Alright Malchiah I looked again as you asked and respectfully I must say these are not interested in any contrary evidence as the arguments for a young Earth just ignore data that are contradictory to their preconceived notions.
Example #1
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
The Earth is Not Millions of Years Old
Evidence For a Young World
Dr. D Russel Humphreys
A dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. This booklet makes a great witnessing tool.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1
Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.
For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’.1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51.2
A. It has not been called into any question by Hubble data by any scientist that bases their interpretations on mathematical models. Calling into question elements of a theory does not disqualify a theory.
and
B. It ignores the physics of Black Holes entirely that are assumed to be the central gravitational element dominating galactic dynamics.
Black Hole theory now s considering classifying them into at least three distinct sub-groupings with Galactic Cores being of the kind called Super Black Holes.
The issues surrounding M51 are all about this developing astrophysics and the visual and now Chandra X-Ray detection data tend to support the more *conventional* physics and certainly not one of a shorter aged Universe.
I will skip Item #2 "Comets disintegrate too quickly" because I have already addressed some of it but also they are ignoring the potential accumulation that comets could theoretically accrue in their long period passage through the Oort Cloud analogous to how hail is formed in the upper reaches of a Cumulonimbus Cloud.
Anyway we are there are satellites en route to answer some of the real questions involved and perhaps we will have better data with which to draw conclusions soon.
BTW one problem I have with all of this is how the writers are quite obviously not interested in *not drawing a conclusion* until they have more data but are overtly too willing to make a leap of faith to fill in the void of missing data.
#3 Is nonsense and doesn't understand the whole idea of Continental drift, subsidence, submersion and emergence. Why are sea fossil from former sea bottom now in the middle of desserts?
#4 Is an arcane argument that ignores depends on various paleoclimate models and also soil chemistry and issues of rain fall, Ice Ages and run off rates.
Before taking on all of these loosely draw arguments individually I am going to switch approaches.
#5, #8
Really bad presumptions of physics and ignorance of tectonic evidence and principles
#6, #7 #9 #10, #11 #12 are very bad conclusions tenuously drawn from inconsistent applying and ignoring data as well as making false associations based on pre-drawn biased conclusions they are trying to prove are true rather than test for truth.
The last three are significantly spurious arguments all established to favor bias not serious analysis from the perspective of archeology. It treats as arguments idea like the rarity of skeletons as a powerful one when aside from th intentional destruction of ancient bones to meet mystical demand in pseudo medical superstitious medical remedy also ignores the fact that most conditions don't produce fossilized remains and also that animals and people ate the dead, scattering the bones when not engaging in ritual cremation.
Please take no offense but IMHO these arguments are specious and so blatantly biased as to be considered corrupt but exemplary of Seductive Reasoning designed to attract individuals with a predisposition to *believe* them.
I define Seductive Reasoning as an alternative Paradigm of logic when argument is designed to *convince* instead of *prove.*
This is especially obvious when considering the memetics of faith based systems that are structured around commonly shared *beliefs* rather than the more objectively (and stringently applied) based Scientific Method that builds upon a model of self correcting data/models intentionally subject to repeated periodic challenges to re-establish *credibility* for the degree of trust placed in it as *knowledge*.
so it's difficult for me to sort out fact from fiction. What do you think?
