My first post & my first questions:
How old is the earth?
How old is the universe?
How old are the other objects in the solar system?
I would say about 6000 years or so to all 3 questions. I base this primarily on the Bible.
Why do you choose to reject the science that says the earth is 4.6 billion years old and the universe is 13.9 billion?
Not having a go or anything, I am merely curious as to why. On one side you have what is effectively a story book, and the other you have decades of scientific, peer reviewed and accurate experiments, data and observation.
Thank you for asking. I'll try to answer this in the best way possible. I guess the main reason why I reject the idea that the earth and universe is billions of years old is that these vast ages are based in circular reasoning and unfounded assumptions. For instance, the vast geologic-age system had been completely worked out in the 19th century before radiometric dating was discovered. Scientists had assumed that evolution was true to begin with and basically imposed vast ages of time to the fossils(without any scientific dating) in the geologic column.
Then when the radiometric system was discovered in the 20th Century, they used that method to "confirm" their assumed vast ages. But there are a number of problems with this method of dating. There is the assumption that the radioactive decay rates have always been the same. That is not reasonable for no one has been around long ago to witness and measure the decay rates throughout the entire history of the universe. For all we know, the decay rate could have been much faster in the past.
Then there is the assumption that at the beginning of the Universe, there were only "parent" elements and no "daughter" elements. Then they say because of the fact that we now see the "daughter" elements in the minerals and the fact that these are the result of the long half lifes of the parent element, then therefore the earth is tremendously old. But for all we know, there may have been both "parent" and "daughter" elements present at the beginning of the Universe,thus nullifying the vast ages. This at least puts the whole system in question.
I could go into the positive evidences which seem to point strongly for a young universe,but I'll list just one due to time constraints. Take for instance the Chemical composition of the sea. If one divides the amount of a given chemical in the ocean by the average annual inflow of that chemical into the ocean, then a relatively young age of the earth is given as a result. The results vary from as little as 100 years for aluminum to 45 million years for magnesium.
On top of that,the rates of influx of most chemicals were probably greater in the past, because the rivers carried more water and the continents were higher and more easily eroded. This would reduce all age estimates for these certain chemicals. There are many more evidences(about 100) which strongly point to a young earth.It doesnt necessarily prove it, but as I am a Christian(no intention in getting into a debate about religion here) I go with what the Bible says about the age of the universe as my final authority(the same Bible which teaches a flat stationary earth).Anyway,hope this helps,didn't mean to write a flippin' book in response, but oh well.