Slide 3 of 25

Notes:

I've been collecting such data for 25 years. I know of only a few dozen processes — radiologic dating, etc. — which seem to favor a world billions of years old The news media have popularized such processes, and you can find them listed in many books.

But I know of over over a hundred processes favoring a young world, and I suspect that my list is far from complete. Other creationist scientists keep adding things I haven't thought of. So I suspect that if we put everybody's lists together there would be at least 200 items.

So only a few dozen out of several hundred processes suggest the world is billions of years old; most of the processes suggest an age much less than that.

How do we resolve the conflict between "old" and "young" data? It makes more sense scientifically to start off with the hypothesis that the majority of the data ("young") is correct taken at face value, and then try to understand the minority of data ("old").

I want to concentrate on the 90 % and barely touch on the 10%.

But there is one important thing you need to understand about all of these processes ...

---

Evidence for a Young World
D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.