Young Earth Creationism Is Improbable

THE BIG BANG I believe this answers all your arguments about the big bang: https://answersingenesis.org... AGE OF STARS I will address your argument like this: Are you saying because of decay, you can date stars? After reading this argument, I can only laugh. It proposes that the rate of decay has always been the same. Yet, we have no proof of this, and we have no proof that our way of measuring decay in stars is accurate. THE EARTH'S INDICATORS Again you go to dating. This time dating the meteorites in/on the earth. However, did you know that over 90% of the dating methods we use today contradict the billions/millions of years model? And the rest of the dating methods contradict the age of things among themselves by a few billion years. So that DESTROYS the whole argument about the meteorites. "There is a lot of internal evidence as well that the Earth is older than 6000 years. Take, for example, ice core samples: "From the data gathered from the Vostok ice-core indicates that the minimum age of the earth is 160,000 +- 15,000 years. Furthermore there exists approximately 33% of additional ice below the core sample which would hold a disproportionate number of years due to thinning of the ice layers under the tremendous pressure of the ice above it." This argument is assuming that the rate of ice getting layed down has stayed the same sense the beginning. However we have no proof that it has always been the same. It is exactly the same for your next 2 arguments, so I will not even address them. Conclusion It is clear that through a uniformitarianism view, that the earth had to have been older than 10,000 years. But if you don't assume the rate of things have always been the same, the only model that makes sense is the creationary 4,000-10,000 years old. One example I can make is Mt. Saint Helens. After it's eruption, it layed down sentiment that evolutionary scientists previously thought took millions of years to form. (It all formed in less than a week.) A lot of people don't know the true origin of evolution/atheism. It started as an ancient pagan religion. It's purpose was to take the need for a god out of the creation. MY ARGUMENTS FOR A YOUNG EARTH NOT BASED ON UNIFORMITARIANISM THINKING http://rationalwiki.org... https://answersingenesis.org... These are a few of my favorites. "1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast. The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.2 2. Too few supernova remnants. Crab Nebula Photo: Courtesy of NASA According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3 3. Comets disintegrate too quickly. According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. 4. Not enough mud on the seafloor. Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic subduction can remove it. Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago." - http://www.icr.org... You can see 9 other evidences here, I would prefer you look at all the links I provided, and please attempt to answer them as I have attempted (I believe successfully) to answer yours. http://www.icr.org...