I'll respond at a more appropriate time. There are still 2 more points that I have not substantiated but I will need to settle the first point first.
Basically, based on scientific approach, there are two things that no one has proven empirically and accurately:
1. The real half-life of radioactive compounds
2. Whether half-life remains constant throughout the full decay cycle
Nothing is ever proven empirically or scientifically, because the scientific method does not deal in proofs. That's only for pure mathematics and detective novels.
Without the basis of empirical data, theories can be accepted or rejected easily no matter how established it is.
Do you really think that the old Earth is universally accepted by scientists (or at least, those without a religious agenda) without any evidence?
When you quote someone, at least give the name of the person or a link to prove that there is indeed such person. I can also investigate further when did the person say that and did the person continue to hold that view. Also the quote itself also does not support your point. The word "probably" shows that the person is just speculating that there is such a possible reason for that. But he/she may not have even proven it.
You used the presence of carbon 14 in coal as evidence for a young Earth. I was merely pointing out that there are other explanations. Ones that better fit with literally everything else we know about geology.
For the link that you have provided, there are a few things that I would like to highlight.
1. All references given in the article were 1990 or older. The link that I have provided uses reference that is more recent, the newest reference is 2007 while the RATE group finding was conducted in 1997. There should have at least be more contemporary references for such a topic that is in the forefront of Scientific Field.
Irrelevant. The age of a finding does not have any effect on its accuracy, unless it has been directly superceded by newer data. You cannot find better data than this old data, because it does not exist.
2. All different methods of radiometric dating used in the analysis were all those compounds with half-life longer than thousands of years. So they all can be questioned on the exact same point whether the extrapolated results were good approximations. Another recent findings about possible variations in half-life in 2010: http://phys.org/news202456660.html
Christ. It doesn't
matter.
If half-lives were variable, then these data points would not all agree on the age of the solar system - some would read older, and some would read newer. But they don't. Because half-lives are constant
on average.
The fluctuations mentioned in that phys.org article are microscopic. "Fractions of a percent" is the term used, and the author of the study states quite clearly that their findings are "unlikely to affect any major anthropological findings.
To support a 6000 year old Earth, our estimates would have to be out by 99.9%... to say that a finding of cyclical fluctuations of less than 1% support that is
ridiculous.
Actually, this is not a debate of creation theory vs evolution theory, but just to prove whether evolution theory is a fact or merely a theory. In fact, I think there are more people who would conclude that at the current stage of science and technology, we are still unable to be certain of both theories. There are evidences from both theories and a lot of time they can be contradicting. Only time will tell which theory will eventually be confirmed and become a science fact.
You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory actually is: a framework of explanations that fit with all current and relevant observations, supported by the overwhelming mass of evidence on the subject.
You'll note the "supported by evidence" part - a scientific theory is not any old hypothesis that a dude in a labcoat pulls out of his ass.
Whether it is building or frozen fossils, the primary form of determining their age is still through radiometric dating. That's why the argument about the radiometric dating is quite central to the argument. If the half-life radioactive compounds used in radiometric dating is incorrectly predicted or changes over time, then the age of these building or frozen fossils may also be changed and we would arrive at a different conclusion.
But there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, and plenty of evidence to suggest that it isn't. Belabouring the "radiometric dating is flawed" argument is spurious, and a waste of everybodies time.
As for seeing stars which are light years away, the claim that 100,000 light years is being measured is also exaggerated. Based on current technology, scientist can only measure up to 20 light years accurately and light speed is only consistent in vacuum, if there are mediums in between, the light speed also changes. Reference: http://amazingdiscov...tyears_distance
Are you serious? You're disputing star measurements based on the fact that they are calculated from extrapolated data?
Scientists aren't allowed to use math to work things out anymore?
As for the tectonical activity, there are also alternative views especially due to the recent rapid uplift of mountains. Reference: http://www.icr.org/i...tion=view&ID=98
It's likely that the energy unleashed in this "Biblical Flood"-based interpretation of mountain formation would have vaporised the oceans and obliterated most of the Earth.
The Great Flood
did not happen.
There are also further evidence about a young Earth: http://www.earthage....young_earth.htm
This is called debating by flood (interesting, that) - bombarding your conversation partner with so much information that it would take literally hours to go through it all.
Thus, I am happy to ignore it.
Another food for thought (something that would likely gather more attention in the near future):
A decade ago, when everyone is still debating about the effects of global warming, there are divided views about how global warming can affect the Earth. Back then, there are some people who even argued that global warming is good for the Earth (Source: http://www.theguardi...t.climatechange) while others see the effects of global warming only in the much distant future.
Yet today, just 10 years from then, many countries have started experiencing extreme climate changes and unprecedent number of nature disasters happening all around the world. It seems that the global warming has become an accepted fact and reports about effects of global warming are becoming more prevalent: http://www.slate.com...warming_on.html
However, if we look at the contributing factors towards global warming, it is mainly due to industrialisation that can be dated back to 1750 (Source: http://www.achistory...rlia-ls1-1.html). It means that just over a span of nearly 260 years, our Earth's condition has severely deterioriated. If the Earth is 45 billions old, how is it possible for such a small time range to make such drastic impact? But if Earth is only thousands of years, then that span of time period is no longer considered trivial and the explanation becomes more reasonable.
How is it possible for such a small time frame to have such a drastic impact?
You're joking again, right? You're, what, 16 years old? It would takes someone only seconds to break your leg. How can such a small time frame have such a drastic impact?
It's funny that you're an engineer, and yet you don't seem to understand to concept of an impulse. Namely, that a constant force will have a
larger effect if applied over a short timespan, than over a longer one. The same principle applies to global warming - we have dumped
so much carbon dioxide (among other things, but let's play for simplicity here) into the atmosphere in such a short time, that the natural carbon cycle is unable to sequester enough of it to prevent a global disaster.
The short time frame is not a problem, here, it's practically the explanation.