The earth is at least one million years old

1. Radiometric dating My opponent cites radiometric decay as his main evidence for an old earth. Indeed, it would seem at a glance such an assumption could be true. However, as my opponent argues, this assumes the decay rates have been constant (if it is ever faster, then a young earth could be possible). My opponent claims change in decay rates are miniscule, if at all. But this argument does not agree with the evidence. Many recent scientific papers have found chemical environment can change the rate of decay for radioactive elements. Chemical environment, then, can reduce the estimated age of the earth by significant amounts [1]. Other factors also seem to influence decay rates. For example, many studies are finding that the distance of the sun from the earth can change decay rates, and much of the time accelerate them to rates much faster than today. Other studies done by creationists obtain similar results, indicating the possibility of fluctuating decay rates ruining the data set [2]. Evidence on uranium dating seems to also be slanting towards the creationists. When Uranium decays into Lead, helium is released into the rock, and usually escapes rock with exceptional speed. But recent research gets the opposite result: most of these rocks containing lead and uranium (so, scientists can say the lead was probably from Uranium) still have large amounts of helium in the rock. This is odd, if there was an old earth there should be little to no helium in the rock. Scientists working with the specimens estimate that these rocks, dated to be 1.5 billion years old by evolutionists, are at most 14,000 years old based on helium evidence [3]. Diamonds have been deemed to be creationist’s best friend. Diamonds, as claimed by evolutionists, are about 3 billion years old. They are some of the oldest rocks we can date. C-14 has a half-life of 5,700 years, so if these rocks were old there should be no C-14 in them. But Dr. Baumgardner has found most diamonds have large amounts of C-14 still present. With this noted, this is evidence the world is thousands, not millions, of years old [4]. 2. Other evidence Claiming stalactites need millions of years to form is faulty. An Australian mine was investigated in 1987, and was only 55 years old (so, the stalactites could be, at maximum, 55 years old). Pictures from the mine show the stalactites were 180 feet long, not 0.1 mm of growth a year like my opponent claims [5]. Yellowstone’s stalactites grow about 1 inch a year. Measurements claiming slow growth usually come from areas with little rain fall giving bias to the evolutionist viewpoint. And even if we assume the rate is 0.1 mm now, we cannot assume the rate was always so slow. Other places have foot long stalactites and are only 56 years old [5]. Assuming, in this instance, that it takes 56 years for stalactites to grow one foot, in 6000 years they can be 107 feet long! With this evidence, it is apparent that stalactites could form within 1000s of years, not millions. Young earth? Is there any evidence for a young earth? The answer is yes, there is a lot of evidence! Many new studies are confirming what was once claimed in the 90s. Fossils are turning up with hemoglobin in their bones, which would have rotted away if the earth was old, invalidating an old earth and proving a young one. The first test was just feeling the tissue. The researchers could obviously see it was soft tissue, containing blood. A second more important test was DNA testing. They were able to extract enough blood to get a DNA test! This would be impossible if the earth was millions of years old. By the way, the T-Rex is 58% similar to a chicken [7]. Human population also proves a young earth. According to the bible, after Noah’s flood the humans would only need 0.5% population growth – compared to 1.5% now which is actually very low. According to an evolutionary timescale, human-like creatures evolved from apes one million years ago. Going with only a 0.01% population rate – super generous – we would have a population of 1 with 43 zeros after it. So, humans could have only been around for a much shorter time. Although this does not invalidate an old earth alone, it does make the age of the earth much less then it would be under evolutionist estimates [8], and together with Dino blood also shortens the age of the earth. Another line of evidence is the sea. There are many ways salt enters the sea, and few ways salt can escape. So, determining the saltiness of the sea can help us understand how old the sea is. The maximum age of the sea is 65 million years old, this is the maximum not the actual age. Note these studies assume the amount of salt being added is little and the amount being taken out is large, making the results already favor an older earth. More realistic rates actually show the earth is 6000 years old [9]. The evidence points surely do mean the earth is much younger than expected. That the dinosaurs and humans must have been created very recently, possibly alongside each other, and that the maximum age of the earth is only 65 million years old and likely MUCH younger. But there is one last point I would like to stress: continental erosion. If the world was old, the continents would have been eroded many many times over and the process of creating new crust would not account for this process. Based on evolutionist measurements, the continents should have eroded in 10 million years. Since this has not happened, the earth is likely under one million years old based on current erosion evidence [10]. CONCLUSION The evidence indicates a young earth is more likely younger than older. The answer is thousands, not millions. 1. . http://creation.com... 2. . http://www.icr.org... 3. . http://creation.com... 4. . http://creation.com... 5. . http://creation.com... 6. . http://creation.com... 7. . http://creation.com... 8. . http://creation.com... 9. . http://creation.com... 10. . http://creation.com...