Talk:Arguments for a recent creation

33 and 34 those features would only have begun to form AFTER the flood. Any surface feature of that sort is not useful in dating the earth, because they didnt exist for the full duration. Markr 23:29, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

First let me say that I think this article needs a lot of work, including making the point(s) of the list clearer. The purpose of such arguments is not to point out that various indicators give a date of 6,000 years (or thereabouts), but to point out that various indicators give dates that are incompatible with the secular dates. So when it says that the sodium in the sea would take 42 to 62 million years to accumulate, that doesn't mean that the oceans are 42 to 62 million years old; it means that there's likely something wrong with the secular date of 3,000 million years. So to the two you mention: true, they don't speak directly to the age of the Earth, but the secular claim would be that these things are much older than the biblical age of the Earth, and these arguments point out that there are real problems with the secular ages, so even in the case of these two examples, the evidence is consistent with a biblical view, not inconsistent with it. Philip J. Rayment 21:39, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Petrified Wood

Claim 30 contains two statements: "...a US patent now exists that is able to produce petrified wood rapidly." and "A mineralized sodium silicate solution for the application to wood has a composition causing it to penetrate the wood and jell within the wood so as to give it non-burning characteristics."

These two claims are talking about different things. There is a significant difference between "petrified wood" (fossilized wood that has literally turned to stone) and a solution that can "give the wood the non-burning characteristics of petrified wood." There is far more to "petrifying" wood than just giving it "non-burning characteristics."

I therefore claim Claim 30 is not encyclopedic. PaulBurnett 23:38, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Tree rings

The article says that "Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, can't be traced back more than some thousands of years." This claim is not true. In some cases tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years. [1] --JoeyJ (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2016 (EDT)

See tree rings don't show that the earth is more than about 6,000 years old: http://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology and http://www.icr.org/article/tree-rings-biblical-chronology/ and http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html Conservative (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2016 (EDT)

Merge with Counterexamples to an Old Earth?

Should this page be merged with Counterexamples to an Old Earth as they are two pages with the same purpose? FredericBernard (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2017 (EDT)

No, they should remain separate. This article ("Arguments for a recent creation") focuses on positive arguments for a young Earth (evidence in favor of it), while the "Counterexamples to an Old Earth" focuses on negative arguments (showing evidence against an old Earth). Yes, their purposes are essentially the same, but they accomplish their goals in two different ways, both of which are important. Showing that evolution and long ages are scientifically unsupported and that a young Earth is scientific.

I do think, however, that we should link the two articles to each other. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2017 (EDT)

OK, that makes sense. I linked the two articles as you suggested. FredericBernard (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2017 (EDT)

Merger with Young Earth

I request that this article be merged with the article: "Arguments for a Young Earth" Ethan Parmet (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2020 (EDT)