I will list and explain to my knowledge, the evidence that I think is convincing of a young earth. For anyone who has studied the subject at all, I'm sure this is not new evidence for you.
1. Supernovas - Supernovas occur about once every 25 years and leave remnants of gas and dust from the explosion. These remnants should remain visible for millions of years yet there are only 200 recorded supernovas, which would be consistent with a universe that is only 7,000 years old.
2. Comets - As Comets travel through the universe they constantly lose matter. When they pass by the sun they lose matter at a much faster rate. By the size of Comets and the rate at which they lose matter they could exist no longer than 100,000 years. Yet scientists that believe that the universe has been around for billions of years would have you believe one of two things. Either the comets have been around for billions of years (which makes no sense), or an Ort Cloud produces them. An Ort cloud is only a theory and there is no evidence that is exists. I would challenge anyone who makes this claim to show me evidence.
(Because of the complexity of the fallowing evidence I chose to copy the fallowing paragraph for "Answers in Genesis")
3 Earths Magnetic force -
The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.
(The fallowing information was copied from earthage.org)
4. 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 the standard evolution-based scenarios. This is also and example of why Carbon dating is not accurate.
I wrote the underlined section.
(Fallowing information taken from "Answers in Genesis")
Incosistancy of dating methods -
There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.9 Another example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The ‘dates’ ranged from < 0.27 to 3.5 million years—but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975!
What happened was that excess radiogenic argon (40Ar*) from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature also lists many examples of excess 40Ar* causing ‘dates’ of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape.10
If excess 40Ar* can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?
Another problem is the conflicting dates between different methods. If two methods disagree, then at least one of them must be wrong. For example, in Australia, some wood was buried by a basalt lava flow, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by the K-Ar method at c. 45 million years old!11 Other fossil wood from Upper Permian rock layers has been found with 14C still present. Detectable 14C would have all disintegrated if the wood were really older than 50,000 years, let alone the 250 million years that evolutionists assign to these Upper Permian rock layers.12
According to the Bible’s chronology, great age cannot be the true cause of the observed isotope ratios. Anomalies like the above are good supporting evidence, but we are not yet sure of the true cause in all cases. A group of creationist Ph.D. geologists and physicists from Answers in Genesis, the Creation Research Society, and the Institute for Creation Research are currently working on this topic. Their aim is to find out the precise geochemical and/or geophysical causes of the observed isotope ratios.13 One promising lead is questioning Assumption 1—the initial conditions are not what the evolutionists think, but are affected, for example, by the chemistry of the rock that melted to form the magma.
I could go on listing other Items like, ocean sediment, sodium levels in the ocean, the decreasing size of the sun, lack of human fossils, oil pressure, helium in the atmosphere, population growth, and the earth’s rotation slowing down. All of these give strong evidence that the earth is not billions of years old.
I believe that the issues I brought up make the issue of the earth’s age, not yet decided. So in that case I see no reason to read into the bible something that is not there (billions of years). I will link all the websites that I gather my information from and each person can evaluate for himself or herself if the information is reliable.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... dating.asp
http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/ev ... ing%20Moon:
http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/ev ... _earth.htm
http://www.nwcreation.net/agedatinglinks.html
Thank you,
Robin