Why do people ignore the evidence for a young earth?

The people who made the estimates of around 4.5 billion years have actually looked objectively at the evidence. It's overwhelming.

> The existence of short lived comets (they would not exist if the galaxy was old.)

Why not? Would any factor prevent their formation today?

> Life cannot survive in very high magnetic field.

Who told you that? Earth's magnetic field has varied over its history, and has reversed polarity some number of times. We have no evidence of any major trend in its strength.

> Not enough salt in the sea.

Yes, it probably reached saturation fairly quickly. So what? Why do you think the sea floor is lined with a rich mineral bed?

Evolutionary theory is relevant only to life. It would have nothing to say about Mercury.

> Dinosaur bones, alleged to be millions of years old, have been found containing red blood cells

So what? Actually, that's very exciting, since it opens the door to the study of the DNA of extinct species.

Of course, people using radiometric dating have made mistakes, but the peer review process helps discover those mistakes when they happen.

In the 5th century, Augustine is credited with saying something like, if you find modern science in conflict with the Bible, it's time to re-evaluate your doctrines. If you evaluate early Genesis and the creation literature of other ancient societies, you conclude that it is much more likely to be allegorical and legendary than historical.

I agree with you. There is quite a bit of explaining to do on the part of Evolutionists. One example that I find interesting is the fossilized remains of the Coelacanth which some scientists claimed went extinct 65 million years and have dated fossils back to 350 million years. If evolutionary theory is correct, this fish should have evolved into something else, yet living specimens of this fish have been captured as recently as 22 May 2007, and look exactly like the fossilized specimens. This fish has not evolved. They are still the same as when they were first created.

If you are motivated in your belief by the creation account in the book of Genesis, you will find no disharmony with the concept of an old Earth. There is no reference to the length of creative days. They are time periods of an indeterminate length. Be careful of the sources of supportive science, have you actually read the accounts you refer to or are you repeating word of mouth. The same type scientific reasonings can be found in the beliefs that Man has not landed on the moon or that the twin towers were not destroyed by aircraft but were blown up by the Americans themselves, or that crop circles have an extra terrestrial origin

If you show me five hard back books with this written in it, I will give its a secounds thought.

However, I probably will be ingrossed in the shelves and shelevs of books supporting the old earth theory, which make tangable sense, and were not written by some deluded individual on the internet, why is the only palave he can publish his work.

Carbon dating has placed things to be over thousands of years of old tens od thousands even. Many discoveries of our Earth and the Space its in along with our understanding of the universe tell us that the Earth did form after a big bang. common scientific understanding of the way the universe works places Earth at being several million years old, with homosapiens only being around for the last ten thousand or so years. when you say there are 10 or more methods for every one method indicating a young Earth you are strongly miss informed seeing as by simple calculations about fossils we can work out that the earth must be at least older than a million or so years. Fossils which form when a life-form dies and calcium deposits within its shell or bone are preserved under layers of stone, this process must take thousands if not more years to leave us with the fossils we have today.

Radio metric dating works on calculating the number of isotopes of an atom left within an object (radioactive decay) since we know the half life of these isotopes we can calculate how much was lost and estimate with great accuracy the approximate age of the object.

As for our own galaxy if we consider that the matter generated by the big bang was thrown out at the speed of light and maintained this velocity, we know it took 300,000 years to reach our current position in space, with this in mind we can estimate that with the universe as big at is now we were one of the first galaxies to form in its comparatively long life span. how do we know this, Red Shift, this indicates that other galaxies and stars are receding from us with the universes expansion making the red light which travels faster than blue light more visible.

As I said earlier I believe you are misinformed as to your "fact" that there are 10 theories to indicate a young Earth to every one that indicates life. where you a scientist who participated in these fields of study you might receive more respect but it seems you base your argument on hearsay rather than the concrete evidence science has given us

To respond to most of these questions you'd need to have a fair amount of knowledge in the areas in question. Religious groups know that posing these questions to the average joe in the street will leave them dumbstruck and malleable.

What I'm more interested in is why would scientists actively suppress data suggesting a young earth? What would they gain from that?

<<Why do people ignore the evidence for a young earth?>>

Because that's what it merits.

<<One wonders why scientists not only ignore the majority of evidence, but actively suppress it.>>

Please stop writing untruths in public places. It's very bad manners.

Yawn!

Get an education, will you, and stop repeating rubbish from answers in genesis?

same reason i ignore schizophrenics who claim the CIA are after them

the earth is as old as it feels