RE: The Seven-Day Universe - Part 3: Physical Evidence for a Young Earth
One fact for you to consider:
If the radiometric dating methods that we use to measure that the Earth is indeed ~4.6 billion years were wrong. Even by just 0.001%. All our GPS satellite systems would not work.
Now I could list many different sources of evidence for an old Earth and Universe. From our measurements of old glaciers to different layers of rocks found both on Earth and in Space. To the light we observe from distant stars, and our ability to measure their precise position based on distances we understand thanks to measurements of time and the speed of light.
Now while all of these are individually enough to disprove the young earth hypothesis, they are statistically speaking even more significant when you consider the fact that they provide the exact same answer. If all these individual measurement techniques were wrong, what would be the chance that they by pure accident happened to provide the same answer?
I look forward to hearing your response and hope this can be a forum for open-minded discussion and learning, without any biases as to what is true.
Hello, @fredrikaa,
I have never heard radiometric dating methods related to GPS satellite systems. I would like to see your source for that connection?
I do not have a problem with a very old universe. However, time flow is not a constant everywhere. If you would kindly have a look at my previous article in this series, and investigate the work of Dr. Russell Humphreys, you can see considerably more information about how the Earth can simultaneously be very young while the universe is very old.
Also, while it has been many years since I looked at these particular details, I do not believe that the geological layering is particularly consistent, and so I would also welcome specific reference data in that regard.
Thank you for stopping by, and please feel free to add some specific references or data to your comment if you would like to. I will gladly have a look! :D