[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

#1 Let us look to the sky in the night and see our celestial neighbor - the Moon...Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system theorized by evolution.

And 1,000,000% of the time claimed by Creationists.

#2 Oil Wells - When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. In other words, as time goes by the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't.

But the same is true if the claim is only "thousands of years".

#3 Our Friend the Sun - Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth.

Can you show the actual studies involving the rate of change? And whether the change is assumed to have always been constant?

#4 The Air We Breathe - Carbon-14 is produced when radiation from the sun strikes Nitrogen-14 atoms in the earth's upper atmosphere. The earth's atmosphere is not yet saturated with C14. This means that the amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying back to N14. It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years. Thus, it appears that the earth's atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old. In fact, the evidence suggests it is less than 10,000 years old.

The problem there is that Creation supporters also claim that C-14 dating is not valid, at least when applied to the age of fossils. Can you have it both ways?

#5 "Mother" Eve's DNA - In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago.This story was widely reported in the press. A few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported. This means that "Eve" did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000.

But existing hominid remains are estimated to be at least that old.

#6 Look at all the People - Today the earth's population doubles about every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population.

The growth rate is hardly static. It has been increasing steadily as well. It may have doubled in the last 50 years, and the 50 years before that, but the increase was much smaller between 1850 and 1900, and decreases the further back we go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

#7 The Dead Sea - The Dead Sea is in Israel. It is receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content. Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. From these it is possible to estimate how long this process has been going on for. Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old.

And the Great Salt Lake, where I live, was a freshwater inland sea until the wall collapsed dumping Lake Bonneville into the Pacific Ocean. Best estimates indicate that happened at least 100,000 years ago.

The problem isn't really with competing scientific theories, because Creationists disallow any testing of their 'theories'. Scientists admit that any theory can have flaws, and good ones welcome challenges and change. Creationists are bent only on proving that they are right, and refuse to examine any evidence to the contrary.

And I am neither. I just judge the arguments on their merits.