"Many Physical Evidences Contradict the "Billions of Years"
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
* Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically -- these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of "rock" bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more."
This whole line of logic is completely erroneous.
IMPORTANT EDIT: Personally, I subscribe to the theory that (and this is assuming I belive in Biblical events) that the "seven days" were not literally days, but extended periods of time. If this were the case it would satisfy many things we see in nature. Also, I'm not trying to discredit anyones beliefs here. Science should stay out of religion, and religion should stay out of science.
1) A flood does not deposit huge amounts of strata, it reworks what's there and does lend itself to some deposition - but we're looking at strata which are hundreds to thousands of meters thick. Elevated sea levels inhibit sediment deposition from continents to oceans. Even if it rained for 40 days and fourty nights, this is a gradual rise in sea level - not a catostrophic, fast moving event. Even the worst storms only rework sediments to a certain depths in the oceans, and once all the loose sediments are removed from the land there's no more to be deposited. A biblical flood just wouldn't result in huge sediimentary deposits.
2) Lack of erosion? I just got done looking at sedimantary beds in outcrop, in which the top bed cuts into the underlying sediments. There is an unconformity between the two, this means a period of time that is missing. This could be the result of erosion or a lack of deposition. They're so vague in what they say it doesn't make and sense.
3) Again, there are clear signs of bioturbation in many places. This doesn't make any sense to say there's a lack of evidence, when one would be hard pressed to go anywhere in the world and not find such evidence.
4) Lack of soil layers - ever heard of a paleosol? It's an ancient soil, which we can walk up to and put our hands on to this day. Even the root structures are preserved.
5) Polystrate fossils - What does this sentance even mean? It's pure b.s. Species of microorganisms lived for many thousands and thousands of years, so of ccourse you see them in vertical succession in different strata. This in no way means that they were layed down in one mass event. Are they implying these fossils sink? Because they don't.
6) Folding of thick rock laters - It's called ductile deformation, and it's happening under our feet to this day. Rocks heated to elevated temperatures begin to behave in a "plastic" sense - they bend and fold without fracturing. It doesn't occur within our lifetime, so that should give you an idea of the massive time scale it takes to make these folded rocks. We know they behave plastically because we can create synthetic rocks and crystals in the lab and test their properties under elevated temperatures to see how they deform.
I could easily go on for three pages tearing apart that link. But all I have to say is this.
Science is ever changing. As we learn more, we correct our views of the world and the processes by which we come to understand it. Does this mean that everything we know is wrong? Probably not. But some things will be proven wrong and some will stay the same. For example, I learned just today that recent improvements in high temperature experiments in the lab show that the activity of water at elevated temperatures isn't one. This has implications for the melting points of different minerals, which changes how we model things and what we know. It doesn't mean the whole process is wrong - we take these new facts and move on.
Just because there are examples of a few particular studies in which age dating has gone astray does not mean that the whole science is somehow unreliable. Throwing out dates on the basis of contamination isn't biased or a case of scientists trying to fit the data to what they want - that's just stuffing words in the mouth of the scientific community. If you'd like, I can explain just how easy it is to contaminate a sample. And before anyone jumps on me to say "Ah ha! More proof the process is flawed!", realize that good science gives good results. Taking the necessary precautions to prevent contamination and to get proper data and measurements gets rid of these issues.
Anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry or thermodynamics will tell you that assumptions are necessary - do you want an age date that supports Christianity and doesn't rely on assumptions, or do you want one that doesn't support Christianity and uses assumptions? Can't have it both ways, and you certainly can't have the former. So please don't tell me that because I'm focusing in on a particular system that the results are inherently flawed.
