Mercury

[a_haworthroberts]

The planet not the chemical element. YECs seem quite keen on it.

But how will they spin this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-envir ... t-26564521

[a_haworthroberts]

Sorry, the link went wrong somehow (and I seem to have lost the edit facility as well, though my computer may be to blame):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26564521
The article appeared on the Science-Environment section of the BBC News website earlier today, and concerns a 'shrinking' planet.

[a_haworthroberts]

The Nature Geoscience paper:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop ... o2097.html

[Brian Jordan]

How do the YECs make out that this slight, very slow shrinking supports a 6000 year old Universe Ashley? Have you any links to their Mercury-induced madness please?

[a_haworthroberts]

How do the YECs make out that this slight, very slow shrinking supports a 6000 year old Universe Ashley? Have you any links to their Mercury-induced madness please?

I'm not sure they make that precise argument. But I have seen many other YEC arguments flagging Mercury as refuting billions of years.

I've done a quick search. In his well-known '101 Evidences' article Don Batten claimed that "the presence of a significant magnetic field around Mercury is not consistent with its supposed age of billions of years". Another recent article on the CMI website started off by saying "Being the closest planet to the Sun, Mercury is subject to space weathering ... of extreme intensity so evolutionists anticipated Mercury would be “an old burned-out cinder”. But the evidence reveals otherwise, calling into question Mercury’s supposed age of millions of years". A 2011 article by Brian Thomas of the ICR concluded with "Mercury's active geology is the exact opposite of long-age predictions—but it is just what one would expect if Mercury is only thousands of years old".

[Brian Jordan]

Thanks Ashley. What more can one add, beyond "they would say that, wouldn't they?"?