Young Earth Creationism is wrong about the age of the earth

I'd like to appologize for my less than punctual response, but here it is.History The Pro states that; "But the fact was that when evidence was demanded besides the bible, it all spoke to an older earth, even though the earlier consensus was based on the bible." His point is somewhat valid. Those who had not based their ideas on the bible, did come up with much older ages than 10,000 years. If not for the bible, I would also believe that the earth is much older. Why? It's because the time it would take for the earth to form into the life-sustaining planet that it is today (without a creator), would certainly take a very long time. However, The bible still makes perfect sense. How so? According to Young Earth creationists, God created the earth as a life-sustaining planet from the start. If God (of the bible, particularly) were to exist, he would have created Earth this way, instantly; fully formed. Prediction “Fullfillment” Like I stated earlier, these predictions were based on the preset that God had NOT created the world as he had done in the bible. Although this hardly proves that YEC is in fact, true, it proves that these predictions based on cooling factors, etc, do NOT disprove the theory of Young Earth Creationism. Geology It would interest most to know that the Geologic column was created primarily by creationists. They were learned men who made an attempt to classify the different rock layers. It wasn’t until later, that many evolutionist scientists took the geologic column and put relative dates on each level, creating the geologic time scale [1]. However, there is a flaw with the geologic column. As a hundred years ago, scientists had little technology compared to now, they probably didn’t know that 77% of the Earth’s surface is missing 7 or more (70%) of the designated rock layers. 94% of the Earth’s surface is missing 3 or more strata systems, and 99.6% is missing at least one strata system. The Geologic Column is based on 0.4% of the Earth’s surface [2]. That’s just ridiculous. And also, if a worldwide flood had occurred like the bible says, it would make sense that in a huge sea of mud, rocks, and organic matter, sorting by mass would occur. Rock layers could be a result of that sorting, probably by mass. And also, if different rock layers formed over a very long period of time, why are there Polystrate Trees connecting the rock layers? It proves that the forming of the different stratas did not take a long period of time. It’s more likely that they were formed in a short amount of time, as Young Earth Creationists say. It’s more likely the result of a worldwide flood. Talkorigins also writes: “John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.” [3] And? The atheists who run the site refuse to give any solid evidence, as to WHY polystrate trees are, but only quote other people who have rejected the evidence, but had also, in turn, not adequately explained why the evidence for YEC is wrong. I am yet to hear someone using their own sound reasoning to disprove YEC. Astronomy “Objects being further away than 10,000-6,000 lightyears away demands and older universe” That assumption is made, simply due to the fact that it would take light longer to reach us, and vise versa. Yet, it implies that the speed of light has remained constant. João Magueijo, a physicist from Cambridge University, states in his theory, that looking back 300 years, there have been irregularities in the speed of light, and goes on further to saying that the speed of light was once much faster in the Universe’s past.Magueijo is a pioneer of the varying speed of light (VSL) theory of cosmology. [4] Radioisotopes It’s irrelevant that many radioactive isotopes have not been found/ or aren’t abundant, the way we see them. There are many places in the Universe that we have not explored yet, and it is quite possible, even likely, that the rare radioisotopes that we observe, may be quite abundant elsewhere. This doesn’t prove anything. Radiometric Dating Many Young Earth Creationists have said, as you probably know , that radiometric dating, is in fact, flawed. Nonetheless, you have probably written them off as “ignorant”. Yes, I believe that there are flaws in Radiometric Dating. I’ve read the source that you left, and it reads: “It is very easy to calculate the original parent abundance, but that information is not needed to date the rock. All of the dating schemes work from knowing the present abundances of the parent and daughter isotopes. The original abundance N0, of the parent is simply N0 = N ekt, where N is the present abundance, t is time, and k is a constant related to the half life.” They do not sufficiently explain how one can know the original abundance. They say that the original abundance can be found, by multiplying the present abundance, the TIME, and the half life constant. Yet, one must first know the amount of time, or the age of the material BEFORE they date the material. But that’s a logical contradiction. It implies that scientists have a preset date for the material being dated, and in turn, use a fancy procedure to get to the date at which they already think is compatible with the material. Fine then, but that’s not science, and radiometric dating cannot be a reliable dating technique. Logical fallacies cloud these arguments, and if they are not resolved (unless the pro proves me wrong), these arguments hold no water.Back to you, proSources:[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.trueorigin.org...[3]http://www.talkorigins.org...[4]http://www.dailygalaxy.com...