Evidences of an old universe:
God's Creation Proclaims Minimum Age of the Universe (yrs.)
Deuterium abundance and mass density 19 billion
Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect 18 billion
Nucleochronology (decay of radioactive nuclides) 17 billion
Anthropic principles 17 billion
Star color luminosity fitting (Chaboyer) 14 billion
Expansion of the universe (WMAP) 13.7 billion
Galaxy lenses time delay (Saha) 13.5 billion
Age of oldest stars (U/Th, U/Ir, Th/Eu, and Th/Os dating) 13.2 billion
Spectral line of Uranium-238 (half-life=4.5 billion years) (Cayrel) 12.5 billion
Supernova standard candles (Watson) 12 billion
Globular Clusters (Chaboyer, Peterson, D'Antona) 12 billion
Gravitational lensing (Kundic, Falco) 11 billion
Light travel-time based on quasar-light source 10 billion
Cepheids (Freedman) 9 billion
Expanding photosphere (Schmidt) 9 billion
Star stream interactions in galaxies 8 billion
Geometric measurement to the quasar 3C 279 (Homan) 5.9 billion
Age of moon rocks 4.5 billion
Age of meteorites 4.5 billion
Accumulation of space dust on the moon (at the measured rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year) 4.5 billion
Relaxation times of star clusters 4 billion
Erosion on Mercury Mars, and Moon 4 billion
Age of earth rocks 4 billion
Length of days of coral fossils (coral reference) 370 million
Accumulation of sodium in the oceans (sodium reference) 260 million
Rate of continental drift to form the the Atlantic Ocean 200 million
Reversals of the earth's magnetic pole recorded in the Atlantic Ocean sea bottom 80 million
Erosion of the Grand Canyon 25 million
Geometric measurement to the galaxy NGC4258 (Hernstein) 23.5 million
Carbonate deposits: The Great Bahama Bank, off the coast of Florida, has multiple layers over 14,500 feet thick (Anselmetti) 12.4 million
There are sedimentary rock formations on Mars that are over 4 kilometers thick. Such layers would require tens to hundreds of millions of years of running water to form. In addition there must have been millions of years for all the water to have disappeared, since Mars is now extremely dry. (View pictures from the article) (Malin) 10 million
Ooids (small spheroidal bodies): Formation for adding many layers of mineral deposits involves massive time elements. (Algeo) >7 million
The Green River annual layers (alternating Summer calcium carbonate and Winter organic layers) 4 million
Geometric measurement to the galaxy M33 (Brunthaler) 2.4 million
Evaporites: When bodies of salt water are trapped so that circulation is limited, evaporation produces precipitation of calcium carbonate, then calcium sulfate and finally calcium chloride out of the water. Each layer takes several years to form. The Delaware Basin formation is 1,300 feet thick, consisting of 200,000 layers, requiring at least 600,000 years to form. The Mediterranean Sea floor is underlain by about 7,000 feet of evaporites, requiring millions of years to form and evaporation of a 60 miles depth of salt water. >3 million
Length of time that surface rocks have been exposed to cosmic rays (extinct volcanoes in Nevada) 830,000
Huge stalactites, stalagmites, and columns in the Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico (Carlsbad reference) 500,000
Vostok ice core in Antarctica (Petit) 420,000
Thickness of coral reefs 130,000
Organic banks (The Capitan Reef of West Texas, 2,000 feet thick in places, with fossilized remains of organisms.) 100,000
Radiocarbon dating of wood (upper limit of dating method) 50,000
Bristlecone pine trees in California 10,000
Dolomite formation: Replacement of calcium carbonate particles in lime sediment or lime rock gives strong evidence of vast amounts of time required. Rate is as slow as 200 million years/mm. (Arvidson) millions
Look at all that evidence that the earth is old! This is what I mean by easily disproven, for that young earth idea. This is what I mean by so easily disproven that it brings discredit to the name of Christ, since it makes Chrisianity look like a myth, not true, something only people who check their brains at the church door can believe. You can only ignore and even twist and even cover up, from yourself as well as others, all this evidence if you really want, for some reason, to lie to yourself about the truth. The most charitable thing that could be said, if you ignore all the above, is that you are lazy and have never bothered to LOOK IT UP. You are so busy enjoying the fealing of "us versus them", and feeling superior and holier than those "evil, godless evolutionists", so busy in what is known as "noble cause corruption", where you are willing to beleive ANYTHING to stop "them", you have never botherwed once to actually check it out for yourself. , be like these folks Acts 17:11, "of more noble caracter".
Lots more evidences that the earth is old.
In nature, uranium is found as uranium-238 (99.2742%), uranium-235 (0.7204%), and a very small amount of uranium-234 (0.0054%). Uranium decays slowly by emitting an alpha particle. The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years and that of uranium-235 is 704 million years, making them useful in dating the age of the Earth
Simply put, the ratios of different uranium types, and the amount of the different isotopes and lead (as well as lead/kead decays http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/cu ... topes.html
) that it decays to in samples of uranium and rock, show the earths age quite accurately, so accurate that there really isnt any doubt of the earths age.
for LOTS more.
And about this, just looking at a few http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
, Many of these "evidences" are called "cherry picking", where, say, you look at just one rock formation that can support your idea while carefully avoiding mention of the many many rock formations that comepletly disprove your idea. That is not science, that is bald faced lies. I see a LOT of that on this site, a LOT. lets look at some:
Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also.
Completly disproven. I used to believe that stuff, then I did something radical, I LOOKED INTO IT, I decided to actually SEE if this was true. Conclusion, there are many places in the sea where due to continental drift, the ocean bed is folding under and dissapearing back under the crust of the earth. At these places, salt is absorbed into the rock there quite deeply, a mile deep in some places if I remember right, and then is folded under and removed from the sea. There are also other processes removing salt from th sea. I am amazed that they are stll even printing this old disproven stuff, must be really desperate. frankly, to even dare to use this one, after it has been so thoroughly disproven, is a mark of just plain dishonesty, are at the very most charitable, complete laziness in actually bothering to check out if it was even so. Either way, it is plain 'ol sin.
http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/fa ... inity.html
Ocean Salinity as a Failed Scientific Clock The dates calculated by all who attempted this method were wrong because of several fundamental flaws in the system. First of all, to use the salt clock as an actually clock, you must assume that the starting point would be 0% salinity. This, of course, could never be known because no one was around to measure the salinity of the oceans right when they formed. Also, people assumed that the ocean is an eternal reservoir, and when the salt is dumped in the ocean, it stays there permanently. This assumption is false as it has been later proved that elements of the ocean are being constantly recycled and leave the water. As plate tectonics shapes our Earth, sea beds rise and evaporate, leaving large salt deposits. Oceanic plates subduct and melt into the Earth which causes volcanoes to erupt which spew material containing salt that becomes incorporated into the land, which then starts the process all over again.
The Earth, including the salt in the ocean, is in a constant state of flux, on a very large cycle. In fact, the amount of salt lost from the ocean and the amount it gains are about the same. This means that the salinity of the oceans does not gradually increase, or even change greatly, but is actually in a state of equilibrium. Another fundamental flaw in this system is that the rates of erosion, solution, rainfall, and runoff cannot be measured over large amounts of geologic time. They simply vary too much to yield any constant (41). Also, the fact that different elements tend to spend different amounts of time in the ocean adds to the confusion of the calculations.
The decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Exponential decay is evident from measurements and is consistent with theory of free decay since creation, suggesting an age of the earth of less than 20,000 years.
Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field [DB 1506 (1); OAB 50] Since devices for measuring the Earth's magnetic field were invented a few hundred years ago, measurements have shown that the Earth's magnetic field has been steadily decreasing over those few hundred years. It is claimed that these measurements indicate that the Earth's magnetic field has been steadily losing energy ever since it formed. By extrapolating the decay backwards in time, it is then claimed that an age greater than 10,000 years is impossible. However, it is easily shown that such a simple extrapolation is not justified. Scientific instruments are not the only mechanisms that have ever existed for measuring the Earth's magnetic field. Ovens used by ancient civilizations and the igneous rocks making up the ocean floor are two of the more obvious examples. Both record the direction and strength of the magnetic field as it was at the time they were last heated, and both prove conclusively that the hypothetical exponential decay of Earth's magnetic field has not occurred (according to the young-Earth theories, the magnetic field was many times greater only a few thousand years ago, a hypothesis that is clearly at odds with the above-mentioned evidence). Instead, the evidence shows that the magnetic field has fluctuated back and forth in strength as well as direction. These fluctuations are clearly observed in places where the stratigraphy (i.e. which rocks are older than which rocks) is obvious due to either layering or distance from a sea-floor spreading ridge. The decrease measured in the past few hundred years, therefore, is nothing more than a downward trend as part of an overall fluctuation, and has no implication for the age of the Earth (for a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Thompson (1997), http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
They are still using that old magnetic feild strength of the earth bit?? There is so much evidence against it it aint funny. They can only be using this already disproven theory if they have carefully avoided seeing any evidence to it's contrary. So far behind the scientific curve they are practically cavemmen. They could only still be using this one if they really WANT the earth to be young, want it so much that they will cover up any evidence to the contrary. That is not science, and that is not honest, it is a bald faced lie. Who do lies come from, God, or Satan, who is called the father of lies?
And why might they want this evidence to be true, want it so much that they will ignore, even cover up, any evidence to the contrary?
"When the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a young age of the earth."
So it's all the "evolutionists" fault, is it, those "evil, godless evolutionists" (that it is so much fun to feel superior to, holier than!). Since when did evolutionists dictate to geologists and physicists about magnetic feild strengths or chemists and geologists about ocean salinity? The bible timeline, what do these guys know about bible timeline? Check it out http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... fense.html http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html
and that is just from this one site. Basically, the idea that a "literal" interpratation must be only of 24 hour days for creation is shown false by the actual words in the original language and how they are used in Genesis and elsewhere. It is only ignorance, in some cases willfull ignorance of these original languages and words (easy to look up yourself http://www.blueletterbible.org/
) that causes some to assume the word used originally only means 24 hour day.
And don't even get started on this old chestnut "Yom with a number (ordinal) always refers to 24 hour days", that is a flat out LIE. Check this out http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/sixdays.html
The claim has been made that when yom is used with a number, it always refers to a 24-hour day:
"Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?"1
Let's look at some notable exceptions to this "rule," just using the first day as an example. The number used for "first day" is the Hebrew word echad,12 which means "one." The first exception to the "rule" is found in Genesis 29:20, where echad yom refers to a period of seven years that Jacob served Laban to obtain Rachel.13
In the book of 1 Samuel, David says that he "will perish one day [echad yom] by the hand of Saul."14 Obviously, David was not expecting to die in exactly 24 hours. In fact, David was never killed by Saul, but died of old age many decades later.
A prophecy from the book of Daniel describes the demise of the ruler of the Syrian kingdom, Seleucus Philopator, the Son of Antiochus the Great. According to Daniel 11:20, "within a few days [echad yom] he will be shattered."15 The reign of Seleucus actually lasted 12 years16 - a relatively short period of time, but certainly not 24 hours!
There are several examples where echad yom refers to the Day of the Lord - a period usually interpreted as being seven years in length.17 Specific examples that specify a period of time longer than 24 hours include the following:
'For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day [echad yom]. 'In that day,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'every one of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and under his fig tree.'" (Zechariah 3:9-10)
For it will be a unique day [echad yom] which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light. And it will come about in that day that living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. (Zechariah 14:7-8)
"He [the Lord] will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him. (Hosea 6:2)
If we are to interpret echad yom as referring only to a 24 hour day, then people will only be able to invite their neighbors over during one 24 hour period of time. Obviously, Zechariah 3:9-10 refers to an extended period of time. Later in his book, Zechariah describes this "one day" as being "in summer as well as in winter." This verse clearly indicates that this "one day" must be at least six months in length. The third example above is somewhat difficult to interpret, but is often interpreted as representing long periods of time. Gill's commentary says,"...these two and three days may be expressive of a long and short time, as interpreters differently explain them; of a long time, as the third day is a long time for a man to lie dead..."18 These six examples clearly establish that when yom is used with a number it does not always refer to 24-hour days.
In short, the idea that a literal Genesis is talking only about 24 hour days is shown false, and if they dare to mention that old chestnut "ordinal", a flat out, bald faced LIE. A truely literal Genesis uses the word YOM, which means an indefinate period of time, it can mean anywhere form 12 hours to infinity.
And don't even start with that old idea "it's young with the appearence of age". What, God made THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE into a gigantic, bald faced LIE, that lies to us and says it is old, when it is not? What does that make God? Does that sound like an idea from God, or Satan?
So I went to this site http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
all right, did you expect me to be convinced by ideas so easily disproven that they have been shown completly false decades ago?? Did you expect me to be convinced by carefully chery picked "evidence", while ignoreing volumes of contrary evidence? Did you expect me to be convinced by seeing a page with bald faced lies on it that this is of God ????
Why should you continue to beleive that the earth is young, when the bible, in the original language, does not say that? Don't you beleive in the bible? Or are you so busy trying to fight off those "evil, godless evolutionists" that you will accept anything, even a lie of Satan, that you think will help your "noble cause"?
And if Satan is behind this idea that "evolution" proves God is false, and that therefore you must fight evolution (the reality being the exact opposite), what will Satan do if someone, like, say, myself, comes along and exposes his lie? Will he change all the scientists minds, so that they now say "evolution is false"? No, he will work on the church and the Christians (and those who think they are), they, after all, are the real target. He will get them to appose the idea by any means nessissary, even using lies (which can lead to such wonderfull habits!). He will have them fight the idea just like he had them fight the idea that "the just shall live by faith" during the time of Martin Luthor. He will make them angry at the very idea that anyone can "challenge the bible", angry and emotional, not reasoning, keep them angry so that they won't THINK, won't actually LOOK and ask "does the bible really say this". He will keep stimulating their feeling of belonging to a noble cause (it feels good!), one so important it overrides any other consideration (bring on the Spanish Inquisiton, torture them, it's for a holy cause! http://people.csail.mit.edu/paulfitz/sp ... cript.html
). He will keep them enjoying how they are much better and more holy than those people over there, an attitude that is the exact opposite of the gospel. He will keep them saying to themselves 'science is evil", thus keeping them away from it and it's evidences that show this idea to be so very easily shown false. And meanwhile he will continue to say to everyone else "see, those Christians are unscientific fools with minds in the dark ages, you don't want to be like THAT, do you?".
In short, I expect that the greatest oppostion to this idea will come from "Christians", just like it did to Martin Luthor, just like it did to the aposles, just like it did to Jesus ("good churchgoers" were the main opposition to both), just like it did to all the prophets who God sent to Isreal, who were rejected, attacked and even killed over and over again.
If you want me to belive that the earth is only at most 10,000 years old (didn't they used to say 6,000, why has it changed, hint, check your calender), you will have to do better than a link to a site that I can quickly and easily see is full of lies, ones disproven decades ago by muttiple people multiple times (including Christians scientists), followed by carefully cherry picked "evidnece", huge volumes of carefully not mentioned contrary evidence, bad science (doesn't even follow the scientific method in many cases, thus not even science at all), and illogical and emotionalism arguments. And that is not even going into the fact that they have to actually go against what the bible actually says in the original language, which makes me wonder whoe's side they are on, anyway? And the argument "these are good Christians", well, how do we know that? Do they act like good Christians? Are lies a good Christian act? Are we even able to say that they are "good Christians" Mat 7:21 Mat 7:22 Mat 7:23 or did Christ say that some are not his Mat 13:24 Mat 13:25 Mat 13:26 Mat 13:27 Mat 13:28 Mat 13:29 Mat 13:30. Or are we to just accept anyones word for it that they are Christian, and eccept whatever they say as true because of it? Many cults say that exact thing, should we join them? If God does not say it in his word, and the evidence of the world God made also does not say it, why would we say it, what reason do we have, really?
And if you still want to beleive the earth is young, ask yourself, exactly why do you beleive it?
Do you think that is what the bible originally said? Why? have you actually checked it out, for yourself, ever?? When?
Do you think that is what the physical evidence actually says? Why have you never actually looked into it?
Or are you beleiving it simply because you wish to appose "them"? Is opposition to something called "evil' evidence for something else?
Is peer pressure a good reason to keep beliving it? What did Jesus peers, the pharisees, think of him? What did the apostles and prophets peers think of them? Is that a common reaction of "good churchgoing folk" to people sent by God to tell them a truth they do not want to hear? When Jesus spoke to the seven churches in Asia, did he have some problems with some of them, even some big problems, even one church that he did not have a single good thing to say about them? So even if whole churches beleive something, does that auomatically make it true and right and "Chrsitian"?
How would you tell if someone is a "good Christian" anyway? Hint Gal 1:8, one word, BIBLE. If both sides call themselves "good Christians", or appear to be, what then? Have you thought about it? Have you ever thought how you would spot a person or idea planted by Satan? Don't you think Satan is trying to do exactly that? Has he succeeded? How would you know? How would you go about knowing now, if you don't know? Do you want to know? Why or why not?