There is much debate, or maybe none in your worldview, concerning the age of the Earth. Evolutionists claim the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old. Creationists claim it to be no more than 10,000 years old and probably closer to 6500. Why do creationists and evolutionists disagree so drastically on this? We can assume that one of us isn't using science to back up our claim, instead using a dogma of ideology to support our position. But which one of us if being the religious zealot?
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. In other words, as time goes by the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps that's because all of our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood, about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left.
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it does seem a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests.
The Dead Sea is in Israel. It receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content. Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. From these it is possible to estimate how long this process has been going on for. Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old.
Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population.
One evolutionist Nobel prize winner admitted at a symposium that when the sample matched their assumption they would include it in their writings. When there was some marginal error, they would add a footnote. When the sample was way off, they would exclude it completely. Does this sound like someone who relies on scientific data for their findings, or does it sound more like a zealot who will extrapolate from the evidence to support their ideology?