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