They want everything to be explained by a literal interpretation of their religion. Such people want Earth to be only 6,000 years old. Here’s an example of how such people have tried to use science against itself to prove that they are correct about Earth being young:
We know from science that the moon has no atmosphere and that it is struck by meteorites and even micrometeorites all the time. Thus its surface should be churned up and loose, even powdery. If scientists are correct and the moon is very old, then the lunar regolith surface should be very deep indeed. But, we’ve put men on the moon and look! They didn’t sink up to their eyelids; they instead made only shallow footprints. The regolith is not deep! This proves that scientists are wrong about the moon having a great age. This shallow regolith was produced in only the last 6,000 years.
What is wrong with the logic of the “creationists”
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
dear oh dear, your're really not up with things are you.
The moon dust argument has not been used for many years by Creationists.
http://creation.com/moon-dust-argument-no-longer-u...
There are however very many (logical) reasons for believing the earth is young.
It is curious that most people accept assurances that the earth is old, despite the fact that most dating methods suggest the earth is young.
These methods range across many different scientific disciplines.
http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-univers...
The existence of short lived comets (they would not exist if the galaxy was old. The Oort cloud was invented to explain them, but has no observational support whatsoever.)
The recession of the moon. The moon is receding from the earth at about an inch each year. This puts an upper limit on the earth/moon system far less than 4.5 billion years.
The earth's magnetic field is decreasing, and has been measured for a hundred years of so. Extrapolating backwards puts a low upper limit on the age of life on earth. Life cannot survive in very high magnetic field.
Not enough salt in the sea. We can measure the inflow and outflow of salt. If the oceans had started with no salt they would have reached their current salinity in a short time.
The same method applies to dozens of other minerals too, not just salt.
Too much helium in rocks. Helium, being very light, escapes from rocks, yet is found in rocks alleged to be very ancient.
Too little helium in the upper atmosphere. This was pointed out in Nature as long ago as 1957.
Coal and diamonds contain carbon 14. Carbon 14 decays to immeasurable amounts in about 50000 years. Yet all coal and some diamonds (all alleged to be ancient) have been found to contain carbon 14.
Erosion. The average height reduction for all the continents of the world is about 60 mm (2.4 inches) per 1,000 years, which equates to some 24 billion tonnes of sediment per year
On the scale of one human life-span, these rates of erosion are low. But for those who say the continents are billions of years old, the rates are staggering. A height of 150 kilometres (93 miles) of continent would have eroded in 2.5 billion years. It defies common sense. If erosion had been going on for billions of years, no continents would remain on Earth.
This problem has been highlighted by a number of geologists who calculated that North America should have been levelled in 10 million years if erosion has continued at the average rate. This is a ridiculously short time compared with the supposed 2.5-billion-year age for the continents.
And there are many others: Saturn’s rings defy old age explanations; There are different types of stars, and according to evolutionary theory there are the wrong number of the different types; Mercury is the densest planet and according to evolutionary theory should not be where it is; Mercury has a magnetic field, contrary to evolutionary predictions; the sun has far too little angular momentum for old-age evolutionary theories.
Dinosaur bones, alleged to be millions of years old, have been found containing red blood cells – hardly 65 million years old! (this has been documented by secular scientists – see National Geographic for example).
Much evidence for age is clearly faulty, and often involves radiometric dating. Rock from Mt St Helens volcano was dated as millions of years old when it is known to be just decades.
http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-a...
Of course all dating methods rely on observations in the present and assumptions about the past. If there was one method indicating youth for every method indicating great age, then it would be reasonable to doubt the young earth methods. But there are 10 (or more) methods indicating youth for every method suggesting great age. One wonders why scientists not only ignore the majority of evidence, but actively suppress it.
I see nothing wrong with this logic. Using science to prove, or disprove a theory is something that scientists have been doing for ages. The problem you seam to have is that their premise disagrees with what you yourself think, so rather than providing an alternate explanation of the occurrence, simply attempt to call the logic flawed without providing a solid reasoning that the particular example is flawed.
This is not to say that Creationists are correct, but to explain how proving a point works, and the proper way to rebute it.
I don't even understand what difference it makes, if the Earth is 6000 years old or 6 billion years old.
We humans are still here regardless of the age of Earth, and will someday be gone, and we will become just a passing thing that happened once, during the lifetime of Earth, be it 6000 years or 6 billion years old.
Humans are the only ones concerned with the age of Earth. No other creature is. So we should be more like them, and not really care what the age of Earth is.
The surface is pretty powdery. You think you can't land on sand? I drove over the Imperial Dunes in California just last week.
The fact that their biblical interpretations contradict objective reality. The problem of course is that they are so certain their biblical interpretations are infallible (even though they conflict with the biblical understanding of most other Christians) that when such conflicts arise, they insist it is objective reality that must be wrong!
The fact that they want science to comply with their existing belief system is what is wrong with it. Real science is done with out bias, and conclusions are made from evidence.
Nothing. Atheist logic is the oxymoron.
Nothing
Genetics. They literally explain everything.
The fact that its crazy/been proven wrong?