Exact Young Earth Age?

[Ori]

220 Trillion years, 11 months, 3 days, 43 mins and 28 secs, 29 secs, 30 secs, 31...

 

[Steve]

If I may ask those who assert that the world is in the neighborhood of 6009-7514 years old, then how do you reconcile this with well documented record of tree rings.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_ring:

They can cross-date the trees and logs as far back as 10,000 years. YEC try their best to dismiss radiocarbon dating or the geologic column, but how could anyone argue that dendrochronology isn't reliable? Unlike radiometric dating, this isn't at all complicated. My mother, a YEC, actually scoffed at radiometric dating: "Have you ever SEEN a neutron?"?

Hi dorsk188,
I personally am a Young Earth Creationist. I belive alot of the evidence we often see today which evolutionists claim supports their theory is better explained by the YEC model. for Eg the different strata being laid down in a world wide flood rather then over millions on years etc.

Regarding dendrochronology.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp has information on dendrochronology.

...Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion...



​

the following also relate to dendrochronology.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/546.asp

also in regarding ice layers which some belive prove longs ages.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/squadron.asp

so do we have any extra biblical evidence of a young earth?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp Has alot of links regarding scientific evidence for a young earth.

The page http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp has a short summery of 12 arguments
Heres a few points from that link,

9. Helium in the wrong places

All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth’s atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in 5 billion years.21 This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.

4. Not enough sodium in the sea
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. As far as anyone knows, 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. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
The total energy stored in the Earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.
A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.13 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.

7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’
Strong geologic evidence exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone — formed an alleged 500 million years ago — 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, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years 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.


​

 

[Ceridwen018]

...Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion...

Actually, there are many rings produced each year by a single tree, but not all of them are the "annual rings" which are the ones counted. For a tree to grow, it must form a new layer of wood underneath the bark. This new wood is gradually laid down in numerous tiny layers during the year. The outermost layers turn darker in color because they are the ones which are subjected to the elements. That is why in a cross section of a tree, you will see groups of dark layers separated by sections of lighter layers.

These "groups of dark layers" represent the annual rings. In a tree that grows very quickly, the rings will be further apart because more layers would have been added, therefore there is more "light space" in between them. Likewise, in a tree that grows slowly, the rings will be closer together.

As far as the size of the rings go, denser woods tend to have more narrow rings, whereas softer wood tends to have wider rings because its wood is more porous and penetrable.

So yes, there are many layers laid down, but there is only one annual ring formed per year.

The problem with your site, answersingenesis.com, can be found in this quote from the article:

"However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault."

It's very nice that you believe in the Bible, but this is not scientific.

 

[michel]

You can say the same about Nostradamus. Yet still people today think he's a crack-pot. Why? Because any prohecy can be said to of come true with a little bit of a twist of the interpetation of said prophecy.

No I can't say the same thing about Nostradamus. He wrote using vague terminology that was interpreted ex-post facto. God wrote in specific detail, calling people by their names before they were even born. Not to mention mentioning that empires would rule the world, when the empire itself wasn't even a threat to their neighbors. All of which came true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

God wrote in specific detail, calling people by their names before they were even born. Not to mention mentioning that empires would rule the world, when the empire itself wasn't even a threat to their neighbors. All of which came true.

This is a faith-based claim devoid of evidence.

 

[michel]

This is a faith-based claim devoid of evidence.

Faith, by definition, contains evidence. You need a qualified dictionary.

Or better yet, a Bible - (q.v. Hebrews 11:1)

 

[Sunstone]

Faith, by definition, contains evidence.

Are you saying that faith is its own evidence?

 

[michel]

Are you saying that faith is its own evidence?

Faith contains evidence - (Hebrews 11:1)

 

[Sunstone]

Faith contains evidence - (Hebrews 11:1)

And what do you mean by "contains"?

 

[michel]

And what do you mean by "contains"?

For pity's sake!!!

Someone roll Webster over in his grave.

I really don't think I can answer this, Sunstone.

I either flunked basic English, or my communication skills are horrible.

I truly am sorry.

But I'll try:

Cake contains sugar. The alphabet contains letters. Faith contains evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Faith, by definition, contains evidence. )

No, simply your self-serving translation of Hebrews 11:1.

 

[michel]

No, simply your self-serving translation of Hebrews 11:1.

Then what's YOUR self-serving translation (sic)? My interpretation is literal.

 

[Ceridwen018]

AV1611,

To say that faith contains evidence is utter silliness. The two are completely opposite of each other.

 

[michel]

AV1611,

To say that faith contains evidence is utter silliness. The two are completely opposite of each other.

I didn't say it, the Author did. You'll have to tell Him, and He's not very far away. Just ask.

 

[Pah]

AV1611,

To say that faith contains evidence is utter silliness. The two are completely opposite of each other.

It is evidence to those who share the same faith as is anything else that bolsters faith. Another's faith is good evidence when the faiths coincide - no evidence at all when the do not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is evidence to those who share the same faith ...

No, it is 'justification'. Or, to put it differently, to allow any and all justification to masquerade as evidence is to render the term 'evidence' entirely worthless.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then what's YOUR self-serving translation (sic)? My interpretation is literal.

Finish the discussion on Psalm 12:6-7, and then we'll address this distortion.

 

[Fade]

For pity's sake!!!

Someone roll Webster over in his grave.

I really don't think I can answer this, Sunstone.

I either flunked basic English, or my communication skills are horrible.

I truly am sorry.

But I'll try:

Cake contains sugar. The alphabet contains letters. Faith contains evidence.

Since you mention Webster, lets take a look at what the dictionary says -

I've high-lighted and underlined the line that directly contradicts what you are claiming.

7 entries found for faith.

faith ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (f

th)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

 

[Sunstone]

**MOD POST**

Let's keep it civil. Attack ideas all you want, but don't attack each other.

 

[painted wolf]

**MOD POST**
Can we get back on TOPIC please...
for those of you who have forgotten it is : Exact Young Earth Age...
there is already a thread about the validity and innerancy of the bible, if you wish to discuss it take it there.