What do any of you make of this? This is from one of my forum groups:

Age of the Universe


Have you ever wondered about the origin of the universe? Did it start with a whimper or a big bang? How old is the universe? Is it eternal or was it created out of nothing by nothing? And for good measure, how old is the planet on which we live?

Questions such as these are valid and demand careful attention because they provide important solutions to the great riddle of life. What is important is that these questions should be approached with an open mind instead of a predetermined judgment. We should follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Since the present popular evolutionary position is that the universe is 15 to 25 billion years old, we should check the evidence to see if this position is true. The following is a brief and partial list of some "puzzling" scientific facts which indicate the universe and the earth is not billions of years old. The evidence indicates that we should think in terms of thousands of years instead of billions of years.

I. The Top Soil Factor

It takes around a thousand years to produce one inch of top soil by the forces of erosion such as wind and rain. If the earth is billions of years old and the process by which top soil is created has been functioning all the time (i.e., uniformitarianism) there should be a thick layer of top soil on the earth's crust. But there is only an average depth of six to nine inches of top soil on the earth! This amount can only explain thousands of years of erosion. Where is the top soil created by billions of years of erosion? Where did it go?

II. The Ocean's Floor

Perhaps the vast amount of top soil created by billions of years of erosion has simply washed into the ocean and can be found in sedimentary deposits on its floor. If the earth is billions of years old and the erosion rate has been steady and of such a degree to explain where all the top soil went, the sediment at the bottom of the ocean should be miles deep. But the sediment on the ocean floor only has a 0.56 mile average thickness! This depth can only explain thousands of years and cannot represent billions of years of erosion. Where is the sediment created by billions of years of erosion. Where did it go?

III. Meteor Dust

When meteors collide with the earth's atmosphere they disintegrate into dust which settles on the earth's surface. Given the present rate at which meteor dust is settling on the earth, if the earth is billions of years old there should be at least fifty-four feet of meteor dust on the surface of the planet. Since the depths of top soil and ocean sediment do not contain billions of years of meteor dust, what happened to this dust? Where did it go?

IV. The Helium Factor

As radioactive materials disintegrate, helium is released as a by-product into the atmosphere. Given the present rate at which helium is released into the atmosphere, if the earth is billions of years old, there should be enough helium in the atmosphere to make us all talk like Donald Duck. There is only enough helium in the atmosphere to explain thousands of years. Where did the helium produced by billions of years go?

V. The Salty Sea

Given the present rate at which salt and other materials are being washed into the ocean, if the earth is billions of years old, what should be the concentration of salt in the earth's oceans? There is only enough salt in the ocean to explain thousands of years of erosion. The concentration of such minerals as nickel as well as salt in the earth's oceans would be many times greater if the earth were billions of years old. Where has all the billions of years of salt and other minerals gone?

VI. The Earth's Magnetic Field

The scientific evidence clearly indicates that the earth's magnetic field is decaying. With an understanding of the second law of Thermodynamics, this should be expected. Given the present rate of decay, if the earth were billions of years old, the earth's magnetic field would have passed into nonexistence long ago. If the earth is billions of years old, why does it still have a magnetic field?

VII. Moon Dust

The vehicles prepared for landing on the moon were equipped with special snow shoes because it was assumed that if the moon was billions of years old there should be an incredibly thick layer of dust on the moon created by such things as meteor impact. They discovered only one-fourth of an inch of dust on the moon! This amount of dust can account for only thousands of years. If the moon is billions of years old, where did all the dust accumulated during this time go?

VIII. The Shrinking Sun

The sun is shrinking as its energy is flung into the galaxy. Given the present rate of shrinkage, if the sun is billions of years old, it should have disappeared by now. Or, if the sun is billions of years old, in order for it to have shrunk down to the size it is now, it would have been at the beginning so big that it would have engulfed the space now occupied by most of the planets in this galaxy. If this is true, then where did the planets come from?

IX. Active Volcanoes

Since the earth's moon is a dead world with no active volcanoes, it was assumed that this meant that the moon was billions of years old. It was also assumed that no moons would have active volcanoes. The evidence is now clear that at least one of the moons of Jupiter has active volcanoes. Does not this fact indicate that the assumption of the necessity of billions of years of the age of the universe is erroneous? As a matter of fact, if the universe is billions of years old, why and how should any planet or moon have active volcanoes?

X. The Rings of Saturn

If the universe is billions of years old, we must assume that the rings of Saturn are of this age. Given the rate of orbital and structural decay, if the rings of Saturn are billions of years old, they should have collapsed and blurred into one vast confusion. Yet the rings are so distinct that over a thousand of them can be counted and some of them look as if they were braided by twisting around each other. Given the laws of physics, the rings must be viewed as young and not old. If the rings are billions of years old, why are they clear and distinct?

Conclusion

These are ten puzzling scientific facts which will lead any open-minded person to the conclusion that the universe is a lot younger than billions of years old. We should not let the religious prejudice of the evolutionists force us to accept their doctrines by a blind leap of faith when the scientific evidence does not correspond to their theories.

And, the guy who posted it added this:

I found this on some website. I figured you followers of the church of evolution would enjoy the chance to refute it.

Thoughts?

I-III are explained by plate tectonics.
IV doesn't take into account gas retention laws.
VI is based on an incorrect view of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and an incorrect understanding of the way the earth's magnetic field varies over time.
VII - apparently, the guy's never heard of "breccia"
IX takes an appallingly simplistic view of the mechanism behind vulcanism.
X is based on a flat-out incorrect figure for the age of Saturn's rings - they're estimated at around 3 million years of age.

I can't remember the answer to V off-hand. At a guess, the salt binds to various minerals and is "recycled" through plate tectonics. VIII I've never even heard of - sure, the sun's shrinking, but it has plenty of life left in it. I daresay the poster exaggerated.

So in conclusion - nothing to see, move along.

__________________
"We do not require reality to conform to the expectations of the ignorant"

Even most creationists say the Moon dust argument is invalid.

Otherwise, talkorigins is your friend:

I. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD620.html
II. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD220.html
III. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE020.html
IV. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE001.html
V. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221.html
VI. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html
VII. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html
VIII. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html
IX. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE230.html
X. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE240.html

The creationists have zero new arguments, even though some come up with the same old ones as if they'd just thought of them themselves.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

The Big Bang idea of Lemaitre was based on a wrong interpretation of the Genesis (Bereschit bara Elohim et hashamaim we et haarec). He translated it simply and thought that everything (space, time, energy, matter) started one time from zero point singularity and there was nothing before.

According to Jewish interpretation of this Jewish words was there an unlimited light (the Will) in an unlimited space. Our Observable Universe begun when God’s said an information and set a boundary for Its light and made an empty space. This empty space with a light around was Reschit - a begin of our Observable Universe. A word for day (yom) is not 24 hour - it is just a period of a history.

You can read – www.geocities.com/genesiscommentary . The rabbinical commentaries even say, that Universe may be a part of the God a Creator.
A whirlwind of the energy (hashamaim) is covering and warming the transformed inside matter (haarec).

That way is it fruitless to hold a theory that everything was created from a point in one day (24 hour ur longer).

I-III - What a fantastic misunderstanding of entropy and basic chemistry. Apparently topsoil may be "created" out of thin air, and remains unused, unrecycled, and unaffected by pressure beyond a certain depth ("peat" and "Texas Tea" come to mind).

IV - By the same rationale, all the creatures on Earth should've burned up in a great blaze thousands of years ago, due to all of the oxygen in the crust.

V - Salt may be broken down, deposited, or reabsorbed. "Why is there fresh water" easily kills this argument. As for nickel in the Earth's oceans, see my response to I-III above.

VI - It is not decaying, merely in flux. Just like the sun, just like the Moon.

VII - This is a lie. The Apollo astronauts neither worried about, nor prepared for such a contingency.

VIII - This is patently idiodic, and more than enough to discredit his "science". The sun is not made of whale-oil, and fuels its furnace via nuclear fusion, an altogether different energy. The "shrinkage" is due less to photon loss, and more to conversion of hydrogen to helium. How does the author explain old stars going supernovae ?

IX - Because... huh ? Volcanoes suddenly must be present on every pseudo-planetary body ? Perhaps the author ought to consider the relative masses of the two planets and the moons in question.

X - The Cassini satellite is less than 10 years old, and it is a "new" satellite of Saturn, yet I don't hear that as an argument that Saturn too is only 10 years old. The age of the rings might be less than several million years old, but that hardly explains the age of the planet. Also, who is to say that all of the comets and meteors responsible for seeding particles in Questions #III and #VII aren't working in a similar manner ??

------

Creationists ought to stick to the "Pat Robertson's mind is so keen that it could not possibly have arisen from a monkey's by chance" argument. It has waaaaay more credence.

Big question for them would be, "What does any of this have to do with evolution?"

My thoughts are that you have picked up a scrap of troll bait. It is so contrived and so far off, it is not even worth a response.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

It all comes back to the Age of the Earth...some creationist believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old and God made it in literally 6 day. If they can show the earth is only thousands of years old that would disprove evolution Most who believe this did not do very well in science.

We have a big problem in this country far beyond, but intricatly tied to this very issue. This ideology of the fundementalists is the greatest threat this nation (USA) has ever known. Well, I will stop here..it is freightening.

I understand why they think disproving the earth is billions of years old would help disprove evolution but why do they call biologists to task. They make all these claims that really pertain to geology and volcanology. I guess it just shows how ignorant people can be. They dont even know what they are trying to fight. We never hear of the church of geology or volcanology.

I agree its very scary.

Funny I've seen all of these arguments written much better, to the point some of them had me actually have to go look up to re-prove to myself the science they are ignoring. What I find most amusing about this list is that they start by saying "these questions should be approached with an open mind instead of a predetermined judgment" yeah no predetermined judgment like all conclusions to every question is already written in the bible.

__________________
The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.
--Isaac Asimov