User:Armondikov/101

This is a rebuttal to 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe by Creation Ministries International (retrieved on June 6, 2009). Feel free to add content.

(And, yes, we are fully aware that "evidence" is an uncountable noun. But we aren't responsible for the title.)

Biological evidence
Here is the "biological evidence" showing the young age of the Earth. The first five are mostly based around the ideas of DNA and tracking DNA to various ancestors. The rest look into fossilisation, perceived problems with it and old organisms, such as trees. Some of the later ones in this section are rather silly, and could be concluded to be not even wrong.

Geological evidence
This extensive sub-section covers the cherry-picked or misconstructed evidence that the earth is young according to geology. In actual fact, most of the "evidence" presented here actually conlcudes that the earth is old. At best it postulates incredulity, offering no evidence at all that the earth is young merely that the author can't believe that it's old because of this. Various evidences also talk about salt content in the seas, although it doesn't go into much detail about this, merely saying that "this is more consistent with young earth than old earth" or something similar.

Radiometric dating
One of the more common mantras among creationists is that radiometric dating is a flawed method. They will go on at lengths about assumptions and values being tweaked to their "expected" (i.e., old) values. Here, they claim that not only does this process work, but that it concludes the earth is young! However, if any of this had a actual impact on the age of the earth, the peer-reviewed journals would love to hear from them and they can then cite more than just creation.com as a source!

Astronomical evidence
This is another extensive section covering evidence based on astronomy. This covers more incredulity and lacks any specifics. Although in the case of moon recession, they seem to have done a calculation (who'd have thunk it), it uses numbers that are wholly unrealistic at best, and at worst, just wrong to the point where it constitutes outright fraud. They completely ignore the speed of light several times.

Human History
This section is thankfully brief. It is also easy to refute. It jumps from bad calculations to misunderstanding about fossilisation to just plain wrong.