Not metaphorical days though — that would make them Earth creationists — they actually believe that each of the biblical days corresponds to actual days, meaning that the entirety of existence was crafted in only 144 hours.
I would hope that anyone reading this would realize how insane this sounds.
In many cases it is quite difficult to prove whether one method is superior to another: and in this regard, the only way of doing so is to closely examine how each method works and try to find fault with it.
In regard to the radiometric dating of rocks, it is known that various different radiometric methods often yield quite discordant dates for the same rock, thus proving that they cannot all be correct.
Most autotrophs use sunlight in the process of photosynthesis to make..Photosynthesis is the name of the process by which autotrophs (self-feeders) convert water, carbon dioxide, and solar energy into sugars and oxygen.
It is a complex chemical process by which plants and..Isotopes are different "versions" of an element.
There are at least 67 different uniformitarian (the present is the key to the past) methods of dating the earth other than long-age radiometric dating: each of which yield ages of less than 500 million years.
Yet all these other science-based methods that point to a much younger age than 4.5 billion years for earth's age are ignored or rejected by evolution-believing people with degrees from college who apparently think that nobody (of importance) made them. Yet when asked why they reject all but the oldest science-based dating methods, the answer often given is that (they think) long-age radiometric dating is more reliable and that science settled the matter of the earth's age many years ago.
However, not as well known is the fact that such methods have a number of serious flaws -- which are usually glossed over, or ignored when writing on, or discussing this subject in public.What is less commonly known are any of the details of how the issue was settled: such as that the 4.5 billion year 'date' came from a single meteorite that was assumed to be the same age as the earth's core.And since this favored 'date' is the only one that's trumpeted by the media it is the only date that many assume to be correct.In this regard, pro-evolution scientists are very selective about which dates they accept and which ones they reject: such as any date that is contrary to the Geological Time Chart -- to which all radiometric dates must fall in line with.In this regard it should also be pointed out that for the theory of life from non-life, and/or from amoeba to jellyfish, to man to have any chance at all of being true, then the earth must be very old. can be summarized as follows: In other words, something in the past caused a significant amount of helium to build up inside these zircons (such as from a rapid decay episode of uranium), yet, in spite of the fact that helium has been observed to leak out readily from these zircons, it has not done so: simply because it hasn't had enough time to do so -- suggesting that the zircons themselves are only a few thousand years old."There is evidence to show ...