and dicing the genome’, and comments on new research suggesting a new function for pseudogenes have a function that further renders the ‘junk DNA’ explanation invalid.
R.P. from the United States writes:
Blatant error in your article: Age of the earth
Besides not providing references for your claims the largest error occurs inpoint #74 which states:
“Methane on Titan (Saturn’s largest moon)—methane would all be gone because of UV-induced breakdown to ethane in just 10,000 years. And large quantities of ethane are not there either.”
Anyone with a chemistry background knows that methane cannot be broken down to ethane because methane only has one carbon while ethane has two. One ethane could be split into two methane molecules, but not the other way around.
CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati writes:
To read the reply and the next section, click here.