Why am I a young earther if all science points to billions of years?

[Silverhair]

The Red Shift? It's the same as the Blue Shift and the Doppler Effect. All observable, testable, and provable. Just the expansion and/or compression of light waves or sound waves between two objects. Such as why does the pitch of a train change to your ear when it is coming towards you and when it passes by you. The Red Shift, in like manner but concerning light waves, proves the Universe is expanding for the hugely most part.

Radioactive decay? In terms of dating objects? I can only speak of what I understand.

It's very real. But misunderstood. Let's take Carbon-14 dating and radioactive decay. Regular carbon that you think of when you see the periodic table is Carbon-12. It has in the center of it as an atom - 6 protons and 6 neutrons. Hence, the 12. Carbon-14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons, hence the 14.

Carbon-12 is stable and is of no use for dating. Carbon-14 is UNstable, or radioactive and is used for dating fossils of only things that were once alive. Not rocks or the earth. It takes uranium for that.

It's complicated, but if one can find the ratio of the living creature's C-14 levels and it's own deceased fossil's level of Carbon-14, you could theoretically "date" it.

The problem. Hmmm.....knowing the ancient creature's, such as a T. Rex's Carbon-14 levels when it was alive. I believe that mankind was here with the dinosaurs, but mankind had no special knowledge of Carbon-14 and using it to age things.

So, what to do? Well, using the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the atmosphere is used. That does seem to be a constant in living things today as living things including plants get their Carbon-14 from eating and breathing.

But the real problem. Problematic enough to throw a monkey wrench in the works. Is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere REALLY a constant?

With the decay of the magnetic field which would affect the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, can we truly prove the constancy of C-14 from the beginning? It's enough of a question TO question C-14 dating.

And then there is the obvious and provable difference in the biosphere before and after the Great Flood. Animals were once HUGE! Now they are not. Something happened, whether you believe in a Great Flood or not to change the biosphere and ergo the amount of C-14 and C-12 in the atmosphere.

Those who have "proven" the T. Rex to have been here 65 million years ago, in my opinion, are using questionable ratios in their math problems.

Gotta hand it to those retired teachers, still know how to lay out the relevant information.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Gotta hand it to those retired teachers, still know how to lay out the relevant information.

I learned to do that by teaching science to 7th, 8th, and 9th grade and the Bible to Kindergarteners at church and 6th graders at a Christian school I was at for four years. If people don't understand what you are saying, whether a teacher, preacher, or parent - you might as well be speaking gibberish.

 

[Van]

I read the OP and loved it! The idea that Government manipulators require unproved theories to be taught as facts should result in voting the rascals out.

1) Man-mad global warming caused by burning fossil fuel?

2) The Oort Cloud as the source of long period comets?

3) The age of the earth, based on when it was formed from the pre-solar nebula at about 5 billion years?

4) The wet market as the source of the COVID pandemic.

Can you imagine what kids were taught about mountain formation before plate tectonics?

Science is based on provable theories. Pseudoscience is based on Government mandates to support Communism and Atheism.