I've been told two or three times by creationists that Lord Kelvin showed that the earth wasn't old enough for evolution. They used an argument along the lines of "if nuclear fission is keeping the earth warm then where is it? Why aren't we all dying of radioactive poisoning?". Talk about wanting to shout, "GET AN EDUCATION, UNDERSTAND THE EVIDENCE, *THEN* JOIN THE DEBATE!"
If you click on the hypertext link in that earlier post of mine you'll see one of Kelvin's arguments.
On one of the earlier crevo threads one of the pro-cre (presumably young Earth) made a series of bullet points in support of a young Earth. Several of the bullet points argued from direct linear extrapolation in time of observed physical processes, apparently dismissing or ignoring the possibility that the processes were cyclical, erratic, etc.
OTOH, Kelvin shows that there were / are reputable scientists who questioned the age of the Cosmos (apologies to Carl Sagan); the proper answer to that is to show how further study has specifically addressed those concerns. Science if done correctly builds on itself over time, so there is a greater base of knowledge. Stuff that used to be Nobel work is sometimes taught now to undergraduates...
Cheers!
Even Lord Kelvin, though, argued (without allowing for radioactivity) that the earth is much older (on the order of tens of millions of years) than Biblical literalism allows. Citing Kelvin doesn't do much for creationism at all (except provide another attempt to confuse people; but I guess that's what all creationism essentially does).
They used an argument along the lines of "if nuclear fission is keeping the earth warm then where is it? Why aren't we all dying of radioactive poisoning?".
Someone actually asked you that? (Every cinder block in your basement; every piece of coal burned in a power plant is a source of some radioactivity; most of it reabsorbed and emitted as heat...)
Marie Curie was a lifelong atheist. I guess that conveniently makes the theory of radioactivity bunk along with evolution.