Why do people ignore the evidence for a young earth?

Wow! The superiority, arrogance and willingness to insult and humiliate that is shown by many of the answers rather destroys their credibility.

There is always a motive that lies behind what people say and that kind of behaviour is very revealing.

Isn't that what God looks at? The motive? The heart?

Could this be why evidence is ignored and suppressed and why you get such reactions?

At the beginning Cain didn't want to admit his sin but preferred his own way, the Chief priests and Pharisees refused the obvious work of God when Christ raised Lazarus from the dead after four days in the tomb, not only wanting to kill Christ but even wanting to kill Lazarus lest any believe because of him, and now we have an army of superior scientists peddling themselves.

Nothing changes, least of all the heart, unless God works the change, as with Saul who became the Apostle Paul.

But that apparently is not scientific!

Instead of asking your questions of people in the R&S section who don't deal in that area, why don't you head on down to the geology section where the experts can actually rip your arguments apart?

Maybe it's because you're afraid of getting real answers from educated sources that might actually make you question the so called "evidence" you present. Answers like this one:

"wow, well where do i start in debunking your "Facts"?

The Oort cloud was detected by both voyager spacecraft as they flew by, and gravitationally it is clearly evident (pluto was known about long before it was ever seen because of the effect of it's gravity)

as for the moon and the magnetic field, they are both cases of "exponential decay", the moon wasn't always receding at 1 inch a year, it was far less, but as it gets further away, the pull of earths gravity gets weaker, therefore it speeds up.

Salt in the sea? that barely deserves comment when you look in the medditeranian at salt mines from dried up lakes etc, salt goes in, but it also comes out and becomes rock salt.

Helium in rocks, and in the atmosphere, you're really grasping at straws, in the upper atmosphere it escapes and leaves the earth, as does hydrogen. In the rocks it might leach out, but this is exponential again, the less that is left in the rock, the less leaks out, (sort of like the half life of radioactive decay).

Your next point confuses me "carbon 14 is immeasurable after 50 000 years" but coal and diamonds contain it... just because it is "immesureable" does not mean it isn't there, and as for coal being carbon dated, I personally have never heard of that.

Saturns rings are believed to be the remnants of a moon or more than 1 that was destroyed by saturns gravitational tides, this is evidenced by the tiny rings around jupiter that are KNOWN to be composed of the same minerals uniformly and thus be from a single moon ripped apart. Mercury is exactly where it should be, you may notice that the less dense gas giants are further out and the heavy rocky planets are closer to the sun, this is due to how an accretion disk formes planets, if you dont understand the science, then read more about it.

I have never heard of any complete cells being found in any fossils EVER, and if there was, it is not out of the realms of pissibility that they could be found, not all biological matter decays at the same rate, some may be incredibly well preserved. Finding a few cells does not prove that dinosaurs were a recent species.

I think you need to research your points again and look up more about carbon 14 dating and the dating of rocks from magnetic fields (this is incredibly precise. And remember that a scientist is an "empiricist" they work with FACTS, something cannot be ignored just because it doesn't fit your ideas, thats why einstiens relativity was so massive, it explained why mercury orbits faster than Newton said it should so science looked for a new solution (with Arthur Eddington of course). I would suggest that you rethink your opinions and research your arguments and come back with something FACTUAL that actually makes sense."

~credit to Richard W, answered in the Earth Science & Geology section(where this question should have been asked in the first place)

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200...

wow, well where do i start in debunking your "Facts"? The Oort cloud was detected by both voyager spacecraft as they flew by, and gravitationally it is clearly evident (pluto was known about long before it was ever seen because of the effect of it's gravity) as for the moon and the magnetic field, they are both cases of "exponential decay", the moon wasn't always receding at 1 inch a year, it was far less, but as it gets further away, the pull of earths gravity gets weaker, therefore it speeds up. Salt in the sea? that barely deserves comment when you look in the medditeranian at salt mines from dried up lakes etc, salt goes in, but it also comes out and becomes rock salt. Helium in rocks, and in the atmosphere, you're really grasping at straws, in the upper atmosphere it escapes and leaves the earth, as does hydrogen. In the rocks it might leach out, but this is exponential again, the less that is left in the rock, the less leaks out, (sort of like the half life of radioactive decay). Your next point confuses me "carbon 14 is immeasurable after 50 000 years" but coal and diamonds contain it... just because it is "immesureable" does not mean it isn't there, and as for coal being carbon dated, I personally have never heard of that. Saturns rings are believed to be the remnants of a moon or more than 1 that was destroyed by saturns gravitational tides, this is evidenced by the tiny rings around jupiter that are KNOWN to be composed of the same minerals uniformly and thus be from a single moon ripped apart. Mercury is exactly where it should be, you may notice that the less dense gas giants are further out and the heavy rocky planets are closer to the sun, this is due to how an accretion disk formes planets, if you dont understand the science, then read more about it. I have never heard of any complete cells being found in any fossils EVER, and if there was, it is not out of the realms of pissibility that they could be found, not all biological matter decays at the same rate, some may be incredibly well preserved. Finding a few cells does not prove that dinosaurs were a recent species. I think you need to research your points again and look up more about carbon 14 dating and the dating of rocks from magnetic fields (this is incredibly precise. And remember that a scientist is an "empiricist" they work with FACTS, something cannot be ignored just because it doesn't fit your ideas, thats why einstiens relativity was so massive, it explained why mercury orbits faster than Newton said it should so science looked for a new solution (with Arthur Eddington of course). I would suggest that you rethink your opinions and research your arguments and come back with something FACTUAL that actually makes sense.

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.

Because the people that come up with this so called evidence have an agenda to make it fit their religious beliefs. That's not the way to arrive at the truth. The real scientists (the smart ones) have evidence from different sources that corroborate each other with the same findings. Your so called scientists make the mistake of assuming the moon always moved away from the earth at the same rate, or that just because some carbon 14 datings were contaminated, it's not an accurate dating method. You do know that there are many more dating methods that all corroborate each other, right. Like tree rings, some trees have been found to be over 12,000 years old. So much for your 6000 year old earth.

Every last one of those examples has been soundly disproven. Why should I bother with a case-by-case refutation when any idiot can look up every last one on Google in 5 minutes?

In addition, evolutionary theory has to do with the adaptation and diversity of life forms, and has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the origin of life itself, the formation of planets, or the beginning of the universe. Those things are all covered by OTHER theories!

The ToE says nothing more or less than:

- A species cannot survive unless its members live long enough to reproduce.

- If a species is not suited to a particular environment, it must adapt, leave, or die. The environment won't magically adapt to suit it.

- Over time, slight genetic differences between two different populations MAY lead to the development of two separate species.

That's it. Nothing about where the first life forms came from. Nothing about the formation of the earth. Nothing about the Big Bang. Those are all separate theories that have NOTHING to do with the Theory of Evolution. STOP LUMPING ALL THE THEORIES TOGETHER AND CALLING THEM ALL EVOLUTION, BECAUSE THAT IS WRONG.

The reason why there is not a higher concentration of helium in the atmosphere is because helium is light enough to escape the earths atmosphere and go into outer space. The reason why there is helium still in rocks is because the gas is packed in there tight by all the other rock molecules.

Every single thing you presented has been debunked or is an incorrect interpretation. A simple example is that there is a salt cycle in the seas, i.e. salt water seeps down thought the ocean floor where the rock filters the salts and other compounds. The water eventually reaches a hot spots where it is superheated and expelled through vents.

The dactite from Mt Saint Helena's was sent to a lab that was not certified to do young rock dating. Further, the normal rigorous collection procedures for collecting specimens and thus are likely to have been contaminated.

The sites below will help further your education.

Nice copy and pasting, but whatever your source, your are wrong about the conclusion from the Earths magnetic field like many other conclusions you draw. Earths magnetic field is caused by the spinning of the earth on its axis and the molten centre being forced to shoot up through cracks where certain metals in the molten lava cool. The most prominent cooled spikes generate the magnetic field. The earths magnetic field has changed completely many times over the life of the earth and has even been known to disappear for years at a time. North pole and South pole switch after very large periods of time and then do this again over and over, disappearing randomly. So no, you are wrong, like much of other stuff you mentioned. IN all reality, it would prove old earth.

Stop copy/pasting, it doesn't make you look smart.

Stop trying to understand science when you put no effort to do so. Idiot.

The "evidence" can be disregarded by all honest people. It takes a mind totally addled by religious indoctrination to actually believe these flagrant lies, and a person wholly devoid of morality to even suggest them as "evidence".

Let's take your claim about the Moon receding by an inch each year. At it's closest to Earth, the Moon is 225,622 miles away. That's 1,191,284,160 feet or 14,295,409,920 inches -- far more than 4.5 billion.

Anyone who actually investigates these arguments can see that Young Earth Creationists worship lies and ignorance. They are an insult to honest Christians and a worthless drag upon society.