OK, johnfolton, this is the Dating Forum. This is where your contentions of a young earth should be posted and defended.
Here is your big chance. Let's see you present and defend your AnswersinGenesis talking points on young earth here where the topic belongs.
And because you relied on the RATE Project in your post on a previous thread, here are a couple of articles for you to brush up on before you present your evidence. (Note, I said
evidence--this is the Science Forum, so you have to present
evidence for your contentions.)
Here are the two articles, with brief excerpts from the conclusions of each:
Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac
The conclusions of the RATE project are being billed as “groundbreaking results.” This is a fairly accurate description since a group of creation scientists acknowledge that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity have occurred. They attempt to explain how this massive radioactivity could have occurred in a few thousand years but admit that consistent solutions have not yet been found. The vast majority of the book is devoted to providing technical details that the authors believe prove that the earth is young and that radioisotope decay has not always been constant. All of these areas of investigation have been addressed elsewhere by the scientific community and have been shown to be without merit. The only new data provided in this book are in the category of additional details and there are no significantly new claims.
In this book, the authors admit that a young-earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future. No known thermodynamic process could account for the required rate of heat removal nor is there any known way to protect organisms from radiation damage. The young-earth advocate is therefore left with two positions. Either God created the earth with the appearance of age (thought by many to be inconsistent with the character of God) or else there are radical scientific laws yet to be discovered that would revolutionize science in the future. The authors acknowledge that no current scientific understanding is consistent with a young earth. Yet they are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of the Bible has been confirmed.
Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?
Young-earth creationists have long claimed there is no evidence for an old Earth. The fact that billions of years of nuclear decay have occurred in Earth history has been denied by most young-earth creationists. Now, the RATE team has admitted that, taken at face value, radiometric dating data is most easily and directly explained by the Earth being billions of years old. This is a remarkable development because no longer can young-earth creationists claim it is merely the naturalistic worldview that makes scientists believe rocks and minerals are millions or billions of years old.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2