Sorry FRiend, but there is no serious scientific evidence for recent formation of Earth's surface, and you can yourself see abundant evidence to the contrary any time you drive through mountains, or visit, for example, the Grand Canyon.
There you can see thousands of layers of sediments, layered down over hundreds of millions of years, and if you drill down underneath those you'd find thousands more layers, some going back billions of years.
Ages for these layers can be determined through multiple forms of radiometric dating, and pure common sense tells you they cannot be a mere few thousands of years old.
In Greenland and Antarctica there are ice formations whose layers can be counted, like tree-rings, and dated back hundreds of thousand, even millions of years.
And on and on... multiple methods for determining the age of the Universe show distant galaxies millions to billions of light years away, life cycles of stars show suns like ours evolve over billions of years...
So the list of scientific reasons for accepting a multi-billion year old Universe, Sun and Earth is very long.
By contrast, the list of genuine scientific reasons for suspecting an Earth a mere few thousands of years old is a null set.
But if there is some particular "evidence" for a "young Earth" you'd like to present here, let's see what you have.
Evo-loser dating schemes are basically all fubar. Try doing a google or youtube search on 'p38' and 'glacier girl' for the P38 which the Amalekites or Canaanites crash landed on the ice in Greenland 3400 years ago (at least according to Evo-loser dating schemes which figure one ice layer per year).
That's right, according to Evo-loser standards, that P38 was part of the Amalekite Air Force (AAF).
Amelekite Air force P38, circa 1400 BC. The plane should have been two or three feet under the ice surface and was found three or four hundred feet down, i.e. at a level corresponding to Old Testament times according to theory.
That’s pretty far-fetched BroJoeK - ice cores don not prove anything close to millions of years. You speak like one who has only lightly researched one side of the creation evolution debate.
Have you not read? Here are the first 11 indicators that not all natural clocks agree ~ and the majority differ vastly from the few evolution relies upon, but none are precise and accurate since we can neither prove starting conditions nor uniformity. From creation.com/age-of-the-earth...
=== Biological evidence for a young age of the earth ===
1. DNA in ancient fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
2. Lazarus bacteriabacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
3. The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author in Creation 30(4):4547,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendels Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147165, 2007.
4. The data for mitochondrial Eve are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
5. Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
6. Many fossil bones dated at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really?
7. Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen) are not consistent with their supposed age, but make more sense if the remains are young.
8. Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils dated at millions of years old, whereas complete racemization would occur in thousands of years.
9. Living fossilsjellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.
10. Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. Coelacanth, Wollemi pine and various index fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ageshow could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example? See The Lazarus effect: rodent resurrection!
11. The ages of the worlds oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.
Read more please but don’t ever forget historical ‘science’ is hysterical science ~ you can conjur almost anything since you can never repeat natural history using the scientific method.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe