Billions of years news
Sometimes I wonder at the automatic derision and sneering by the media and the 'skeptics' at the young earth creationists. You would think they had worked it all out. That they had all the big answers.
Of course, if you do a bit of reading, you will know that this is very far from the case. For instance, lets take the big bang. It is supposedly the leading scientific theory of how the universe began, but what can it really tell us?
1) The universe started at a singularity.
Problem is, singularities are thermodynamic dead ends. So from the start, big bang theory has no explanation as to how a singularity suddenly 'exploded'.
2) Cosmic Inflation. The universe experienced a period of incredibly rapid expansion very early on.
Problem is, the cosmic inflationary period was invented to explain why the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was so uniform. It was an ad hoc explanation and there is evidence that seems to argue against it. And this is after the theory has been modified multiple times to explain other problems with it.
But it isn't just big bang. The whole idea of long ages seems to be fixed within their minds, but why? There is still no movement in this idea, yet we continue to have no answers to how soft tissue could last 65 million years. The evolutionists continue to blunder around trying to find some remarkable but unknown mechanism that would defy all they know about the degredation rates of organic substances.
It doesn't stop there either. Geological formations continue to be redating to younger dates, such as the Little Colorado Grand Falls. And if you read about it, you notice the scientists makes some very troubling statements such as "Dating Quaternary mafic volcanic materials has proven to be challenging in many cases,” they said. “K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are the most common dating methods, but results may be difficult to interpret because so little potassium is present in these rocks and because the rocks may also contain excess Ar from mantle or crustal sources." and "The question remains of how to decide what relative weight to apportion to each dating technique in trying to accurately define when the lava dam formed. Each technique includes its own set of assumptions and uncertainties.". Yep, we know these dating methods are problematic and they give different dates, so we need to work out the relative value of each to come up to the number we first thought of before dividing by our age.
Spiral galaxies are also giving long aged headaches....it seems that observational evidence indicates the inner sections should have wound up if they really had been there for billions of years.
And just as a bonus, continuing problems with moon dating are getting worse by the day (and I mean a literal 24 hour day). Scientists still can't work out how a cold moon still has geological activity after billions of years.
Yep. It doesn't matter what the observation. The continued clinging to billions of years is the one part of their model they will not fiddle with. It seems they have decided it must be true and therefore interpret all their data to try and reach that conclusion.