**Young Earth Age Correlations**

**Helium Diffusion Dating**

Helium diffusion dating gives an age of ~6,000 years +/- 2,000 for some of the earths oldest precambrian basement rocks.

http://creationwiki....elium_diffusion

Every possible counter argument has been taken into account including a colder origin of basement rocks, contamination, etc. and can be seen in a video in the following thread:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=28586

**MTdna Eve**

Measuring the mutation rate of Mtdna and comparing it to the total number of mutations gives an age for Mtdna Eve of ~6,500 years ago.

http://creationwiki....tochondrial_Eve

**Carbon 14 in fossils**

Every 57,100 years the 14C/C ratio decreases by a factor of 1,000. A 200,000-year-old specimen should have a present 14C/C ratio of 0.000 000 031 pmc or less. By the time we get back to 300,000 years, a sample should have less than one atom of carbon-14 in a gram of carbon as residual activity.3 This means that one million-year-old samples, or 350 million-year-old samples, should have no residual radiocarbon.

Fossil ammonites from lower Cretaceous mudstones in northern California, which are supposedly 112Ã¢â‚¬â€œ120 million years old and biostratigraphic index fossils, were sampled along with fossil wood buried with them. Fragments of two fossil ammonite shells and four pieces of fossil wood yielded easily measurable radiocarbon (14C) equivalent to apparent 14C ages of between 36,400Ã‚Â±350 and 48,710Ã‚Â±930 years for the ammonites, and between 32,780Ã‚Â±230 and 42,390Ã‚Â±510 years for the wood. Any contamination with modern 14C due to the sample environment and handling was eliminated by the laboratoryÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s severe pre-treatment procedure. Any alleged contamination due to sample combustion or AMS instrument background was more than compensated for by the laboratory background of 0.077 pMC already having been subtracted from the reported results. The ammonite shells could not have been contaminated in the ground by replacement with modern carbonate 14C either, because they yielded almost identical 14C apparent ages as the wood buried and fossilized with them. It was concluded that the measured 14C is in situ radiocarbon intrinsic to the ammonites and wood when they were buried and fossilized. So once past conditions in the atmosphere and biosphere are taken into account, their true ages are consistent with their burial during the Genesis Flood only about 4,300 years ago, when the ocean waters washed sediments and ammonites onto the continents.

http://www.answersin.....bon-ages-for-...

**Helium in the atmosphere**

Air is mainly nitrogen (78.1%) and oxygen (20.1%). There is much less helium (0.0005%). But this is still a lot of heliumÃ¢â‚¬â€3.71 billion tonnes. However, since 67 grams of helium escape from the earthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s crust into the atmosphere every second, it would have taken about two million years for the current amount of helium to build up, even if there had been none at the beginning. Evolutionists believe the earth is over 2,500 times olderÃ¢â‚¬â€4.5 billion years. Of course, the earth could have been created with most of the helium already there, so two million years is a maximum age. (It could easily be much younger, such as 6,000 years in age.)

http://www.answersin...3/old_earth.asp

**Decay of the earths magnetic field**

The earthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.

http://www.answersin...i2/magnetic.asp

**Population growth indicates a young earth**

To work out how quickly a population can grow, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s very important to understand exponential growth. Starting from eight people after the Flood, the population would have to double only 30 times to reach 8.6 billion. Now there is a well-known Ã¢â‚¬ËœRule of 72Ã¢â‚¬â„¢, which says divide 72 by the percentage growth rate to get the time required for doubling.* E.g. if inflation is 8% p.a., then in 72/8 = 9 years, the cost of living will have doubled.

So what is a realistic growth rate? The EncyclopÃƒÂ»dia Britannica claims that by the time of Christ, the worldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s population was about 300 million. It apparently didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t increase much up to AD 1000. It was up and down in the Middle Ages because of plagues etc. But may have reached 800 million by the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1750Ã¢â‚¬â€an average growth rate of 0.13% in the 750 years from 1000Ã¢â‚¬â€œ1750. By 1800, it was one billion while the second billion was reached by 1930Ã¢â‚¬â€an average growth rate of 0.53% p.a. This period of population growth cannot be due to improved medicine, because antibiotics and vaccination campaigns did not impact till after WWII. From 1930 to 1960, when the population reached three billion, the growth rate was 1.36 % p.a. By 1974, the fourth billion was reached, so the average growth rate was 2.1% from 1960 to 1974. From 1974 to 1990, when the mark hit five billion, the growth rate had slowed to 1.4%. The increase in population growth since WWII is due to fewer deaths in infancy and through disease.

If the average growth rate were a mere 0.4 %, then the doubling time would be 180 years. Then after only 30 doublings or 5400 years, the population could have reached over eight billion.

If you want something more rigorous, there are standard mathematical formulÃƒÂ» that can be used to calculate population growth. They must include birth and death rates as well as generation time. The simplest formula involves just a constant growth rate:

N = N0 (1 + g/100)t

where N is the population, N0 is the initial population, g is the percentage growth rate per year, and t is the time in years. Applying this formula to the population of eight surviving the Flood, and assuming a constant growth rate of 0.45% p.a. and 4500 years:

N = 8 (1.0045)4500 = 4.8 billion people.

Of course, the population growth hasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t been constant, and would have been very fast just after the Flood. Thus this formula by itself cannot be used to prove a young earth. Look up the website article Young World EvidenceÃ¢â‚¬â€there is a section on populationÃ¢â‚¬â€if the worldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s population had been in the millions for 100,000 years, then where are all their bodies?

http://www.answersin...rg/docs/537.asp

Enjoy.