looks like you are having a hard time finding credible sources to support your claims, probably because they don't exist. Try again there special one.

I have listed more sources than you can shake a stick at. Notice that you continue to discredit not because of the science (or lack there off), you discredit because they are Christian. That in itself shows your closed mind, and inability to apply scientific methods. You use the term "credible" loosely. Basically you are declaring who is credible and non credible based on their religious beliefs. If the Christian mathematician declared 2+2 to be 4, you would declare him wrong based on his religious affiliation, and not based on his actual answer, or how he got the answer.

There are no examples of macro evolution, not now, not ever. Your virus study did not show macro, but did show micro evolution.

I quoted numerous sources showing the law of entropy, or 2nd law of thermodynamics in that systems to not migrate to a higher level (evolve), they move to a lower order.

I quoted sources showing the fossil record points to a flood where there was a explosion of life, and then it ended abruptly.

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.



You have no sources backing up your claim that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that common ancestral form of life.


Science is science, and the methods are the same regardless of your background. You just discredit because they are Christian, not based on the actual science. You are the one with the preconceived notions, and religious fervor in defending the false evolution science.

Now, your quote. "Scientists have created life in the lab" Can you show this to be true, or was it a false statement?

I thought we already had this debate.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29526&start=160
And I believe I used science to point out the existence of a creator.

ranger, I have come to realize why you are having so much trouble in this discussion and why you are all over the place with your opinions and thoughts.

Symptoms
By Mayo Clinic staff

Schizophrenia symptoms also can be attributed to other mental illnesses, and no one symptom can pinpoint a diagnosis of schizophrenia. In men, schizophrenia symptoms typically start in the teens or 20s. In women, schizophrenia symptoms typically begin in the 20s or early 30s. It's uncommon for children to be diagnosed with schizophrenia and rare for those older than 45.

Signs and symptoms of schizophrenia generally are divided into three categories — positive, negative and cognitive.

Positive symptoms
In schizophrenia, positive symptoms reflect an excess or distortion of normal functions. These active, abnormal symptoms may include:

Delusions. These beliefs are not based in reality and usually involve misinterpretation of perception or experience. They are the most common of schizophrenic symptoms.

Hallucinations. These usually involve seeing or hearing things that don't exist, although hallucinations can be in any of the senses. Hearing voices is the most common hallucination among people with schizophrenia.

Thought disorder. Difficulty speaking and organizing thoughts may result in stopping speech mid sentence or putting together meaningless words, sometimes known as word salad.
Disorganized behavior. This may show in a number of ways, ranging from childlike silliness to unpredictable agitation.

Also here is another cartoon, cause I know pictures help you understand, that shows why continuing this discussion with you is pointless. I have already addressed your questions, you just refuse to accept them.

so what is your answer concerning scientists creating life in the lab? Still waiting.

This will get you started, in this newly published article there are references to other researchers work to replicate these results successfully in a lab, if you really want the answers a quick internet search will find the results of those experiments. And before you start with the that's not life BS, remember that this process took billions of years to occur in nature. Since you are such a proponent of math then you can appreciate the models created that shows how this is possible.


So now, where is your proof for your 6000 year old earth? And just for a change of pace, find something other than your usual links, if you can.


And just for fun, do you understand and accept that the current definition of a light year is accurate?


^^Don't ignore this, it is leading somewhere.

Previously you stated that scientist (in the lab) have created life. That is not the case. I studied the topic in-depth online, on all manner of sites (not just the Christian ones).

Scientists have never taken raw materials and made a living cell. scientist have never observed raw materials becoming life in nature. It does not happen. Study biogenetics.

I read the link you sent. Once again, it is all guesses.

the first paragraph" mathematical research sheds light on a possible mechanism by which life may have gotten a foothold in the chemical soup that existed"

The answer on a light year is easy. It is the amount of time it takes you to finally answer a question. you still have not answered most of what I sent you concerning teaching evolution in public school.

Keep ignoring the evidence, it will eventually go away

Do you still wonder why math and science scores have declined? There are a lot of people out there just like you who are incapable of understanding the basic principles of either, who in turn teach their children to not trust them too.

And as further proof of your ignorance of science, you use light years as a unit of time, when it is a unit of distance, your studies have failed you. I know its confusing because it has the word year in it. But while showing your ignorance you failed to answer the question, do you accept that what we know about light years to be true?

Still waiting for you to provide some evidence for your 6000 year old earth.

This video is only 10 minutes long so you should be able to finish it, but you do have to read a little, sorry about that. This shows how the organic compounds that scientists have created in a lab from raw materials can and would lead to more complex life.

After you watch the video, find some evidence to support your 6000 year old earth claims.

"Keep ignoring the evidence, it will eventually go away"


Perhaps, but ignoring hell will not make it go anywhere or one degree cooler. It is eternal.

Time Clocks:
A "clock" is any geophysical or astronomical process that is changing at a constant rate. Clocks may be used to estimate how long a process has been going on for. All clocks (including radiometric ones) require the use of at least three assumptions. These are:

1. The rate of change has remained constant throughout the past.
2. The original conditions are known.
3. The process has not been altered by outside forces.

In each of these cases it is not possible to prove that the assumptions are true. For example flooding can greatly alter sedimentation rates, and with clocks over 5,000 years old, the original conditions cannot be known with certainty. Therefore scientists must make a guess with regard to what they believe the original conditions might have been. The shorter the time involved, the more likely that a specific process has been constant, and unaltered by external influences.

The following clocks point to a young earth, solar system, and universe. Taken together, they suggest that the earth is quite young -- probably less than 10,000 years old.



Clock
Age Estimate

1. Receding Moon
750 m.y.a. max

2. Oil Pressure
5,000 - 10,000 years

3. The Sun
1,000,000 years max

4. The Oldest Living Thing
4,900 years max

5. Helium in the Atmosphere
1,750,000 years max

6. Short Period Comets
5,000 - 10,000 years

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field
10,000 years max

8. C-14 Dating of Dino Bones
10,000 - 50,000 years

9A. Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNA
5,000 - 50,000 years

9B. Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones 5,000 - 50,000 years
9C. 165 Million Year Old Ligaments 5,000 - 50,000 years
10. Axel Heiberg Island
5,000 - 10,000 years

11. Carbon-14 in Atmosphere
10,000 years max

12. The Dead Sea
13,000 years max

13. Niagara Falls
5,000 - 8,800 years max

14. Historical Records
5,000 years max

15. The San Andreas Fault
5,000 - 10,000 years

16. Mitochondrial Eve
6,500 years

17. Population Growth
10,000 years max

18. Minerals in the Oceans Various (mostly young) Ages
19. Rapid Mountain Uplift Less than 10 million years
20. Carbon 14 from "Old" Sources 10,000 to 50,000 years
21. Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies 1 million years (max)
22. Helium and lead in Zircons 6,000 years

1. Receding Moon:
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth’s oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earth’s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon."1 This tidal friction also causes the Earth’s rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.1,2 The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3 however, according to Physicist Donald DeYoung:

"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long’ ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1

Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.4
Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery — unless it was designed that way from the beginning.

See also: What does the Moon have to say about all this -- Creation going on...?

2. Oil Pressure:
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps because our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood only about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left. 5,6,7,8 Here's More.

3. The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. 9,10,11,12 Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests. See also: Global Warming - Is the Sun to Blame?, The Young Faint Sun Paradox, and Speedy Star changes Baffle Long-Agers

4. The Oldest Living Thing:
The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old. The fact that these trees are still alive and growing older means that we don't yet know how old they will get before they die. It also strongly suggests that something happened around 4,500 to 4,767 years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. 13,14,15 Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings. Janelle says 1700. This is significant since we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1800 years before the Noachian Flood described in the Book of Genesis. See also Evidence from Living Things

5. Helium in the Atmosphere:
Helium is a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium-238. As uranium decays, the helium produced escapes from the earth's surface and accumulates in the atmosphere. As time passes, the amount of helium in the atmosphere increases. Scientists have estimated the amount of uranium in the earth's crustal rocks. From this they estimate the amount of helium that should be produced, and from these they can calculate how much helium is being added to the atmosphere over a given amount of time. They also know how much helium is currently in the atmosphere.

If we use the same assumptions that radiometric dating experts make -- i.e.: no initial daughter/byproduct (or helium) in the earth's early atmosphere, a constant decay rate, and that nothing has occurred to add to or take away the helium -- then the earth's atmosphere is at most 1.76 million years old. 16,17 Other estimates say it is much less: or only 175,000 years. 18
For a much more detailed discussion see: Helium Evidence for a Young World Remains Crystal Clear, and Helium Evidence for A Young World Overcomes Pressure, by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

6. Short Period Comets:
Short period comets revolve round the sun once every hundred years or less.19 With each revolution they lose 1-2% of their mass. After several hundred revolutions they disintegrate. At present there are over 100 short period comets in our solar system, many of which have periods of less than 20 years.20 Since comets are believed to have originated at the same time as the solar system. 21 This, plus the fact that they have not all disintegrated, suggests that either the solar system is young, or that new comets are continuously being added.

Evolutionists have come up with theories to explain the existence of comets, and how new ones are being added. One is called the Oort Cloud theory, named after J. Oort. This suggests that a hypothetical cloud surrounds the solar system that is said to extend past the orbit of Pluto.21 The other theory is called the Kuiper belt theory, and it is directed at short period comets, as opposed to to Oort Cloud theory, which is directed at both long and short period ones. Although some people claim that the Kuiper belt has been discovered, to this author's knowledge that is not the case. Nor has even one hypothetical object (i.e. asteroid of comet material) been observed to transform into a would-be comet. See reference 20 for more on this. See also the Astronomy section of the "Young" Age of the Earth and Universe Q&A page.

The existence of short period comets suggests that our solar system is less than 10,000 years old: otherwise they would have burned out long ago.22

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field:
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5 % every 100 years. This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong. Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on earth. 23,24,25,26 In other words, it seems likely that the Earth's magnetic field is quite young, and suggests that the earth itself is also young.

The fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying is well documented. For example, a recent NOVA Special on this subject brought this out very clearly. In fact, at present rates of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field 1000 years from now. And although, the NOVA special strongly suggested that this may simply mean the earth is getting ready for another reversal, such may not be the case, as Dr. Humphreys work suggests. A brief portion of Dr. Humphreys findings are quoted below.

"Shortly after that I published a review of the evidence for past polarity reversals, reaffirming their reality (Humphreys, 1988). Then I developed my dynamic-decay theory further, showing that rapid (meters per second) motions of the core fluid would indeed cause rapid reversals of the field’s polarity (Humphreys, 1990). I cited newly discovered evidence for rapid reversals (Coe and Prévot, 1989), evidence in thin lava flows confirming my 1986 prediction. Since then, even more such evidence has become known (Coe, Prévot, and Camps, 1995).

The reversal mechanism of my theory would dissipate magnetic energy, not sustain it or add to it, so each reversal cycle would have a lower peak than the previous one. In the same paper (Humphreys, 1990, p. 137), I discussed the non-dipole part of the field today, pointing out that the slow (millimeter per second) motions of the fluid today could increase the intensity of some of the non-dipole parts of the field. However, I concluded (that) ... the total energy of the field would still decrease.

Despite these ... answers, skeptics today still use Dalrymple’s old arguments to dismiss geomagnetic evidence. Much of that is probably due to ignorance of our responses, but some skeptics are still relying on the non-dipole part of the field. They hope that an energy gain in the non-dipole part will compensate for the energy lost from the dipole part.

I said, “hope,” because it appears that since 1967, nobody has yet published a calculation of non-dipole energies based on newer and better data. So that is what I will do below. It turns out that the results quash evolutionist hopes and support creationist models." 27 Emphasis Added

Another major problem with old-earth beliefs in this regard is the timing of the earth's last reversal. Old earth believers claim that it took place 780,000 years ago; however, at current rates of decay, only about 10,000 years ago the earth would have been so hot that no life could have survived on its surface. And even if we assume that in the past the earth's magnetic field decayed much slower than today, we are still only looking at about 20,000 years ago that life could have existed on the earth. This indicates that old-earth dates for the earth's past magnetic reversals (arrived at using radiometric method) are probably incorrect, and suggests that the assumptions used in old-earth (radiometric) dating were (and are) incorrect. See also: Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth, and Continental Drift and the Age of the Earth and the Links associated with these articles.

See also: The Mystery of the Earth's Magnetic Field and Magnetic Evidence on the Ocean Floor

8. Direct Dating of Dragon Bones:
By evolutionary reasoning, dragon bones only occur in the so-called Cretaceous, Jurassic, or Triassic eras.28 According to the geological time chart such creatures (now called dinosaurs) died out between 65 and 220 million years ago. What is not well known about these eras is that they are based upon the theory of evolution -- which requires extremely long periods of time. When evolution-biased scientists say that they "know" such things, they not being forthright. For while they may, in fact, believe such things, if they were honest they would admit that such "dates" assigned to these eras are highly questionable. See Are Dinosaur Bones Millions of Years Old for why dinosaurs probably became extinct in recent times.

So how can we date dragon bones?

One piece to the puzzle is the fact that many dinosaur bones are not permineralized or turned into stone. This means they can be directly dated by the Carbon-14 method, the exact same way a mammoth or Neanderthal bone is dated. This has also been done on numerous occasions by various laboratories in the United States and Europe, and the dates indicate that dinosaurs were alive from 9,800 -- 50,000 years ago.29,30,31 This author discussed this with Paul LeBlond, Professor of Oceanography at the University of British Columbia. Dr. LeBlond said that any C14 date over 5,000 years is highly questionable.32 Therefore, despite what popular publications may report,33 we can establish that all mammoths, Neanderthals, or other bones "dated" over 5,000 years by the C14 method are likewise questionable. If we accept any, then we must accept them all: including those that are incompatible with evolution-based "ages" associated with the Geological Time Chart.

However, the very fact that many thousands of dinosaur/dragon bones contain organic material is a strong indication that these creatures became extinct in the recent past. This is discussed in greater detail in the sections below. See also C-14 Dating.

9A. Dinosaur Blood and "Ancient" DNA:
Before the existence of supposedly "ancient" organic material had been well publicized, it was predicted that "no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years." 34 This prediction was based upon the observed breakdown of DNA.

Not long after this prediction was made, very old DNA started turning up. For example, at the Clarkia Fossil Beds, in Idaho, a green magnolia leaf was discovered in strata that was said to be 17 million years old.35 Because it was so fresh-looking and even pliable, scientists decided to see if any DNA was present. And to their surprise they discovered that there was: and that it matched the DNA of modern magnolia trees.

Since then, DNA claims have been made for supposedly older material such as dinosaur bones,36,37 and insects in amber.38 It was said that the reason the magnolia leaf was preserved was because it was buried in clay; 39 however, the 17 million year date is still doubtful. Likewise, scientists say that DNA from the insects was preserved because they were entombed in amber.

However, a serious problem arises when we come to the dinosaur bones; for these were not entombed in amber or clay, but in sandstone.40,41 And because sandstone and bone are both porous, this means that ground and rain water would be able to seep into the rocks, and thus into the bones as well. The fact that the outer part of one of these bones was mineralized 42 gives strong evidence that water -- and thus oxygen -- had access to the bones. The fact that the inside of the bones are not mineralized is an indication that they are young. The fact that the partially mineralized bone had (what looked like) red blood cells in it 43 is a strong indication that it is young: probably less than 10,000 years old.

When Mary Schweitzer first saw the bones under a microscope, she said:

"I got goose bumps,"..."It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But ... I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'" 44 Emphasis Added

This is good question indeed; however, the answer from the "scientific" establishment says even more. For they refuse to consider the likely possibility that the bones are (perhaps) as much as 64,995,000 years younger than what they have told the public to believe.

Note: Although it was claimed that DNA was isolated in the dragon bones from Montana and Utah, it was so fragmented that the results have (thus far) not been replicated.45,46,47 However, laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of collagen and Heme and other organic protein molecules in the tyrannosaurus from Montana -- the one with little round things that looked just like red blood cells.48,49

Remember that the ancient DNA from the magnolia leaf discussed above was supposed to last for a maximum of 10,000 years before decaying into inorganic matter. Therefore, if the 17 m.y.o. "date" is correct, then scientists were off by a factor of 1,700 in their (observation-based) prediction with regard to the breakdown rate of DNA. So much for using "science" when it seems to HINT that something is amiss with the evolution-based Geological Time Chart.

More recently, DNA has been extracted from two 30-million-year-old insects (a beetle and a bee) that were trapped in amber. In this case they were off by a factor of 3,000 with regard to the observation-based prediction of DNA preservation. However, the organic dinosaur remains present the greatest difficulty for the "scientific" establishment to overcome. This is due to the alleged greater age involved and because of the much greater exposure to the elements.

Because sandstone and bone are porous,50,51 and because the bones were partially mineralized, it is virtually certain that water could (and did) get to these bones. Because DNA only lasts for about 10,000 years before it disintegrates, it is likely that no organic matter at all would survive much longer than 20,000 years. This means that the prediction with regard to how long organic matter can survive was off by a factor of over 3,000 or that something is seriously wrong with the evolution-based dating system and the geological time chart. Either the scientific methods used to estimate the rate of breakdown of organic matter are grossly in error, or the great ages associated with these organic remains are off by a factor of over 3,000. This, coupled with the fact that such unfossilized dinosaur bones can be (and have been) dated by the Carbon 14 method, and yield dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old, suggests that the great ages promoted by the evolution-believing establishment are in error. See also The scrambling continues and the Links below for more info.

However, even beyond this are (the purported) 165 million-year-old Ammonites (discussed below) with their organic ligaments still intact, that were buried in mud, and the supposedly 300 m.y.o. fossil wood (impregnated with limestone) that still has its organic woody structure intact. Then there is the case of bacteria preserved alive in salt crystals for (a purported) 250 million years.

Such anomalies strain the credibility of supposedly objective "scientists" who are willing to bend and strain the facts of science to promote the Story of how they think that life just might have -- against all "odds" -- arose on earth without any intelligence behind it over "millions and millions of years." Even worse: they Demand that our children be taught such things in school as if they were facts.

In a More recent article, about: "what appears to (be) a soft tissue inside the bone, with what appears to be blood vessels and cells... similar to a stretchy bone matrix", we are told that:

"the tissue... has revealed organic components that somewhat resemble cells and fine blood vessels. The discovery was quite an unexpected one. The leader of the research team Mary Schweitzer had routinely tried dissolving pieces of the bone to understand its mineral composition, when she found something unusual: a transparent filament that closely resembled blood vessels. She even found traces of what appear to be red blood cells, osteocytes (bone-building cells)." Emphasis Added

The article also stated that the "fossilized bone was dated back some 70 million years ago."

Mary also speculated that:

"It is possible that the outer parts of the leg fossilized while the vessels were trapped within mineralized bone and remained intact all these millennia." Emphasis Added

Of course it is also "possible" that the bones are not 70 million years old, but rather only a few thousand. But such a scenario, would eliminate any possibility of evolution playing anything other than an extremely minor role in the Creation of life on Earth, while also pointing in the direction of a Creator/God: something that old-earth bigots don't want discussed in public classrooms. And so they continue to speculate about how the Impossible just might have possibly occurred: a long, long time ago, in a land far away: while ignoring the evidence that strongly suggests that such would simply not happen in trillions of years, even on a so-called suitable planet that was covered with water, and full of Bubbles and lightning: unless an outside Intelligence acted upon and ordered it.

In other words, the belief that we are a byproduct of Nature is, for all practical purposes, outside the realm of empirical (i.e. observable and testable) science. Some of these dedicated believers also claim to believe in God, yet they don't think that the Creator should get much (if any) of the credit for the Creating, but instead Mother nature. These people think that the words "Creation" and "Creator" must never be mentioned in public classrooms, but rather only such words that support their beliefs.

So much for keeping "religion" out of the classroom, while at the same time displaying one's ignorance with regard to what the Founding Fathers intended, and which was practiced for over 200 years in the United States of America. But that was before the modern age of ignorance, political correctness, and the mass media Agenda of coercing the public to believe in things that are based more on wishful thinking than on empirical and testable science. Some may say I am ranting but check out the facts for yourself and make up your own mind, rather than simply believing what our left-leaning media wants you to believe: i.e. that the Creation doesn't even have a Creator, but simply blew itself into existence.

For more on why Dinosaurs and Man must have lived together see: Evidence that Humans and Dinosaurs Lived Together at the same Time.
See also Are Dinosaur Bones Millions of Years Old?, and "Oldest" DNA ...".

For facts on the complexity of Living organisms, see: How Life Began and The Facts of Life.

9B. Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones:
A 1987 article in the Journal of Paleontology begins as follows:

"Hadrosaur bones have been found on the Colville River north of Umiat on the North Slope of Alaska." 52

What is perhaps most interesting about these "many thousands of bones" is that they "lack any significant degree of permineralization." 53,54 In fact, the people who discovered them didn't report it for 20 years because they thought they were bison bones. Because the bones were partially exposed in a "soft, brown, sandy silt," 55 and because every year the snow melts and subjects them to the elements for two to three months, these bones also call in question the evolutionary-based ages of dinosaurs, and the Geological Time Chart itself. See also 8 and 9A above. For more on Dragons and Man living together at the same time see Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones. See also this CBS News story and USA Today article for more on organic dinosaur remains.

9C. 165 Million Year Old Surprise:
In May of 1996 it was reported that ammonites in pristine condition have been found in "a 'mysterious network' of mud springs on the edge of the 'market town' of Wootton Bassett, near Swindon, Wiltshire, England." 56 What is so interesting about these purportedly 165 million-year-old ammonites is that:

"many still had shimmering mother-of-pearl shells ... (and) they retain their original... aragonite [a mineral form of calcium carbonate] ... The outsides also retain their iridescence... And... in the words of Dr. Hollingworth, 'There are shells ... still have their organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old.'!" 57,58Emphasis Added

It is a fact that water is a component of mud. It is also a fact that oxygen is a component of water. Oxygen allows oxidation to take place. Oxidation causes things to break down. These mud springs are further evidence that something is wrong with the current evolutionary scheme for dating fossils.
10. Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands:
Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands are located in northern Canada, above the Arctic circle. The winters are so cold there that the only "trees" able to grow are small shrubs less than a foot in height.59 However something very strange has been found on these islands that testifies to a very different past: i.e. numerous large trees and tree stumps lying on, or buried just beneath the surface.60,61,62

How did they get there? And more importantly, when did they get there?

It is claimed that the trees are leftover remnants of forests which inhabited this area 40-65 million years ago. 60,61,62 The scientific data suggests otherwise. For instance, they are not petrified, 60,61,62 but can be sawed and burned. In addition, pine cones, pine needles, and leaves are also preserved in the sandy/silty soil. 60,61,62 Another clue to the puzzle is that the roots of these trees are missing. 60,61,62 This suggests that they didn't grow here but were uprooted by a catastrophic event and later re-deposited at different levels. This is exactly what has happened in Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens; however, the upright trees on the bottom of this lake are still under water. At some time in the future, they may be left standing upright -- looking as if they grew there. 63-70

In regard to this, Quiring, states :

"During the eruption many trees from the surrounding hillsides were washed into the lake. Today, thousands of logs, protected within the monument, float back and forth with the changing winds. As some of the trees sink, roots first, they settle upright on the lake floor to form a 'sunken forest.'" 71
In regard to the preservation of the organic matter on Axel Heiberg Island, an online article states the following:

"The Axel Heiberg fossils are largely preserved as mummifications. Although usually compressed, the wood and other remains are relatively unaltered chemically and biologically (Obst et al, 1991). Preservation of the fossils is exquisite, including leaf litter, cones, twigs, branches, boles, roots, etc. Where these are not compressed, they are virtually indistinguishable from equivalent tissues found in the forest floor of modern conifer forests ... The reasons why preservation is exceptional and there is so little mineralization remain obscure. Analysis of the organic remains indicate that they were buried in a fresh-water environment (Goodarzi et al, 1991)." Emphasis Added

Although these trees are frozen for most of the year, each summer the snow melts and for about three months the temperature reaches into the 70 degree Fahrenheit range.72 Such warm temperatures should (normally) allow decomposition to take place. One explanation for the remarkable degree of preservation is the suggestion that these trees were "mummified" by being buried under significant amounts of strata, and then, over time, this overlying strata was eroded.

This is perhaps possible, however, it is also possible that these trees are not millions of years old, but rather only a few thousand. Also, the fact that the roots of some of these upright trees are missing suggests that they were uprooted by a catastrophe, and transported by water to these islands (perhaps) in the not-too-distant past. Otherwise they would have decayed.

Similar trees from Siberia are only 7,000 years old. For example, in "Cataclysms of the Earth," by Hugh Auchincloss Brown, on page 31, Mr. Brown makes the following comments:

"In certain areas of northern Siberia innumerable tree trunks called by the natives "Adam's wood" and said to be in all stages of decay are embedded in the solidly frozen tundra. Because they were once growing trees, of types which do not grow in that climate, they confirm that a change in climate has taken place, such as would be caused by a careen of the globe. They could have been broken by a hurricane or flood. If so, they will show a clean break on the side on which the breaking force was imposed and torn fibers on the lee side. A reexamination of the wood, to determine genera and species of the trees, will enable us to establish the latitude range or climate in which these trees grew." Emphasis Added

"A so called mammoth tree, with fruit and leaves still on it, was discovered and reported after a landslide of Siberian tundra. Such cold storage of fruit 7,000 years old can only be explained by a sudden transportation of the fruit from a warm climate in which it grew to the cold storage climate in which it has been refrigerated. This specimen of fruit, with leaves, and many other specimens of leaves reported found in Siberia also confirm the careen of the globe." Emphasis Added

Velikovski, in his book "Earth in Upheaval" (1955, Edition), reported similarly preserved trees in the frozen tundra of Alaska.

See also Discovery of 260 million year old fossil forest from Antarctica, where we find the following:

"The wood was most interesting to me. In some cases branches were preserved, suggesting that the wood had not been transported far by streams. We found an impression of a piece of bark with a knot preserved clearly – not bad for about 250 million years old! The stumps were not replaced by silica, and thus are not “petrified,” but they have been freeze dried in a way that has preserved the growth rings in some cases. On one tree, we counted 26 annual rings, and it was probably older because not all the growth rings were preserved."
Emphasis Added

For more on these trees and other (supposedly very old) material see:
Carbon Dating of "Fossil" Wood and Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones.
A Tropical Reptile in the 'Cretaceous' Arctic, by Michael Oard
Sustainability: A Glacial Perspective -- Lessons of a Forty Million Year Old Forest, By Dr. Richard Jagels
The Oldest Wood in the World by Carla Helfferich
Scientists Battle over turf in Arctic land that time forgot, by Ed Struzik

11. Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere:
Carbon-14 is produced when radiation from the sun strikes Nitrogen-14 atoms in the earth's upper atmosphere. The earth's atmosphere is not yet saturated with C14. This means that the amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying back to N14. It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years. Thus, it appears that the earth's atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old. In fact, the evidence suggests it is less than 10,000 years old. 73,74,75 Some of these estimates place the atmosphere's age at 50,000 years, and others at 100,000 but they each pose serious problems for old-earth scenarios. See also Item 20 below, and associated Links.

12. The Dead Sea:
The Dead Sea is in Israel. It is receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content. Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. From these it is possible to estimate how long this process has been going on for. Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old. 76,77 For more on this subject, Click Here and scroll down.

13. Niagara Falls:
Up until the recent past, when the top of Niagara Falls was reinforced with concrete, the water was carving a channel upriver toward Lake Erie at the rate of about four to five feet per year. Since the channel is now about seven miles long (35,000 feet), this means that the age of Niagara Falls is between 7,000 and 8,750 years old (or less). This, of course, assumes that the rate of erosion has been constant. The age of North America, is likely the same.78,79,80 For more on this see the following comments by Ian Juby.

14. Historical Records:
Depending on which book one consults, historians claim that human history goes back 4,600- 5,400 (or more) years; however, according to Froelich Rainey, 1870 B.C. (plus or minus 6) is the "earliest actual recorded date in human history." 81,82,83 Also on this point, Sylvia Baker quotes Professor Libby as follows:

"Professor Libby learned this when he tried to verify his Carbon-14 method. He said. 'The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was when our advisers informed us that history extended back only 5,000 years... You read statements in books that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly (that) these... ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is at about the time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established.'" 84

See also "How Far Back to the Records Go?"

15. The San Andreas Fault:
The San Andreas Fault is one of the most active faults in the North America. It runs into the Pacific Ocean at Tomales Bay, just east of Pt. Reyes, about 30 miles north of San Francisco. It is said to move from 1/2 to 2 inches per year. 85 How long has it been moving for? The answer varies greatly. Some say it has moved for tens of miles, and others say perhaps hundreds. The evidence is highly questionable.86 There are a few granite outcrops that hint that it may have moved 12,000 feet;87 however this too is questionable since the origin of granite itself is uncertain. Some geologists believe most granites are igneous while others believe the majority are metamorphic. 88 If the granite referred to above is of volcanic origin, then it could have come straight up from the ground.

One thing that appears certain is that there is much disagreement with regard to how long this fault has been active. Looking at a geology map of the Pt. Reyes area, one may note that there are a few features that suggest that the fault has not been moving very long. These are: Sand Point, Tom's Point, and Lagunitas Creek. 89 The fault crosses each of these and yet none of them appear to be offset at all. This evidence suggests that this fault is quite young -- on the order of a few thousand years old. See also Continental Drift.

16. Eve's Mitochondrial DNA:
Mitochondrial DNA is different from nucleus DNA in that it has "only 37 genes, compared to the estimated 100,000... in the cell's nucleus..." 90 It is also different in that it is only passed on from the mother, 90,91,92,93 or at least, so it was once thought; however that is now very much in question, as is brought out in the Links below.

In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago.90,91,92 This story was widely reported in the press. A few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported.94 This means that Eve did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000. This greatly revised date is very close to the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately for those who want the whole truth, this didn't make the headlines. See also: "The Demise of Mitochondrial Eve" and Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through our Genes.

17. Population Growth:
Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population. 95,96,97 See Population Statistics for more on this.

18. Minerals in the Oceans:
By measuring the amounts of various minerals that are present in the oceans and calculating the amounts of each that are added each year by river runoff, scientists can estimate how old the oceans are. When doing so the great majority of minerals yield young ages for the earth's oceans -- many of which are less than 5,000 years. 98 See also The Sea's Missing Salt, 99 by Dr. Steve Austin.

19. Rapid Mountain Uplift:
In March of 2005, Dr. John Baumgardner released his assessment of the "Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains" in an Impact article. In it he discovered that:

"An ongoing enigma for the standard geological community is why all the high mountain ranges of the world -- including the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rockies -- experienced most of the uplift to their present elevations in what amounts to a blink of an eye, relative to the standard geological time scale. In terms of this time scale, these mountain ranges have all undergone several kilometers of vertical uplift since the beginning of the Pliocene about five million years ago. This presents a profound difficulty for uniformitarian thinking because the driving forces responsible for mountain building are assumed to have been operating steadily at roughly the same slow rates as are observed in today's world for... the past several hundred million years." 100

20. Carbon 14 from (supposedly) Old Sources:
Carbon 14 is found in organic materials of all types, including diamonds, coal seams, carbonized wood, unfossilized wood and dinosaur bones. In fact, that is the problem. In other words, Carbon 14 is found where it shouldn't be -- if the earth were "billions of years" old.

Commenting on this in their extensive paper: "Measurable 14C In Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming The Young Earth Creation-Flood Model," Dr's Baumgardner, Humphreys, Snelling, and Austin stated in their Conclusion that:

"The careful investigations performed by scores of researchers in more than a dozen AMS facilities in several countries over the past twenty years to attempt to identify and eliminate sources of contamination in AMS 14C analyses have, as a by-product, served to establish beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of intrinsic 14C in remains of living organisms from all portions of the Phanerozoic record. Such samples, with ‘ages’ from 1-500 Ma as determined by other radioisotope methods applied to their geological context, consistently display 14C levels that are far above the AMS machine threshold, reliably reproducible, and typically in the range of 0.1-0.5 pmc. But such levels of intrinsic 14C represent a momentous difficulty for uniformitarianism. A mere 250,000 years corresponds to 43.6 half-lives for 14C. One gram of modern carbon contains about 6 x 1010 14C atoms, and 43.6 half-lives worth of decay reduces that number by a factor of 7 x 1014. Not a single atom of 14C should remain in a carbon sample of this size after 250,000 years (not to mention one million or 50 million or 250 million years). A glaring (thousand-fold) inconsistency that... exists between the AMS-determined 14C levels and the corresponding rock ages provided by 238U, 87Rb, and 40K techniques. We believe the chief source for this inconsistency to be the uniformitarian assumption of time-invariant decay rates. Other research reported by our RATE group also supports this conclusion [7, 23, 42]. Regardless of the source of the inconsistency, the fact that 14C, with a half-life of only 5730 years, is readily detected throughout the Phanerozoic part of the geological record argues the half billion years of time uniformitarians assign to this portion of earth history is likely incorrect. The relatively narrow range of 14C/C ratios further suggests the Phanerozoic organisms may all have been contemporaries and that they perished simultaneously in the not so distant past. Finally, we note there are hints that 14C currently exists in carbon from environments sealed from biospheric interchange since very early in the earth history. We therefore conclude the 14C evidence provides significant support for a model of earth’s past involving a recent global Flood cataclysm and possibly also for a young age for the earth itself." 101 Emphasis Added

See also: Carbon-14 Dating Shows that the Earth is Young, 102 and What about Carbon 14. 103

Abbreviations:
Ma = Million years ago.
pmc = percent modern carbon

21. Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies:
Although it isn't well known, the galaxies themselves also provide strong evidence that the Universe itself is less than ONE million years old. That's because almost all spiral galaxies have Blue stars in them. And since Blue stars are so bright, it is estimated that they can't be older than one million years. Therefore, it seems likely that the galaxies themselves cannot be any older than that.
See: Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation, by Jason Lisle, Ph. D., (Acts & Facts, Sept. 2012, p.16) for more details.

Note: The structure of spiral galaxies themselves also tells us that they cannot be any older than (a maximum of) about 200 million years old: much less than the 13-14 billion years that old earth proponents claim. This is because, based in the laws of physics, they should lose their "structure," or spiral arms, in only 4-5 turns, but for some reason they don't. Perhaps it's because they're Young? See also What Happened to all the Dark Matter?, 104 Exploding Stars point to a Young Universe 105 and Part Three of this series on the Age of the Earth.

22. Zircons:
Zircons are tiny volcanic crystals. They also are found to contain far more helium and lead than they should -- IF the earth were "billions of years old." Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, and Snelling have written a paper on this subject as well, and in their summary they said that:

"We contracted with a high-precision laboratory to measure the rate of helium diffusion out of the zircons ... Here we report newer zircon diffusion data that extend to the lower temperatures ... of Gentry's retention data. The measured rates resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we made based on the reported retentions and a young age. Combining rates and retentions gives a helium diffusion age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This contradicts the uniformitarian age of 1.5 billion years based on nuclear decay products in the same zircons. These data strongly support our hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago. Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic "billions of years" down to the 6,000-year timescale of the Bible." 106 Emphasis Added

Wow, that is a lot of evidence, I see now. Except for the fact that that was all copied and pasted directly off of another creationist website, and none of those claims site references for credibility. I am also seeing a lot of "perhaps" and "maybe" in those explanations and you have already shown that if those words are used then everything that follows is false.

Find just one peer reviewed published research paper that supports any of these claims. It is getting to be pretty pathetic that you keep quoting creationists websites, if there is as much evidence as you claim then it should be easy to find credible sources.

And while you are looking for just one credible source, answer my question about the light year.

For example, take a look at this page with a list of evidence against a young earth. See how they reference published research instead of just making up baseless claims, they cite the authors of the research and provide links so that you can go check the sources for yourself.

And since you seem to think a wall of text somehow proves your point...



Amino acid racemization



Isoleucine, demonstrating its stereochemistry.
Amino acid racemization dating is a technique that is used to date fossilized objects up to several million years in age. The naturally occurring amino acid molecules usually possess a carbon centre with four different groups joining it; a hydrogen atom, the amino group, the acid group (hence the name of the class of molecule) and a side chain, which is what distinguishes amino acids. In three dimensional space, such a molecular topology can occupy one of two configurations. Convention labels these as D or L, which are referred to as stereoisomers and are essentially mirror images of each other. The ratio of these two isomers is initially unequal. With only one exception, naturally occurring amino acids used in polypeptide synthesis are in the L form. Over time this will decay to a more balanced state in a process called racemization, where the ratio between L and D stereoisomers will be equal (a racemic mixture).
Measuring the degree of racemization and other known quantities can show an estimated age of the sample. This is measured fairly unambiguously by the fact that different stereoisomers rotate plane polarised light in opposite directions (it is this interaction that determines the D and L labels) and so a ratio can be determined by contrasting an unknown sample with a pure D or L sample and a racemic mixture. By measuring the racemization of the amino acid isoleucine, for example, objects can be dated up to several million years old.[1]
While it is true that there can be great variability on the rate at which amino acids undergo racemization, the changes in humidity, temperature, and acidity required to make the oldest known samples conform to a young earth (under 6000 years) view are completely unreasonable. Such conditions would destroy all traces of the amino acids rather than just leave a racemic mixture of the molecules behind.
[edit] Baptistina asteroid family

The Baptistina asteroid family is a cluster of asteroids with similar orbits. This group was produced by a collision of an asteroid 60 kilometers in diameter with an asteroid 170 kilometers in diameter. Researchers from the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) and the University of Prague have traced the orbits of these asteroids back from their current locations and estimated that the original collision happened 160 (±20) million years ago.[2] 2011 data from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer has revised the collision date to 80 million years ago.[3]
[edit] Continental drift



Fossil areas across landmasses.
Based on the continuity of fossil deposits and other geological formations between the South American and African tectonic plates, there is much evidence that at some point in history the two continents were part of the same landmass. Because tectonic drift is an incredibly slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years. With modern technology, this can be accurately quantified. Satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year (roughly the speed of fingernail growth), which means that for these diverging continents to have been together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.[4]
[edit] Coral

Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years, and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 600,000 years.[5]
[edit] Cosmogenic nuclide dating

The influx of cosmic rays onto the earth continually produces a stream of cosmogenic nuclides in the atmosphere that will fall to the ground. By measuring the build-up of these nuclides on terrestrial surfaces, the length of time for which the surface has been exposed can be inferred. This technique can be used to date objects over millions of years old.[6]

[edit] Dendrochronology



Clearly defined tree rings.
Dendrochronology is a method of scientific dating which is based on annual tree growth patterns called tree rings. The rings are the result of changes in the tree's growth speed over the year (since trees grow faster in the summer and slower in the winter). The age of a tree can be found by counting the rings and is the only method on this list that can date events precisely to a single year.
Now, any date derived from one individual tree is not in itself contradictory to the recent creation doctrine, since even the longest lived types of tree do not live longer than 5,000 years or so. However, it is possible to extend the chronology back over many different trees. Because the thickness of tree rings varies with the climate, a sequence of thick ring, thin ring, thin ring, thick ring, thick ring, thick ring, thin ring, thick ring is strong evidence that the corresponding rings formed at the same time. By observing and analyzing the rings of many different trees from the same area, including fossil trees, the tree ring chronology has been pushed back in some areas as far as 11,000 years.[7]

[edit] Distant starlight



The Hubble Deep Field, taken in 1996, showing light that has been in the cosmic vacuum of space for billions of years, not thousands.
See the main article on this topic: Starlight problem
The fact that distant starlight can be seen on earth has always been a major problem for the young earth idea. Because the speed of light is finite, what you are actually seeing when you look at an object is an image of that object from the past. "From the past" here has a few caveats regarding the relativity of our concept of the past, the future, and now. In the BBC Horizon program What Time Is It? physicist and former pop-synth player Brian Cox suggested that, as information cannot travel faster than light, and that time and space are relative, it can be considered that that the stars actually are what they look like "now", in a manner of speaking. Either way, though, the bottom line is still the same; the light has travelled a certain distance, for a certain time, before arriving on Earth to be seen by our eyes or telescopes. We can use this data to put a minimum time on the existence of the universe, by looking at how long some light has been travelling for.
On Earth, the delay caused by the minute speed of light is incredibly minor — when you look at an object a mile away, the light has been travelling for five microseconds. When you look at the sun, you are seeing light that has been in transit for 8.3 minutes. It's more noticeable with sound and distant objects, but only because the light from things such as distant explosions or jet fighters is so much faster. There's still a delay and transit time for the information that says whatever made the light/sound must have been around that long ago to produce it.
On the cosmic scale of things, this delay is far from minor and really is noticeable. When astronomers look at the closest star to Earth (Alpha Centauri), which is roughly four light years away, they are seeing the star as it was four years ago from our perspective. When astronomers look at objects in the region of space known as the "Hubble ultra deep field", they are seeing the stars there as they were over ten billion years ago. Light we are receiving from these fields has been travelling for ten billion years, and the universe must have, therefore, existed long enough for that transit time to take place.
Therein lies the problem for young earth creationism; if the universe is only 6,000 years old, how can objects billions of light years away — and therefore billions of years old — be seen?
There are a few creationist "zingers" to solve this problem, but are almost exclusively centred around pretending the problem doesn't exist. One is omphalism, which suggests the light was already in place and on it's way 6,000 years ago, which is basically like saying that "6,000 years ago, the world was created 14 billion years ago", which is a form of Last Thursdayism. They also like time dilation fields and changing the speed of light, but as this requires a lot of Goddidit to make it work, as there is zero evidence for why the speed of light should change. There are a lot of issues surrounding changing fundamental physical constants such as c, namely that according to E=mc2, increasing c to make the world 6,000 years old would lead to normal radioactive decay blowing the planet up. Qualified astrophysicist Jason Lisle came up with the "anisotropic synchrony convention", which exploits how to reliable measure of the speed of light, but suffers from special pleading in that it assumes a highly unlikely physical reality deriving from a mathematical quirk is literally true - and there is no additional evidence for such a thing.
[edit] Erosion

Many places on Earth show evidence of erosion taking place over very long time periods. The Grand Canyon, for instance, would have taken millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.[8] Nevertheless, Young Earthers insist it was cut in a few years following the Great Flood - but in order for this to happen the rocks of the Kaibab Plateau would have needed to have the solubility of granulated sugar, rather than the more solid stone that it's made of.[9] VenomFangX of YouTube claimed that the Grand Canyon would have formed in about "5 minutes", which at the very least would require the water to travel 5-6 times the speed of sound.[10]
In the case of the Yakima River in Washington State between Ellensburg and Yakima, the river meanders with many oxbows typical of a slow-moving river on a plain, yet it is set within a deep canyon with visible layers of erosion. The only possible explanation is that the pre-existing river maintained its original bed as slow tectonic forces caused the surrounding land to rise underneath and around it.
[edit] Fission track dating

Fission track dating is a radiometric dating technique that can be used to determine the age of crystalline materials that contain uranium. As uranium decays, it sends out atomic fragments, which leave scars or "fission tracks" in crystalline structures. Because decaying uranium emits fragments at a constant rate, the number of fission tracks correlates to the age of the object.[11] This method is generally held to be accurate, as it shows a high degree of concordance with other methods such as potassium-argon dating.[12]
[edit] Geomagnetic reversals

A geomagnetic reversal is a change in the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field. The frequency at which these reversals occur varies greatly, but they usually happen once every 50,000 to 800,000 years, and generally take thousands of years.[13] This fact is obviously inconsistent with the young earth idea; around 171 reversals are geologically documented, which would make the earth at least several millions of years old.[4]
[edit] Helioseismology

The composition of the sun changes as it ages. The differing composition changes the way sound waves behave inside the sun. Using helioseismic methods (models of pressure waves in the sun), the age of the sun can be inferred. Using this method, an Italian team came up with an age of 4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years.[14]
[edit] Human Y-chromosomal ancestry

The Y-chromosome, unlike most DNA, is inherited only from the father, which means that all DNA on the human Y chromosome comes from a single person. This does not mean that there was only one person alive at that time, but that a single man's Y-chromosomal DNA has out-competed the other strains and is now - not taking into account smaller and less drastic mutations - the only one left. Because the only factor affecting the makeup of the DNA on the chromosome is mutation, measuring mutation rates and extrapolating them backwards can tell you when this man lived. Calculations by the geneticist Spencer Wells have shown that this man lived around 60,000 years ago.[15] Other calculations put the time of Y-Adam as far back as 142,000 years ago[16], over twice that of Wells' date.
[edit] Ice layering



A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.
Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young earth creationists.[17]
Nevertheless, the minimum age of the earth identified by these means is 160,000 years. (+/- 15,000 years.)
[edit] Impact craters

The number of impact craters can provide a probable lower limit on the age of the Earth. Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrences; the chance of an asteroid with an Earth-crossing orbit actually striking the planet has been estimated at 2.5 x 10−9 yr−1, and when multiplied by the estimated number of Earth-crossing asteroids this approximates about one collision for every 3.2 million years.[18] If this frequency is correct, the number of impact craters on Earth were it only a few thousand years old should be very few. The most logical number of observable >1km impact craters for a young earth would in fact be something like zero — a number that is completely at odds with the observable evidence, since over one hundred such craters have been discovered .[19]


A crater 1,200 meters in diameter.
Even if creationists were to present some scenario in which many dozens of large asteroids could hit the earth in less than 6000 years, there are still tremendous problems with this idea. The largest asteroid impacts are some of the most catastrophic events the world has ever seen. In Antarctica there is a crater 500 km in diameter which is believed to have been caused by an asteroid 48 km in diameter roughly 250 million years ago.[20] How the life we see today could have survived such an incident (if it had occurred in the last 6000 years) is a serious problem for YECs; an asteroid impact that big would have led to the extinction of all medium to large size species, an event that — given the creationist model; short time frame, no evolution — the world would have never recovered from.
[edit]Iron-manganese nodule growth



An iron-manganese nodule
Beryllium-10 (10Be) produced by cosmic rays shows that iron-manganese nodule growth is one of the slowest geological phenomena. It takes several million years to form one centimeter (and some are the size of potatoes).[21] Cosmic ray produced 10Be is produced by the interactions of protons and neutrons with nitrogen and oxygen. It then reaches the earth via snow or rain. Since it is reactive, it gets absorbed by detritus material, within a timespan of about 300 years- very short compared to its half-life. Thusly, 10Be is excellent for use in dating marine sediment.
[edit] Lack of DNA in fossils

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the universal carrier of genetic information, is present in all organisms while they are alive. When they die, their DNA begins to decay under the influence of hydrolysis and oxidation. The speed of this decay varies on a number of factors. Sometimes, the DNA will be gone within one century, and in other conditions, it will persist for as many as one million years. The average amount of time detectable DNA will persist though is somewhere in the middle; given physiological salt concentrations, neutral pH, and a temperature of 15 °C, it would take around 100,000 years for all the DNA in a sample to decay to undetectable levels.[22]
If fossils of the dinosaurs were less than 6,000 years old, detectable fragments of DNA should be present in a sizable percent of dinosaur fossils, especially in the Arctic and Antarctic regions where the decay of DNA can be slowed down 10-25 fold. A claim that soft tissues in a Tyrannosaurus fossil had been recovered in 2005[23] have since been shown to be mistaken,[24] supporting the idea that dinosaur fossils are extremely old.[25]
[edit]Length of the prehistoric day

Work by John W. Wells of Cornell University, New York has shown that certain pieces of extremely old coral show evidence of a growth rate which reflects a time when a year had 400 days of 22 hours each.[26] Because the rate of change of the rotation of the earth is relatively predictable—about 0.005 seconds per year—one can calculate the last time a year had 400 days, which was about 370 million years ago (which is also about the same as radiometric dating of the coral).[27]
[edit] Lunar retreat

South African rocks studied by geologist Ken Eriksson contain ancient tidal deposits indicating that at some point in the past, the moon orbited "25-percent closer to Earth than it does today."[28] The distance between the earth and the moon is 384,403 kilometers, so for Ken Eriksson's work to fit with a YEC timescale the earth would have to have been receding at a speed greater than 15 kilometers per year. However, the moon is currently receding from the earth at a speed of 3.8 centimeters per year.[29]
[edit] Naica megacrystals

The Naica Mine of Chihuahua, Mexico is the home of some of the largest gypsum crystals on earth. Specimens in the area have been found to exceed 11 meters in length and 1 meter in width. Based on classical crystal growth theory, these crystals are older than one million years.[30]
[edit] Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds

Nitrogen is the most common impurity in natural diamonds, sometimes by as much as 1% by mass. Recently formed diamonds, however, have very little nitrogen content. A major way synthetic diamonds are distinguished from natural ones is on the basis of nitrogen permeation. It takes long periods and high pressures for the nitrogen atoms to be squeezed into the diamond lattice. Research on the kinetics of the of the nitrogen aggregation at the University of Reading have suggested that a certain type of diamond, Ia diamonds, spend 200-2000 million years in the upper mantle.[31]
[edit] Oxidizable Carbon Ratio dating

Oxidizable Carbon Ratio dating is a method for determining the absolute age of charcoal samples with relative accuracy. This dating method works by measuring the ratio of oxidizable carbon to organic carbon. When the sample is freshly burned, there will be no oxidizable carbon because it has been removed by the combustion process. Over time this will change and the amount of organic carbon will decrease to be replaced by oxidizable carbon at a linear rate. By measuring the ratio of these two allotropes, one can determine ages of over 20,000 years ago with a standard error under 3%.[32]
[edit] Permafrost

The formation of permafrost (frozen ground) is a slow process. To be consistent with the young earth creationist model, which states that all sediment was deposited by the global flood, there would have to be absolutely no permafrost present at the end of the flood, because any permafrost that was present at the moment of creation would have been melted during the flood.
Because earth is a good insulator and permafrost forms downward from the surface, it would have taken much more than the few thousand years allotted by creation theory to produce some of the deepest permafrost. In the Prudhoe Bay oil fields of Alaska, the permafrost which extends over 600 meters into the ground is believed to have taken over 225,000 years to reach present depth.[33]
[edit] Petrified wood

See the main article on this topic: petrified forest
The process in which wood is preserved by permineralization, commonly known as petrification, takes extensive amounts of time. Gerald E. Teachout from the South Dakota Department of Game has written that "the mineral replacement process is very slow, probably taking millions of years".[34]
It is true that in the laboratory petrification can be achieved in a matter of months, but petrification is far slower in natural conditions.
[edit] Radioactive decay

Radioactive decay is the constant predictable decay of unstable atoms into more stable isotopes or elements. Measurements of atomic decay are generally considered one of the most accurate ways of measuring the age of an object, and these measurements form the basis for the scientifically accepted age of the Earth. There are many different variations of the radiometric dating technique such as radiocarbon, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium, of which every single one will date objects far older than 10,000 years.[35]
Because radiometric dating is one of the most commonly used methods of determining age, these techniques are under constant attack from young earth supporters. A few creationists, armed with only a cursory knowledge and a desire to think that they're better than scientific "experts", may misunderstand radiometric dating and just not believe it works. This is often accompanied by ignoring the high concordance of radiometric methods.
However, the most frequently used method of attack is to give examples of objects of known ages that were dated incorrectly. These instances are by far the exception rather than the rule and are usually due to unforeseen contamination or other errors that can be quickly identified and compensated for. This is not "cheating" and forcing results to confirm to expectations as many young earth creationists may claim, it is making the data as accurate and precise as possible (if it is "cheating" then cleaning your camera lens to get a better and clearer picture is also cheating).
[edit] Relativistic jets



A drawing of quasar GB1508 and its relativistic jet
A relativistic jet is a jet of plasma that is ejected from some quasars and galaxy centers that have powerful magnetic fields. It is conjectured that the jets are driven by the twisting of magnetic fields in an accretion disk (the plate-like cloud of matter) found encircling many celestial objects. In super-massive bodies, immensely strong magnetic fields force plasma from the accretion disk into a jet that shoots away perpendicular to the face of the disk. In some cases, these columns of plasma have been found to extend far enough to refute the idea of a young universe.
For example, the quasar PKS 1127-145 has a relativistic jet exceeding one million light years in length.[36] Because the speed of light cannot be exceeded by any known form of matter, this column must be over one million years old. Moreover, these jets are generally billions of light years from Earth, meaning they were at least a million years old several billion years ago due, again, to the speed of light.
[edit] Rock varnish

Rock varnish is a coating that will form on exposed surface rocks. The varnish is formed as airborne dust accumulates on rock surfaces. This process is extremely slow; between 4 μm and 40 μm of material forms on the rock every thousand years, and instances of 40 μm of accumulation are very rare.[37] Because the rate of accumulation is generally constant, measuring the depth of the varnish can provide dates for objects up to 250,000 years old.[38]
[edit] Seabed plankton layering

Fossils of dead plankton that layer on the ocean floor is used to gauge temperatures from the past, based on the chemical changes of Crenarchaeota, a primitive phylum of microbe. Much like ice layering and dendrochronology, researchers drill through the ocean floor to extract samples which indicate annual temperature fluctuations in the plankton fossils, or "chemical rings" as it were. A 2004 pioneering expedition to the Arctic Ocean near the North Pole collected samples dating back to over 56 million years of temperature dating.[39]
[edit] Sedimentary varves

Varves are laminated layers of sedimentary rock that are most commonly laid down in glacial lakes. In the summer, light colored coarse sediment is laid down, while in the winter, as the water freezes and calms, fine dark silt is laid down. This cycle produces alternating bands of dark and light which are clearly discernible and represent, as a pair, one full year. As is consistent with the old earth view, many millions of varves have been found in some places. The Green River formation in eastern Utah is home to an estimated twenty million years worth of sedimentary layers.
The creationist response is that, instead of once per year, these varves formed many hundreds of times per year. There is, however, much evidence against accelerated formation of varves.
Pollen in varves is much more concentrated in the upper part of the dark layer, which is thought to represent spring. This is what would be expected if varves formed only once per year because pollen is much more common at this time.[40]
In Lake Suigetsu, Japan, there is a seasonal die-off of diatoms (calcareous algae) that will form layers in the bottom of the lake along with the sedimentary varves. If the 29 thousand varves in the lake formed more than once per year, there should be several sediment layers for every layer of deceased algae. However, for every one white layer of algae in Lake Suigetsu, there is only one varve.[41]
The varve thickness in the Green River formation correlates with both the 11 year sunspot cycle and the 21 thousand year orbital cycle of the earth.[42]
[edit] Space weathering

Space weathering is an effect that is observed on most asteroids. Extraterrestrial objects tend to develop a red tint as they age due to the effects of cosmic radiation and micrometeor impacts on their surfaces. Because this process proceeds at a constant rate, observing the color of an object can provide the basis for a generally reliable estimate. The ages provided by this dating technique exceed millions of years.[43]
[edit] Stalactites



A stalactite
A stalactite is a mineral deposit that is usually - though not exclusively - found in limestone caves. They are formed on the ceilings of caverns by the slow deposition of calcium carbonate and other minerals as they drip, in solution, over the stalactite. These formations take extremely lengthy periods to form; the average growth rate is not much more than 0.1 mm per year (10 centimetres (4 inches!) per thousand years). With such a slow rate of formation, if the earth was less than ten thousand years old we would expect to see the largest stalactites being not much longer than one metre.[27] In fact stalactites frequently reach from the ceiling to the floor of large caverns.
It is true that cases of accelerated growth have been observed in some stalactites, but rapid growths are only temporary, as the rapidly growing stalactites quickly deplete the surrounding limestone.[27]
[edit] Thermoluminescence dating

Thermoluminescence dating is a method for determining the age of objects containing crystalline minerals, such as ceramics or lava. These materials contain electrons that have been released from their atoms by ambient radiation, but have become trapped by imperfections in the mineral's structure. When one of these minerals is heated, the trapped electrons are discharged and produce light, and that light can be measured and compared with the level of surrounding radiation to establish the amount of time that has passed since the material was last heated (and its trapped electrons were last released).
Although this technique can date objects up to approximately 230,000 years ago, is only accurate on objects 300 to 10,000 years in age. This is, however, still over 4,000 years older than the creationist figure for the age of the earth.[44][45]
[edit] Weathering rinds

Weathering rinds are layers of weathered material that develop on glacial rocks. The weathering is caused by the oxidation of magnesium and iron rich minerals, and the thickness of this layer correlates with the age of a sample. Certain weathering rinds on basalt and andesite rocks in the eastern United States are believed to have taken over 300,000 years to form.[46]
[edit] See also

Lower limit on the age of the universe
Radioactive decay
The incontrovertible evidence for common descent
Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in Young Earth Creationism
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - a "side by side" rebuttal.

it should be clear that the failure
of creationist scientists to get their work published in
mainstream peer-reviewed journals has nothing at all to
do with the quality or validity of their research. It is for
these reasons that creationist scientists generally do not
bother submitting papers that directly support a creationist
interpretation of the natural world. Any such papers would
be dismissed out of hand as being unworthy simply on the
basis that they advocate a creationist interpretation. The
quality of the research, the soundness of the arguments
presented, and the validity of the logical conclusions would
not even be considered. Thus, creationist scientists have
created their own peer-reviewed journals and forums, such
as the Journal of Creation, Creation Research Society
Quarterly and the International Conference on Creationism.
The review process in these forums is no rubber stamp,
and just because a particular article advocates a creationist
position does not mean it is guaranteed publication.
Submitted articles are tightly scrutinized, and many are
rejected due to methodological and other flaws or because
they do not reach the required high standard

John Lennox is a creationists, He has published over seventy peer-reviewed articles on mathematics and co-authored two Oxford Mathematical Monographs

So now there is a global conspiracy to keep creation science from being published? That is BS, if there is solid science backing the hypothesis being presented, the methods used are repeatable and accurate, and the outcome of the research is supported by evidence then they can get published. I have seen some crazy stuff get published but they were published because the evidence supported their claims. Creationists don't get published on creation science, because it is bullshit, plain and simple. There is nothing to support their claims, and their hypothesis' do not stand up against rigorous testing.

And I don't doubt that creationists have gotten other research published in real journals or periodicals, but there is a reason that you can't find any published work to support your young earth claim, because there is no evidence to support the claims. But guess what there is a lot of?

another way to look at it.

Lack of scientific acceptance

"YEC was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century.[67] Most scientists see it as a non-scientific position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated pseudoscience. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a YEC view. In the aforementioned poll 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process; a view described as theistic evolution, while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took part in this process.[68] Some scientists (such as Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder) who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind"

so, in the more world of science, young earth is rejected. From the quote up top, it says there are about five percent that believe what I believe. I think Chris Columbus was the minority when he thought the world to be round.

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

I am not looking to win a popularity contest. I am looking to be right. Right now, more Americans believe Obama and socialism to be the proper direction to head. I know it to be a path to destruction.

In the not so far off future, the world will fall in line with a one world government and one system of money and a mark to buy and sell.

You can believe as you may, and every living scientist can back you up. I am going to stick to believing what the God of the Bible has stated. I doubt the Bible is peer reviewed, but I believe every world of it

Imagine that, as more and more evidence is found to support science, superstition begins to wither.

Well at least you finally admitted that you don't have any evidence to support your claims. Enjoy your life in the dark ages.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV). (By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle.")

"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).




NO, the catholic church prevented science. The Roman Catholic Government was not based on Bible, it was a system of power.

Do you really want to do this too? Okay.

The Hebrew word that is used in Isaiah 44:22 (חוּג, chug) does not at all imply a spherical earth. The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun חוּג (chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְחוּגׇה (mechugah; Isa 44:13), referring to a "circle instrument," a device used to make a circle, what we call a compass.

Isaiah 44:13 refers to this "circle instrument."

Isa 44:13 The carpenter stretches a line, marks it out with a stylus, fashions it with planes, and marks it with a compass; he makes it in human form, with human beauty, to be set up in a shrine. [NIV]
The verbal form of the word basically means "to make a circle" or "to scribe a circle."

Job 26:10 He has described a circle on the face of the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness. [NRSV]

Most modern translators agree that this "scribing a circle" in relation to the world refers to the horizon of the earth.

NIV: He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.
NLT: He created the horizon when he separated the waters; he set the boundary between day and night.
GWT: He marks the horizon on the surface of the water at the boundary where light meets dark.

Ancient people were very good at observing the physical properties of the earth without necessarily understanding how all of those properties worked. The horizon of the earth is easily seen from any high vantage point or open area as an encompassing circle. This led ancient peoples to describe this "circle" or the horizon as the "edge" or "end" of the earth (Deut 13:7, 1 Sam 2:10, Job 28:24, Psa 48:10, etc.).

The poetic hymn of Proverbs 30:4 uses this "ends of the earth" language to say much the same thing that Isaiah 44:13 says by "circle of the earth" and that Job 26 expresses by saying "he scribed a circle on the face of the waters."

Prov 30:4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in the hollow of the hand? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is the person's name? And what is the name of the person's child? Surely you know!

The other uses of the same Hebrew root reveal a similar meaning.

Job 22:14 Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.

Ancient people of 2,000 or 1,000 BC did not have modern scientific knowledge. Yet they developed perceptions of the physical world based on observations. It was certainly not scientific but practical, based on what they could observe simply by looking at the earth and sky.

People of the Ancient Near East, as well as ancient Hebrews and Israelites, conceptualized the world as a large, flat, circular disk anchored in water below (the deep, Prov 8:27, Gen 1:2, 49:25, etc.) by pillars or foundations (1 Sam 2:8, Prov 8:29, etc.). Between the earth and this deep was Sheol, the place of the dead. -2- The earth was covered by a "firmament," conceived as a large solid upside down bowl or "dome" (Job 22:14, 37:18), in which the stars were placed (Gen 1:14-20). Above the dome was also water, which was the source of rain.

Gen 1:7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.

The dome had "doors" and "windows" to let the waters above fall to the earth (Gen 7:11, Isa 24:18, Mal 3:10, etc.). God was described as ruling the world from his throne above the dome (Psa 33, Psa 113:4-6, Matt 5:34, etc.).

These references are not just isolated anomalies amidst an otherwise scientific grasp of the world. These conceptions are pervasive throughout the biblical narratives, not only in describing the physical world, but extended into metaphorical applications relating to other topics or even simply as ways to talk about the world and God. For example, creation hymns (Psa 33, 104, Hab 3, etc.) evoke these images as a form of praise. Or in the Babel story God must "come down" to see the puny work of humanity (Gen 11:5).

While there are many graphic depictions of ancient cosmology, we need to keep in mind that this was not a pictorial conception, but a functional and descriptive one. It is we in the modern world who tend to want visual imagery and reduce ideas to graphics and charts. Yet for ancient people this was simply a way of expressing what they saw about the operation of the physical world.

Also, we should not conclude that this way of talking about the physical world is what the Bible teaches as a reality, something in which we must believe in order to believe Scripture. Instead, this is the way ancient people talked about their experience of the world in the absence of any scientific knowledge about the processes at work in the world. Certainly we would describe the world today in much different terms. But then we live 3,000 years later in human history with much more knowledge about the physical world, and a different vocabulary with which to describe the world.

We certainly affirm that Scripture is fully inspired by God (plenary inspiration; see Revelation and Inspiration of Scripture). Yet what is interesting is that even with inspiration, God allowed these ancient ways of looking at the world to stand without correction. In other words, God did not reveal modern scientific knowledge to the ancient Israelites, or correct their ancient views of the way the world works. He let them express marvelous truths about God in the language and culture in which they lived. That incarnational dimension of Scripture is crucial for us to understand if we are to hear adequately the important confessions about God and humanity that Scripture expresses.

The poetic Ode to Wisdom in Proverbs certainly seems to confirm this ancient view of the world.

Prov 8:27 When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, 8:28 when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, 8:29 when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth . .
This supports the idea of the earth as a flat disk with foundational pillars to allow it to "float" on the great deep below the earth. It is a good depiction of Ancient Near Eastern cosmology, which the Israelites shared.


So, the "circle" of Isaiah 40:22 refers to the horizon of the earth, which is very obviously perceived as a circle since it can be seen in 360º from most anywhere on earth. In Ancient Near Eastern conceptions, this circle would refer to the flat earth disk, not to a sphere.

Introduction
"The Bible is not a textbook on science." This saying, common among the Christian intelligentsia, seems to have originated with Augustine and is generally quoted to "explain away" some sort of apparent conflict between science and the Bible; in particular reconciling evolution with Genesis chapter one, and the idea that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat. The saying is subsequently invoked as an excuse for why the Bible need not be believed (i.e., "taken literally") on that particular scientific point. However, II Timothy 3:16 tells us that the Bible is authoritative in all that it touches upon, science included. So one might well question the validity of Augustine's claim insofar as those areas of science upon which the Bible does make pronouncements are concerned. Creationists have recently dealt quite well with the evolution versus Genesis chapter one issue; but there is one area on which the Bible does touch which has not been well-covered and that is the shape of the earth.

Most modern scholars claim that the Bible teaches an earth, flat and rectangular in shape, which is placed on several pillars which, in turn, are based on a foundation. This, scholars claim, is how the ancients thought of the earth and man, in writing the Bible, merely echoed the scientific dogmas of the time. Because of that, many have assumed that the Bible was written by men and not by God and, as a result, that the Bible is not to be viewed as an authority in science. But a careful investigation and search of the Scriptures reveals that such a model is not dictated by the wording of the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible was already hinting of the sphericity of the earth by referring to the "compass upon the face of the depth" (Proverbs 8:27) some 500 years before the nations first started to doubt the flatness of the earth. The Biblical model is one which has an earth, basically spherical in shape, with angular continents, and pillars which undergird the world. The pillars can be shown to correspond to crystalline rock, commonly called the mantle, and that there is an unspecified number of foundations to the earth which can range from the roots of mountains to the core of the earth to the very foundation, Jesus Christ himself. That this is the Biblical perspective is the purpose behind this paper. Some of the arguments presented are well over four hundred years old, others are presented here for the first time; but all purport to belie the notion that the Bible's view of the earth is that maintained by most of this world's scholars.

Historical Background
The belief in a flat earth was widely espoused by the ancients. The Hindus, for example, have a cosmology in which the earth is taken to be a flat disk, placed on the back of an elephant which, in turn, is standing on a giant turtle which is swimming in a vast cosmic ocean. The Greeks until about the sixth century before Christ, believed the earth to be flat and placed on the shoulder of the giant, Atlas. Even before the Greek civilization, the Egyptians viewed the earth as flat, surrounded by mountains upon which was placed the solid dome of heaven. The sun, moon and planets travelled along a celestial river in that dome.

About the sixth century B.C., some astronomical observations indicated the earth to be a sphere and by the time of the Middle Ages, the scholarly opinion was for the spherical earth. Thus Christopher Columbus did not encounter opposition for sailing west to the Indies so much on the basis of the belief that his ships would sail off the edge of a flat earth as that his estimates for the size of the spherical earth were way too small.

Scholarly opinion throughout the Renaissance was divided on the issue of the shape of the earth with adherents of the spherical earth in the majority. In 1578 the French academician and naturalist Lambert Daneau in his book The Wonderfvll VVoorkmanship of the World, wrote of the flat earth controversy as it existed in his day. After defending the sphericity of the earth on the grounds of Scripture, he turned to a geometrical argument, noting that the geometer's speaking of the higher and lower parts of a sphere parallels the Biblical references to the "higher" and "lower" parts of the earth. Daneau concludes his discussion with:

so that in these positions and kindes of places and differences are found in the world, you may conclude that which you would, to wit, that the whole receite of this worlde is not sphericall and rounde.
It should be pointed out in the above text that Daneau's use of the word "receite" means "acceptance" (literally, "recitation"). Daneau was saying that he had summarized the different positions of his time on the shape of the earth and that because of said positions, there was no consensus in the world. But since Daneau wrote his book, exploration of the Bible has revealed even stronger Bible passages than those used by Daneau in support of a spherical earth. So just what does the Bible have to say about the earth's shape? In order to ascertain the Bible's teaching on the shape of the earth we need to look at the underlying parts of the earth, too. The Bible speaks of the foundations of the earth, the pillars of the earth, the corners of the earth, and the ends of the earth.

The Foundations of Earth and World
The Bible speaks of both the world and the earth as having foundations. The term, "world," speaks of the order of man in the earth. As such, references to foundations and pillars of the world cannot be held as very authoritative when it comes to speaking about the shape of the earth. The term "earth," on the other hand, can not only refer to the whole earth, but also to "ground" and, as we shall see, "land" or "country." So it is that a complete picture of the form of the earth in Scripture will not be manifest until all these are considered.

Of the number of passages which relate to the foundations of the earth and world, all but three speak of the foundations of the earth, the other three refer to the foundations of the world. Of these last three, two are almost identical and they can be found in II Samuel 22:16:

And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

and Psalm 18:15:


Then the channels of waters were seen, and the fountains of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.

The context of both passages indicates that the foundations of the world are now hidden and will be discovered (or exposed) at the time of the judgment.

The third reference to the foundations of the world tells us just what these foundations are:

The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. -- Psalm 24:1-2.

Since the world is defined to be that part of the earth that pertains to mankind, there can be little doubt of the truth of the statement that the world is founded upon the seas, not built upon rocky foundations like the foundations of a building.

When it comes to the foundations of the earth, there are many more Bible verses from which to draw. Many of these references state that God laid the foundations of the earth, but each verse adds a little to that simple fact. Psalm 102:25 tells us that God laid the foundations "of old" with Hebrews 1:10 echoing the thought that God laid the foundations of the earth "in the beginning." Job 38:4 simply states that God laid the foundations of the earth, but the sixth verse indicates that the foundations are themselves fastened upon something else. Hebrews 1:3 names this "something else" as the Lord Jesus Christ who "upholds all things by the word of his power." Proverbs 8:29 tells us that the earth's foundations were appointed. Proverbs 3:19 indicates that the earth was founded by wisdom while Jeremiah 31:37 indicates that the foundations are unsearchable. Micah 6:2 tells us that they are strong; so strong that the earth should never be removed (Psalm 104:5).

Given the above references to the foundations of the earth there are two things which become readily apparent. First of all, the foundations themselves are fastened upon Christ, the sustainer of the universe. Secondly, they are located somewhere under the earth (Jeremiah 31:37). When it comes to scientific application there is one thing which science can thus far confirm of these characteristics (discounting obvious characteristics such as strength) and that is their insearchability. Jeremiah 31:37 is the key verse there:

Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

Whenever there is an earthquake, shock waves are propagated throughout the interior of the earth. But there is one area which the waves fail to penetrate. That area is the earth's core, the very central part or "foundation" of the earth. Is this not the very thing that the prophet Jeremiah indicates? Until recently seismologists assumed that the center of the earth was composed of molten iron. Scientists now believe that the core may be rocky. No one knows for certain. Man's concept of the outer layers of the earth's crust has significantly changed in recent years: how much more so his ideas of the earth's interior?


Corners and ends of the earth
If the foundations of the earth seem to be scientifically reasonable, then what of the four corners of the earth? Isn't that proof of the Bible teaching that the earth is flat? Recent satellite results have indicated that the earth has four bulges and some Christian apologists have taken these four bulges to be the four corners of the earth, but such is rather far-fetched, especially considering that the bulges amount to only a few yards above the mean shape of the earth. The problem only arises if one ignores the dictionary definition of the word corner. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "corner" to mean:

An extremity or end of the earth; a region, quarter; a direction or quarter from which the wind blows.

The word "corner" comes from a Latin root cornu, meaning "horn." That this is so survives in English via such words as "cornet," "corn," and "cornucopia." Hence, the four corners of the earth can be interpreted as referring to the four cardinal directions -- north, south, east and west. In addition, the "four corners of the earth" can also be interpreted as four "horns" of the earth. One obvious example of such a "horn" is Cape Horn, the southernmost tip of South America. So the usage of the phrase "four corners of the earth" does not signify a flat, rectangular earth.

In addition to referring to the "four corners of the earth," the Bible also mentions "the ends of the earth." When it comes to the consideration of the ends of the earth the above dictionary definition contains the resolution within it. Another way of saying the "ends of the earth" is to refer to the "extremites of the earth." In this case, as is also the case for the four corners of the earth, the word "earth" refers to the land mass, country, or continents (as opposed to the globe). For an example of "earth" being used as "land" or "country," compare Exodus 10:15:
For [the locusts] covered all the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; ... and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt [Emphasis added.]
with verses 12 through 14:

And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the land of Egypt for the locusts, that they may come up upon the land of Egypt, and eat every herb of the land, even all that the hail hath left. And Moses stretched forth his rod over the land of Egypt .... And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt. [Emphasis added.]

Since the word "earth" can be used as synonymous with "land," the "ends of the earth" thus refer to the points of land most distant from some central point. For the Bible, this central point is the land of Israel. The reader can satisfy himself by examing a globe that a great circle, passing through Jerusalem and the north and south poles, very nearly cuts the Pacific Ocean in half and leaves four continental "corners" or "ends," namely the Chukchi Peninsula of the Soviet Union (opposite the Bering Straits of Alaska), Alaska, the southeastern tip of Australia, and Cape Horn of South America. These four geographical locations, as much as any other proposal, can account for the four corners of the earth. Alternatively, since there was probably a land-link between Siberia and Alaska at the time the Bible was written, the four corners of the earth could be Norway, Newfoundland, Cape Horn and the Cape of Good Hope.

In the light of such evidence we cannot claim that the Bible presents the earth as a four-cornered square. Furthermore, there are other passages which provide evidence that the Bible teaches a round earth instead of a flat earth. The most famous of the Bible verses supporting a round or spherical earth is Isaiah 40:22 where it says of God that:

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in...

The fact that this verse speaks of the "circle of the earth" can mean one of three things: 1) the earth is not a flat square but a flat circle. If that is true then what of the four corners of the earth? A flat circle has no corners. 2) the earth is shaped in a way that is spheroidal but has a square cross-section somewhere, at the equator, for example. 3) the earth is spheroidal in shape. This latter opinion is further strengthened by observing the reference to the inhabitants as grasshoppers, implying a perspective from on high, particularly, the outermost heaven.

Isaiah 40:22 is not the only verse in the Bible which speaks of the circle as descriptive of the shape of the earth. Proverbs 8:27 reads:

When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth...

The word "compass" can mean a circular enclosure or a spherical envelope. Since the verse speaks of an extended area -- some three-quarters of the surface of the earth -- the spherical enclosure for "compass" is a better interpretation than a circular enclosure.

Even with Isaiah 40:22 and Proverbs 8:27 the evidence for the sphericity of the earth in Scripture is still only circumstantial. In any case, these verses serve to illustrate that a spherical earth is not necessarily inconsistent with the Bible. But there is one more passage which is far stronger. Luke 17:31-36 reads as follows:

In that day, he which shall be upon the house top, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not turn back .... I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.... Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

In regard to the shape of the earth, the point of these verses is this: they speak of day (verse 31) and night (verse 34) as occurring simultaneously. The activities are listed in the context of that global event, the rapture, which Paul describes as occurring in the "twinkling of an eye" (I Corinthians 15:52). The simplest explanation for this simultaneity of daylight and night is if the earth were spheroidal in shape, although one can always postulate a form of Reimannian geometry for light rays which could leave the earth dark half the time.

Likewise in Acts 1:8, Jesus gives His commission to His disciples to be witnesses "unto the uttermost part of the earth." Note here that the word "part" is singular. A flat earth with four corners should be indicated by "uttermost parts;" but a spheroidal earth would have only one uttermost part, its opposite side or antipodes. Thus the Bible does not necessarily teach that the earth is flat.


The Pillars of the Earth
If the Biblical view of the earth is that of a spheroidal earth, what then of the "pillars of the earth" which are mentioned in three passages. The first of these three is in the prayer of Hannah which can be found in I Samuel 2 starting at verse 8:

He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.

Obviously this verse indicates that the earth has pillars and that the world (that which pertains to man) is set upon them, not having any pillars of its own. Note that this verse does not require that the earth be placed on the pillars, only that the world is placed thereon. We shall find this view to be consistent with the other two Scripture passages also. It does not appear to be the case, as historians Santillanna and Von Dechend recently argued in their book Hamlet's Mill, that the pillars of the earth are the two solstices and the two equinoxes (the solstices are the highest and lowest points at which the sun appears in the sky, being at the first day of summer and winter respectively; the equinoxes correspond to the times when the sun crosses the equator and correspond to the first days of autumn and spring).

Finally, there is one more Bible passage to consider before concluding this study on the Biblical teaching of the shape of the earth. Job 26:7 will modify any preconceived notions we may have about the pillars of the earth. It reads:

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

A flat earth, upon pillars and foundations, hanging upon nothing is very difficult to imagine since one usually imagines the foundation to be the primary support for an structure. But here we note that according to this verse, in addition to the pillars and foundations underneath, the earth also hangs upon nothing. The pillars are under pressure. That they support the surface of the earth (where the world is) is clear from Hannah's song. We have already noted the earth to be spheroidal in shape and so the earth's pillars must be located between the earth's surface and the core. In particular, the pillars of the earth could simply be vertically-oriented crystalline rock.

It is widely believed that there is such a shell of crystalline rock inside the earth. This shell is generally called the mantle of the earth. Occasionally these crystalline forms form above the surface of the earth. In every case they are oriented vertically. There are at least two examples of such rock in the continental United States: Pinnacles National Monument in California, which is not really crystalline in nature; and the other, more graphic example, is found in Devil's Tower National Monument, Wyoming. Thus we conclude that Job 26:7 would appear to support a spheroidal earth.

Conclusion
In summary, the Bible teaches that the earth is basically a sphere in shape; that there are pillars which undergird the world and which we conclude to be the crystalline rock corresponding to what we commonly call the mantle; that there are an unspecified number of foundations which range in size all the way from the foundations of the hills and mountains (called roots in modern science) to the usearchable core of the earth and to the very foundation which is the Lord Jesus Christ himself. This is the view of the earth which the Bible presents, not the view of a flat earth on pillars which are, in turn, placed on a foundation. Bible critics are thus shown to be wrong in their view of what the Bible teaches on the matter of the shape of the earth. Also made manifest is their inability or else lack of desire to study firsthand and in detail the teachings of the Bible on this matter in particular, and, by implication, any Biblical matter. Knowing much about the Bible, they know little of the Bible, and we are so justified in viewing with due skepticism any man who uncritically prefixes his remarks with: "The Bible is not a textbook on science."

How bout yall stop copy & pasting and have an argument with your own thoughts...

It's funny watching you people try and and twist the words found in the bible to fit what science has proven to be true. Remember it wasn't so long ago that people used the words from the bible to show that the earth was flat and killed anyone who tried to prove otherwise. Luckily for you the bible is so vague and open to interpretation that any idiot can make it say exactly what they want it to. That is also why there are hundreds if not thousands of different denominations out there and they all have a different interpretation of what god said.

But don't worry, you made the right decision on your denomination, its everyone else that got it wrong.

thats funny. I read the Bible cover to cover a couple times over, and never found a denomination. I think man made up those. Kind of like some of the science rules the Roman Catholic Government made up centuries ago (that had nothing to do with Biblical Christianity, but everything to do with power)

That's the point. Every denomination out there says that their way is the only way to heaven, everyone who follows another denomination is destined for hell. That would mean it is pretty important to choose the right one. But then no one really questions it, they just stick with what they were raised with, better hope your grandparents made the right choice cause it would suck for you to meet your maker and find out that the mormons had it right with magic underwear. Unless of course the whole thing is a man made construct.

you seem to be pretty smart on a lot of things, but on this you seem a bit lost.

Denomination has nothing to do with going to hell or heaven, nor do I find folks from various denominations generally making that claim.

Salvation is by Grace, not denomination.


Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast


So the Baptists may dunk you in the water, the methodist sprinkle, the Pentacostals sing and jump around.....

That is just the way in which they worship and has nothing to do with going to heaven. I am sure there will be Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcolopians.....in heaven. As long as they saw Jesus as the way, and not their own works, and as long as they accepted the gift he gave on the cross.

So Muslims get into heaven too? They live and die for the grace of the god they believe in.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


Islam denies that Jesus even died on the cross. They do not believe in salvation by grace, they are a works based religion, that literally believes that in the end, their good works go on one scale, and their bad works on another, and if they were good enough, they go to heaven. This is a direct deviation from Bible truth.

500 years after the resurrection of Jesus, Muhammad claimed that he walked out into the dessert, and that a 600 wing angel imparted a new truth to him, making the Arabs the chosen children of God. he was a liar then, and is a liar now. He was a business man that made up a religion that made him rich and powerful. he spread this religion by the sword and spear. He married a six year old girl, and had sex with her when she was nine years old.

I think one can look at Islam today, see the jihad, the terror, the brutality to women, the rape, and clearly see that it is not any way similar to Biblical Christianity.

Islam is not a denomination, it is a false religion that took away the diety of Christ.

Crazy as they may be, there is just as much evidence to prove his beliefs as there is to prove yours. They have a book written by men, just like you do.

But I see your point about the terror, the rape, and brutality towards women. People following the bible version of gods will would never wage holy wars, torture people till they admitted they believed, rape children, bomb abortion clinics. It's easy to see how christianity is a much more peaceful religion.

They have a book written by a man (only one). Muhammad penned the entire Koran. He had Moses living at the time of Noah, claimed that some of his suras were written while he was under the control of Satan, and he claimed that black people could not go to heaven.

The Bible has over 40 authors that wrote under the inspiration of God, and over a 2000 year period, and it all meshes together.

I have spent a number of years living in the Middle East. I was always amazed that if I could sit down one on one with a Muslim, and talk Islam vs. Christianity, many quickly many saw the lie in their own religion, and saw truth in the Bible. My interpreter in Iraq came to me one day, after speaking truth to him and giving him a Bible. He declared "I understand the born again, and I believe”. He and his entire family converted to Christianity.

Once again, Islam is spread by the sword, the spear, and the rifle. They kill those that will not convert.

With Christianity, there are Christians meeting in communist China, North Korea, and Cuba... and they do so at the risk of being arrested, tortured, and even killed. Most folks are not willing to die for a lie. I find it amazing that Islam has to threaten death to get people to convert. True Christians are willing to die for what they believe.

I would also say that you can find similar actions by the Roman Catholic Government in the past. They corrupted the Bible, prevented the common man from reading it, made it "works based", added the sacraments, confession (to a priest), prayers to Mary..... They spread their false religion by the sword and spear, and would kill those that would not convert. Islam and Catholicism had many similarities. Catholics burned Christians at the stake during the protestant reformation, and killed those that translated the Bible.

Man will corupt anything. Once again, it is not wise to put one's faith in a system, a denomination, or words of a man. I stick with the words of the Bible, and believe it to be the actual word of God.

[url][/url]The real beauty of being a believer is this:
If a believer dies, and he was wrong, he'll never know it.
If a non-believer was right, he'll never know it. But if he was wrong, there will be hell to pay.

I go to confession to hedge my bet.

I could show you lies, mis-translations and contradictions all day long in the bible too. You would never believe them as lies though, that is a major problem when people blindly believe and refuse to see the many problems with the bible. Similar to the flat earth issue, there are many references in the bible that indicate that the people writing it believed the earth to be flat, but you posted above a long winded rambling post that tries to fit what we now know to be true of our earth with what was said in the bible. You have said that you believe every word of the bible to be true, cover to cover. If that was truly the case, then there should be overwhelming evidence to support the stories told within, but there just isn't.

It becomes a case of "Here is the conclusion, what can we find in the bible to support it".

Move along child. You sir obviously lack basic reading and comprehension skills as I have not only shown multiple proofs for evolution but also several proofs against your childish beliefs. Whether you believe it or not, evolution is real and verifiable, some are just to simple minded to understand the fact. If you believe that evolution isn't real, the next time you are about to take antibiotics, don't, instead place leeches all over your body and pray to be healed and see how far that gets you.

And you think evolution from a piece of dust(not sure where you pulled that one from, but further proves how uninformed you are) is unfathomable, but have no problem believing a magic cloud man breathed on dust and formed man, then took a rib from that man and made a woman, and those 2 people populated the entire planet with 6.7 billion people in less than 6000 years, all the while avoiding the genetic problems that such procreation would cause and somehow at the same time creating all the variation of races around the world? Yeah I see how the second one makes more sense.

As for why I care, people like you breed and spread your ignorance to another generation, people like you are a cancer on civilization, holding back science and medical improvement in light of superstition and myth. You people vote based on who shares your superstition and who plans to bring that superstition into the public schools and pass laws based on mythology. And I can't fathom how grown men and women can believe in something as ridiculous as the bible in direct opposition to so much overwhelming evidence proving the archaic religion as nothing but myth. It is not faith, it is complete and utter willful ignorance.