(June 15, 2012 at 10:57 pm)Undeceived Wrote: I just discovered these:
http://www.examiner.com/article/grand-ca...tric-dates
http://www.icr.org/article/excessively-o...ava-flows/
If you examined a meta-study, you might find the dates inconsistent (depending on how much leeway you want to give scientists). The picture in the second link is especially interesting (edit: better color picture partway down http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...nas-basalt ). The higher layers are thin and flat. Old layers should be tilted, since pitch indicates erosion. No erosion = young. The higher layers must therefore have been laid down in rapid succession. How do you suppose that happened?
As for stars, their light may be evidence of age, but it is not where God is concerned. He made the stars for us to see. It is logical that the all-powerful Designer of the universe would create the light-trails too, rather than create a mass of rock and wait 14 billion years before adding humans. Or maybe he did, thereby reconciling modern science with Bible. Pick your poison.
These are the credentials of the author of your 'examiner' link:
Terry Hurlbut, Creationism Examiner
A serious student of politics and political philosophy since his Yale (1980) days, Terry A. Hurlbut analyzes current political events from the perspective of some of the finest political theorists of the Western world, from Locke to Paine to Tocqueville to Rand. He has been a resident of Essex...
Why should I consider Terry's opinion equal to that of geochronologists and geologists when it comes to the Grand Canyon?
You then provide links to the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis.
Scientists are not hell bent on proving a 4.5 billion year old Earth. This is simply what the data suggests. On the other hand, the ICR and AIG are hell bent on confirming a predetermined biblical age of 6-10 thousand years, despite what evidence suggests. Does the drastic difference in motive ever give you pause for thought? Seriously?!?
