السلام عليكم ورحمة الله
قام عدد كبير من العلماء باننقاد طرق القياس الحالية التي تعطي أعمارا مليونية وبملايير السنين لكوكب الأرض والأحياء.
وحسب هؤلاء فانهم جربوا تلك الطرق على كائنات ماتت حديثا قأعطت تلك الطرق أعمارا بعشرات آلاف السنين لها .
وذكروا أن هناك 500طريقة قياس أخرى تعطي أعمارا مقدرة بآلاف السنين لم يتم تبنيها دون تقديم مبررات موضوعية.
وفي الحقيقة فان الأعمار المليونية الموغلة في القدم تتماشى مع فلسفة التطور .....
مقتطفات
ctually, the only real "evidence" for a billions of years old earth model is the fact that the philosophy of evolution requires it. That's why radiometric dating "discovers" the ages they do: they triangulate based on a few "knowns," none of which really are known at all:
They "know" that the solar system is about 4 billion years old -- based on the philosophy of evolution, which means they don't really know that.
They "know" that potassium, Carbon-14, or whatever element they're testing decays at a certain invariable rate -- except they don't know that at all. Decay rates can change, and they don't know if the rate changed or not. Also, they don't know if the amount of daughter material was originally zero.
Let's say you're doing Uranium/Lead testing. Uranium decays into lead, so you can accurately determine an artifact's age by calculating the amount of uranium and lead, then plugging those figures into an equation with the decay rate, right?
Well...
The ONLY way to ensure accuracy is to know the following:
How much daughter material (lead) was originally in the artifact? (They don't know! If X amount of lead in the artifact is assumed to ALL be decayed from uranium, when in fact some lead was already there, the artifact could test much older than it really is -- and with no way to tell whether your figures are accurate!)
Did the rate of decay remain constant? (They don't know! What if it accelerated? What if it slowed down?)
Based on these "facts," which are really assumptions, they measure the ratio of uranium to lead present in the artifact -- the only fact in this whole equation -- plug in their assumptions, and voila! Dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago! Right? Well...
What about human skulls and gold chains found in seams of coal? (Oops!) What about tree trunks running vertically through quot;millions of years" of sedimentation?
Here are a few other uncomfortable facts:
The age of the universe outside the solar system is calculated based on the distance and speed of star and galaxy recession -- but this method presupposes a "Big Bang," which is far from being scientifically established. Not to mention the fact that the distances and speeds are hotly contested.
NASA expected 54 feet of dust on the Moon, assuming a 5-billion-year age. Oops! They found only 13 feet at the Apollo 11 landing site, 2 to 3 feet at Luna 16, and 11.5 feet at Apollo 12.
The Poynting-Robertson effect slows down small particles in orbit and makes them fall into the sun. In only 2 billion years, all particles less than three inches across clear out to Jupiter's orbit should have been eliminated. Oops! There are huge quantities still out there (they show up during the Perseid meteor shower every August).
All short-term comets in the solar system should have been evaporated in 10,000 years or less. Oops! They haven't!
Here's the results of radiometric Moon-rock dating: Uranium/lead and thorium: from 3.36 to 28.1 billion years. Potassium/argon: 2.2 to 7 billion years. These figures are incompatible with each other and any known solar system aging model -- if radiometric dating is reliable, that is...
Living snails have been radiometrically dated by Carbon-14 to be 2,300 years old. A Hawaiian lava flow known to be less than 200 years old was dated at 3 billion years. New wood in growing tress has been dated at 10,000 years. Oops!
Sediment on the ocean floor is an average of 1/2 mile deep, or about 8.2 x 10/17th tons. Rate of deposition is 2.75 x 10/10th tons a year. Works out the oceans can't be more than 33 million years old, even if we stick with a uniform deposition rate. And a non-uniform deposition (caused by something such as a worldwide flood) could greatly reduce the time involved by speeding up deposition.
Oil and gas deposits are still under lots of pressure, even in porous rock. That pressure is known to bleed off, and it shouldn't be there anymore if the oil fields are more than a few thousand years old.
The only way fossilization occurs is if living tissue is suddenly cut off from air and subjected to great pressure. Scientists studying the topography surrounding Mount St. Helens therefore found fossilized layers of flora and fauna created by mudslides that they know are only 15 years old -- yet they almost exactly reproduce the "millions of years" of fossilization found elsewhere on earth.
Here's the "age" of Black Hills Granite, under different radiometric dating methods:
Sr/Rb = 1.16 billion years
U238/Pb206 = 1.68 billion
Pb207/Pb206 = 2.55 billion
(Which one is "right"?)
Reunion Island rocks tested similarly tested all the way from 100,000 years to 4.4 billion!
The earth's magnetic field decays exponentially, with a half-life of 1,400 years. Projecting in reverse, the earth's age comes out as -- surprise! -- 10,000 years or less.
There's a lot more (I'm just skimming my Anthro/Christo/Soter. notes from last semester). The reality is that very little evidence points to an old earth, but a lot of evidence points to a young earth, with a fossil layer caused by some sort of worldwide catastrophe.
Evolution started with the philosophy of "uniformitarianism," which says that all changes happened very, very slowly. No such thing as a worldwide catastrophe; can't be.
Except they have since needed to explain why the dinosaurs went extinct so suddenly. So now we have a worldwide nuclear winter caused by an asteroid hitting the earth. Worldwide changes in geography, topography, climate -- the works.
So why not a flood, which would do all the same things? Well, a flood is "unscientific" -- but a giant asteroid isn't! Huh?
I've carefully avoided mentioning the genealogical "proof" of the age of mankind, because counting "begats," as you put it, is not a very good method to determine passage of time. But it is very interesting that a lot of the scientific evidence points to a much younger earth than the evolutionists were (and still are) looking for, isn't it?
Bookmarks