I note that you have failed to provide 15 recent dates, together with references, for the Amistoq Gneiss. Your side seems to be lacking data.
I assume you meant “Age of the Earth”, there is no “Age of the Universe” link. Reading the “
Age of the Earth” link we find a particularly egregious example of the usual farrago of creationist PRATTs:
1 - Star Clusters
2 - Large Stars
3 - High Energy Stars
4 - Binary Stars - All of these are the same argument, we see objects in the universe that are only a few hundred thousand or a few million years old. True. What your site uniformly fails to do is to show that those objects are as old as the universe, rather than younger than the universe. I can observe every human being on earth and none of them is over 200 years old. Does that mean that the earth is only 200 years old? Of course not. These arguments are equally ridiculous - didn’t you even check this rubbish before giving me the link?
5 - Hydrogen in the Universe - They quote Fred Hoyle against the Big Bang? What can I say, this is scientific illiteracy of the highest order. Fred Hoyle lost the argument between his Steady State universe and the Big Bang universe a long long time ago. The nail went in the coffin when Penzias and Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background in 1964. 1964! Forty five years ago. This is scientific ignorance of a very high order indeed. This is the scientific equivalent of quoting an alchemist in a chemistry argument. Complete and utter rubbish - this item is an insult to its readers.
6 - Solar Collapse -
Claim CE310: The incredible shrinking sun. More creationist misunderstanding of science. This site is really scraping the barrel here.
I am not going to bother with the rest, you can find most of them already refuted here:
Index to Creationist Claims. Your site is a caricature of laughably bad YEC misuse and misunderstanding of science. It is so bad that even Answers in Genesis disowns some of its arguments. Look at number 17, the Moon Dust argument. Here is what that hotbed of evolutionist atheism Answers in Genesis has to say about that argument:Only a thin layer of dust covers the moon’s surface. However, this does not prove a young age for the moon. Before the Apollo lunar missions, a few scientists had predicted that a yards-thick layer of dust should have settled on the moon over billions of years.
Those predictions got a lot of press, yet further satellite measurements of dust in space indicated a much smaller rate of accumulation than previously assumed. This does not mean the moon is billions of years old; modern scientists cannot know the rate of dust accumulation in the past or the amount of dust originally on the moon. Therefore moon dust cannot be used as an age indicator one way or the other.
Editor’s Note: During the 1960s and 1970s many creationists adopted the “moon dust” argument based on early calculations by some secular scientists, but more accurate information is now available.
Source: AiG -
Far Out Claims About Astronomy.
This point has been inaccurate for over thirty years, why is this website still promoting it? How do you expect to convince anyone with an argument that even Answers in Genesis rejects?
By now you should have some idea of the utter contempt I have for this appallingly bad website. It is a gross insult to anyone who reads it, whether creationist or not. If you use arguments from this site then you are going into battle armed with a peashooter. It is an excellent example of why I often accuse creationist websites of lying.
You have really shot yourself in the foot with this one.
rossum
, you sir are a thinker, of that there is no doubt.