Age of the earth
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
Published: 4 June 2009(GMT+10)
There are many categories of evidence for the age of the earth and the cosmos that indicate they are much younger than is generally asserted today.
Can science prove the age of the earth?
No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called ‘clocks’ they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the ‘clock’ has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.
There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now. And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all (see below).
No scientific method can prove the age of the earth or the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here.
Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism. If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.
Examples of young ages listed here are also obtained by applying the same principle of uniformitarianism. Long-age proponents will dismiss this sort of evidence for a young age of the earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases. In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past.
The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all suggest much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning those accepted ages (currently 13.77 billion years for the universe and 4.543 billion years for the solar system).
Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend.
When the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a young age of the earth.
Many of these indicators for younger ages were discovered when creationist scientists started researching things that were supposed to ‘prove’ long ages. The lesson here is clear: when the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a younger age of the earth. On the other hand, some of the evidences listed here might turn out to be ill-founded with further research and will need to be modified. Such is the nature of science, especially historical science, because we cannot do experiments on past events (see “It’s not science”).
Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events. The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos. See The Universe’s Birth Certificate and Biblical chronogenealogies (technical). In the end we believe that the Bible will stand vindicated and those who deny its testimony will be confounded.
Biological evidence for a young age of the earth
- 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.
- Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
- 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):45–47,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., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.
- The data for ‘mitochondrial Eve’ are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
- 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.
- 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? Tubes of marine worms, ‘dated’ at 550 million years old, that are soft and flexible and apparently composed of the original organic compounds hold the record (original paper).
- Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen, histones) and DNA are not consistent with their supposed more than 65-million-year age, but make more sense if the remains are thousands of years old (at most).
- 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.
- Living fossils—jellyfish, 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.
- 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 ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example? See The ‘Lazarus effect’: rodent ‘resurrection’!
- The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.
- Scarcity of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See Origins 21(1):51–56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an ‘era’ buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years.
- Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the Kaibab upwarp in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood. See Warped earth (written by a geophysicist).
- Polystrate fossils—tree trunks in coal (Araucaria spp. king billy pines, celery top pines, in southern hemisphere coal). There are also polystrate tree trunks in the Yellowstone fossilized forests and Joggins, Nova Scotia and in many other places. Polystrate fossilized lycopod trunks occur in northern hemisphere coal, again indicating rapid burial / formation of the organic material that became coal.
- Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
- Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.
- Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.
- Evidence for rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds speaks against the hundreds of millions of years normally claimed for this, including Z-shaped seams that point to a single depositional event producing these layers.
- Evidence for rapid petrifaction of wood speaks against the need for long periods of time and is consistent with an age of thousands of years.
- Clastic dykes and pipes (intrusion of sediment through overlying sedimentary rock) show that the overlying rock strata were still soft when they formed. This drastically compresses the time scale for the deposition of the penetrated rock strata. See, Walker, T., Fluidisation pipes: Evidence of large-scale watery catastrophe, Journal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):8–9, 2000.
- Para(pseudo)conformities—where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a ‘flat gap’. E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time). The thick Schnebly Hill Formation (sandstone) lies between the Coconino and Hermit in central Arizona. See Austin, S.A., Grand Canyon, monument to catastrophe, ICR, Santee, CA, USA, 1994 and Snelling, A., The case of the ‘missing’ geologic time, Creation 14(3):31–35, 1992.
- The presence of ephemeral markings (raindrop marks, ripple marks, animal tracks) at the boundaries of paraconformities show that the upper rock layer has been deposited immediately after the lower one, eliminating many millions of years of ‘gap’ time. See references in Para(pseudo)conformities.
- Inter-tonguing of adjacent strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years also eliminates many millions of years of supposed geologic time. The case of the ‘missing’ geologic time; Mississippian and Cambrian strata interbedding: 200 million years hiatus in question, CRSQ 23(4):160–167.
- The lack of bioturbation (worm holes, root growth) at paraconformities (flat gaps) reinforces the lack of time involved where evolutionary geologists insert many millions of years to force the rocks to conform with the ‘given’ timescale of billions of years.
- The almost complete lack of clearly recognizable soil layers anywhere in the geologic column. Geologists do claim to have found lots of ‘fossil’ soils (paleosols), but these are quite different to soils today, lacking the features that characterize soil horizons; features that are used in classifying different soils. Every one that has been investigated thoroughly proves to lack the characteristics of proper soil. If ‘deep time’ were correct, with hundreds of millions of years of abundant life on the earth, there should have been ample opportunities many times over for soil formation. See Klevberg, P. and Bandy, R., CRSQ 39:252–68; CRSQ 40:99–116, 2003; Walker, T., Paleosols: digging deeper buries ‘challenge’ to Flood geology, Journal of Creation 17(3):28–34, 2003.
- Limited extent of unconformities (unconformity: a surface of erosion that separates younger strata from older rocks). Surfaces erode quickly (e.g. Badlands, South Dakota), but there are very limited unconformities. There is the ‘great unconformity’ at the base of the Grand Canyon, but otherwise there are supposedly ~300 million years of strata deposited on top without any significant unconformity. This is again consistent with a much shorter time of deposition of these strata. See Para(pseudo)conformities.
- The amount of salt in the world’s oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah’s Flood, which is consistent with a young age of the earth.
- The discovery that underwater landslides (‘turbidity currents’) travelling at some 50 km/h can create huge areas of sediment in a matter of hours (Press, F., and Siever, R., Earth, 4th ed., Freeman & Co., NY, USA, 1986). Sediments thought to have formed slowly over eons of time are now becoming recognized as having formed extremely rapidly. See for example, A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow (Technical).
- Flume tank research with sediment of different particle sizes show that layered rock strata that were thought to have formed over huge periods of time in lake beds actually formed very quickly. Even the precise layer thicknesses of rocks were duplicated after they were ground into their sedimentary particles and run through the flume. See Experiments in stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures, Sedimentation Experiments: Nature finally catches up! and Sandy Stripes Do many layers mean many years?
- Observed examples of rapid canyon formation; for example, Providence Canyon in southwest Georgia, Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington, and Lower Loowit Canyon near Mount St Helens. The rapidity of the formation of these canyons, which look similar to other canyons that supposedly took many millions of years to form, brings into question the supposed age of the canyons that no one saw form.
- Observed examples of rapid island formation and maturation, such as Surtsey, which confound the notion that such islands take long periods of time to form. See also, Tuluman—A Test of Time.
- Rate of erosion of coastlines, horizontally. E.g. Beachy Head, UK, loses a metre of coast to the sea every six years.
- Rate of erosion of continents vertically is not consistent with the assumed old age of the earth. See Creation 22(2):18–21.
- Existence of significant flat plateaux that are ‘dated’ at many millions of years old (‘elevated paleoplains’). An example is Kangaroo Island (Australia). C.R. Twidale, a famous Australian physical geographer wrote: “the survival of these paleoforms is in some degree an embarrassment to all the commonly accepted models of landscape development.” Twidale, C.R. On the survival of paleoforms, American Journal of Science 5(276):77–95, 1976 (quote on p. 81). See Austin, S.A., Did landscapes evolve? Impact 118, April 1983.
- The recent and almost simultaneous origin of all the high mountain ranges around the world—including the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rockies—which have undergone most of the uplift to their present elevations beginning ‘five million’ years ago, whereas mountain building processes have supposedly been around for up to billions of years. See Baumgardner, J., Recent uplift of today’s mountains. Impact 381, March 2005.
- Water gaps. These are gorges cut through mountain ranges where rivers run. They occur worldwide and are part of what evolutionary geologists call ‘discordant drainage systems’. They are ‘discordant’ because they don’t fit the deep time belief system. The evidence fits them forming rapidly in a much younger age framework where the gorges were cut in the recessive stage / dispersive phase of the global Flood of Noah’s day. See Oard, M., Do rivers erode through mountains? Water gaps are strong evidence for the Genesis Flood, Creation 29(3):18–23, 2007.
- Erosion at Niagara Falls and other such places is consistent with just a few thousand years since the biblical Flood. However, much of the Niagara Gorge likely formed very rapidly with the catastrophic drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz; see: Climate change, Niagara and catastrophe.
- River delta growth rate is consistent with thousands of years since the biblical Flood, not vast periods of time. The argument goes back to Mark Twain. E.g. 1. Mississippi—Creation Research Quarterly (CRSQ) 9:96–114, 1992; CRSQ 14:77; CRSQ 25:121–123. E.g. 2 Tigris–Euphrates: CRSQ 14:87, 1977.
- Underfit streams. River valleys are too large for the streams they contain. Dury speaks of the “continent-wide distribution of underfit streams”. Using channel meander characteristics, Dury concluded that past streams frequently had 20–60 times their current discharge. This means that the river valleys would have been carved very quickly, not slowly over eons of time. See Austin, S.A., Did landscapes evolve? Impact 118, 1983.
- Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also.
- The amount of sediment on the sea floors at current rates of land erosion would accumulate in just 12 million years; a blink of the eye compared to the supposed age of much of the ocean floor of up to 3 billion years. Furthermore, long-age geologists reckon that higher erosion rates applied in the past, which shortens the time frame. From a biblical point of view, at the end of Noah’s Flood lots of sediment would have been added to the sea with the water coming off the unconsolidated land, making the amount of sediment perfectly consistent with a history of thousands of years.
- Iron-manganese nodules (IMN) on the sea floors. The measured rates of growth of these nodules indicates an age of only thousands of years. Lalomov, A.V., 2006. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66.
- The age of placer deposits (concentrations of heavy metals such as tin in modern sediments and consolidated sedimentary rocks). The measured rates of deposition indicate an age of thousands of years, not the assumed millions. See Lalomov, A.V., and Tabolitch, S.E., 2000. Age determination of coastal submarine placer, Val’cumey, northern Siberia. Journal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):83–90.
- Pressure in oil / gas wells indicate the recent origin of the oil and gas. If they were many millions of years old we would expect the pressures to equilibrate, even in low permeability rocks. “Experts in petroleum prospecting note the impossibility of creating an effective model given long and slow oil generation over millions of years (Petukhov, 2004). In their opinion, if models demand the standard multimillion-years geochronological scale, the best exploration strategy is to drill wells on a random grid.” —Lalomov, A.V., 2007. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66.
- Direct evidence that oil is forming today in the Guaymas Basin and in Bass Strait is consistent with a young earth (although not necessary for a young earth).
- Rapid reversals in paleomagnetism undermine use of paleomagnetism in long ages dating of rocks and speak of rapid processes, compressing the long-age time scale enormously.
- The pattern of magnetization in the magnetic stripes where magma is welling up at the mid-ocean trenches argues against the belief that reversals take many thousands of years and rather indicates rapid sea-floor spreading as well as rapid magnetic reversals, consistent with a young earth (Humphreys, D.R., Has the Earth’s magnetic field ever flipped? Creation Research Quarterly 25(3):130–137, 1988).
- Measured rates of stalactite and stalagmite growth in limestone caves are consistent with a young age of several thousand years. See also articles on limestone cave formation.
- The decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Exponential decay is evident from measurements and is consistent with theory of free decay since creation, suggesting an age of the earth of only thousands of years. For further evidence that it follows exponential decay with a time constant of 1611 years (±10) see: Humphreys, R., Earth’s magnetic field is decaying steadily—with a little rhythm, CRSQ 47(3):193–201; 2011.
- Excess heat flow from the earth is consistent with a young age rather than billions of years, even taking into account heat from radioactive decay. See Woodmorappe, J., 1999. Lord Kelvin revisited on the young age of the earth, Journal of Creation (TJ) 13(1):14, 1999.
- Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
- Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
- Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
- Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work. See: Objections.
- Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
- Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).
- Demonstrably non-radiogenic ‘isochrons’ of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron ‘dating’ that gives billions of years. ‘False’ isochrons are common.
- Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different ‘ages’ undermine all ‘dates’ obtained from zircons.
- Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
- The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, Chapter 2 (pages 25–100) in: Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Volume II, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2005.
- Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296).
- Pleochroic halos produced in granite by concentrated specks of short half-life elements such as polonium suggest a period of rapid nuclear decay of the long half-life parent isotopes during the formation of the rocks and rapid formation of the rocks, both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time and a vast age of the earth. See, Radiohalos: Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes, Creation 28(2):46–50, 2006.
- Squashed pleochroic halos (radiohalos) formed from decay of polonium, a very short half-life element, in coalified wood from several geological eras suggest rapid formation of all the layers about the same time, in the same process, consistent with the biblical ‘young’ earth model rather than the millions of years claimed for these events.
- Australia’s ‘Burning Mountain’ speaks against radiometric dating and the millions of years belief system (according to radiometric dating of the lava intrusion that set the coal alight, the coal in the burning mountain has been burning for ~40 million years, but clearly this is not feasible).
- Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth’s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old. See: Transient lunar phenomena: a permanent problem for evolutionary models of Moon formation and Walker, T., and Catchpoole, D., Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe, Creation 31(3):18, 2009. See further corroboration: “At Long Last, Moon’s Core ‘Seen’”; http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/at-long-last-moons-core-seen.html
- Recession of the moon from the earth. Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age.
- The moon’s former magnetic field. Rocks sampled from the moon’s crust have residual magnetism that indicates that the moon once had a magnetic field much stronger than earth’s magnetic field today. No plausible ‘dynamo’ hypothesis could account for even a weak magnetic field, let alone a strong one that could leave such residual magnetism in a billions-of-years time-frame. The evidence is much more consistent with a recent creation of the moon and its magnetic field and free decay of the magnetic field in the 6,000 years since then. Humphreys, D.R., The moon’s former magnetic field—still a huge problem for evolutionists, Journal of Creation 26(1):5–6, 2012.
- Ghost craters on the moon’s maria (singular mare: dark ‘seas’ formed from massive lava flows) are a problem for the assumed long ages. Enormous impacts evidently caused the large craters and lava flows within those craters, and this lava partly buried other, smaller impact craters within the larger craters, leaving ‘ghosts’. But this means that the smaller impacts can’t have been too long after the huge ones, otherwise the lava would have flowed into the larger craters before the smaller impacts. This suggests a very narrow time frame for all this cratering, and by implication the other cratered bodies of our solar system. They suggest that the cratering occurred quite quickly. See Fryman, H., Ghost craters in the sky, Creation Matters 4(1):6, 1999; A biblically based cratering theory (Faulkner); Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe.
- The presence of a significant magnetic field around Mercury is not consistent with its supposed age of billions of years. A planet so small should have cooled down enough so any liquid core would solidify, preventing the evolutionists’ ‘dynamo’ mechanism. See also, Humphreys, D.R., Mercury’s magnetic field is young! Journal of Creation 22(3):8–9, 2008.
- The outer planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields, but they should be long ‘dead’ if they are as old as claimed according to evolutionary long-age beliefs. Assuming a solar system age of thousands of years, physicist Russell Humphreys successfully predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune.
- Jupiter’s larger moons, Ganymede, Io, and Europa, have magnetic fields, which they should not have if they were billions of years old, because they have solid cores and so no dynamo could generate the magnetic fields. This is consistent with creationist Humphreys’ predictions. See also, Spencer, W., Ganymede: the surprisingly magnetic moon, Journal of Creation 23(1):8–9, 2009.
- Volcanically active moons of Jupiter (Io) are consistent with youthfulness (Galileo mission recorded 80 active volcanoes). If Io had been erupting over 4.5 billion years at even 10% of its current rate, it would have erupted its entire mass 40 times. Io looks like a young moon and does not fit with the supposed billions of year’s age for the solar system. Gravitational tugging from Jupiter and other moons accounts for only some of the excess heat produced.
- The surface of Jupiter’s moon Europa. Studies of the few craters indicated that up to 95% of small craters, and many medium-sized ones, are formed from debris thrown up by larger impacts. This means that there have been far fewer impacts than had been thought in the solar system and the age of other objects in the solar system, derived from cratering levels, have to be reduced drastically (see Psarris, Spike, What you aren’t being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD, available from CMI).
- Methane on Titan (Saturn’s largest moon)—the methane should all be gone because of UV-induced breakdown. The products of photolysis should also have produced a huge sea of heavier hydrocarbons such as ethane. An Astrobiology item titled “The missing methane” cited one of the Cassini researchers, Jonathan Lunine, as saying, “If the chemistry on Titan has gone on in steady-state over the age of the solar system, then we would predict that a layer of ethane 300 to 600 meters thick should be deposited on the surface.” No such sea is seen, which is consistent with Titan being a tiny fraction of the claimed age of the solar system (needless to say, Lunine does not accept the obvious young age implications of these observations, so he speculates, for example, that there must be some unknown source of methane).
- The rate of change / disappearance of Saturn’s rings is inconsistent with their supposed vast age; they speak of youthfulness.
- Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, looks young. Astronomers working in the ‘billions of years’ mindset thought that this moon would be cold and dead, but it is a very active moon, spewing massive jets of water vapour and icy particles into space at supersonic speeds, consistent with a much younger age. Calculations show that the interior would have frozen solid after 30 million years (less than 1% of its supposed age); tidal friction from Saturn does not explain its youthful activity (Psarris, Spike, What you aren’t being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD; Walker, T., Enceladus: Saturn’s sprightly moon looks young, Creation 31(3):54–55, 2009).
- Miranda, a small moon of Uranus, should have been long since dead, if billions of years old, but its extreme surface features suggest otherwise. See Revelations in the solar system.
- Neptune should be long since ‘cold’, lacking strong wind movement if it were billions of years old, yet Voyager II in 1989 found it to be otherwise—it has the fastest winds in the entire solar system. This observation is consistent with a young age, not billions of years. See Neptune: monument to creation.
- Neptune’s rings have thick regions and thin regions. This unevenness means they cannot be billions of years old, since collisions of the ring objects would eventually make the ring very uniform. Revelations in the solar system.
- Young surface age of Neptune’s moon, Triton—less than 10 million years, even with evolutionary assumptions on rates of impacts (see Schenk, P.M., and Zahnle, K. On the Negligible Surface Age of Triton, Icarus 192(1):135–149, 2007. <doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.004>.
- Uranus and Neptune both have magnetic fields significantly off-axis, which is an unstable situation. When this was discovered with Uranus, it was assumed by evolutionary astronomers that Uranus must have just happened to be going through a magnetic field reversal. However, when a similar thing was found with Neptune, this AD hoc explanation was upset. These observations are consistent with ages of thousands of years rather than billions.
- The orbit of Pluto is chaotic on a 20 million year time scale and affects the rest of the solar system, which would also become unstable on that time scale, suggesting that it must be much younger. (See: Rothman, T., God takes a nap, Scientific American 259(4):20, 1988).
- The existence of short-period comets (orbital period less than 200 years), e.g. Halley, which have a life of less than 20,000 years, is consistent with an age of the solar system of less than 10,000 years. ad hoc hypotheses have to be invented to circumvent this evidence (see Kuiper Belt). See Comets and the age of the solar system.
- “Near-infrared spectra of the Kuiper Belt Object, Quaoar and the suspected Kuiper Belt Object, Charon, indicate both contain crystalline water ice and ammonia hydrate. This watery material cannot be much older than 10 million years, which is consistent with a young solar system, not one that is 5 billion years old.” See: The ‘waters above’ .
- Lifetime of long-period comets (orbital period greater than 200 years) that are sun-grazing comets or others like Hyakutake or Hale–Bopp means they could not have originated with the solar system 4.5 billion years ago. However, their existence is consistent with a young age for the solar system. Again an ad hoc Oort Cloud was invented to try to account for these comets still being present after billions of years. See, Comets and the age of the solar system.
- The maximum expected lifetime of near-earth asteroids is of the order of one million years, after which they collide with the sun. And the Yarkovsky effect moves main belt asteroids into near-earth orbits faster than had been thought. This brings into question the origin of asteroids with the formation of the solar system (the usual scenario), or the solar system is much younger than the 4.5 billion years claimed. Henry, J., The asteroid belt: indications of its youth, Creation Matters 11(2):2, 2006.
- The lifetime of binary asteroids—where a tiny asteroid ‘moon’ orbits a larger asteroid— in the main belt (they represent about 15–17% of the total): tidal effects limit the life of such binary systems to about 100,000 years. The difficulties in conceiving of any scenario for getting binaries to form in such numbers to keep up the population, led some astronomers to doubt their existence, but space probes confirmed it (Henry, J., The asteroid belt: indications of its youth, Creation Matters 11(2):2, 2006).
- The observed rapid rate of change in stars contradicts the vast ages assigned to stellar evolution. For example, Sakurai’s Object in Sagittarius: in 1994, this star was most likely a white dwarf in the centre of a planetary nebula; by 1997 it had grown to a bright yellow giant, about 80 times wider than the sun (Astronomy & Astrophysics 321:L17, 1997). In 1998, it had expanded even further, to a red supergiant 150 times wider than the sun. But then it shrank just as quickly; by 2002 the star itself was invisible even to the most powerful optical telescopes, although it is detectable in the infrared, which shines through the dust (Muir, H., 2003, Back from the dead, New Scientist 177(2384):28–31).
- The faint young sun paradox. According to stellar evolution theory, as the sun’s core transforms from hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, the mean molecular weight increases, which would compress the sun’s core increasing fusion rate. The upshot is that over several billion years, the sun ought to have brightened 40% since its formation and 25% since the appearance of life on earth. For the latter, this translates into a 16–18 ºC temperature increase on the earth. The current average temperature is 15 ºC, so the earth ought to have had a -2 ºC or so temperature when life appeared. See: Faulkner, D., The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system, Journal of Creation (TJ) 15(2):3–4, 2001. As of 2010, the faint young sun remains a problem: Kasting, J.F., Early Earth: Faint young Sun redux, Nature 464:687–689, 1 April 2010; doi:10.1038/464687a; www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/full/464687a.html
- Evidence of (very) recent geological activity (tectonic movements) on the moon is inconsistent with its supposed age of billions of years and its hot origin. Watters, T.R., et al., Evidence of Recent Thrust Faulting on the Moon Revealed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, Science 329(5994):936–940, 20 August 2010; DOI: 10.1126/science.1189590 (“This detection, coupled with the very young apparent age of the faults, suggests global late-stage contraction of the Moon.”) NASA pictures support biblical origin for Moon.
- The giant gas planets Jupiter and Saturn radiate more energy than they receive from the sun, suggesting a recent origin. Jupiter radiates almost twice as much energy as it receives from the sun, indicating that it may be less than 1 % of the presumed 4.5 billion years old solar system. Saturn radiates nearly twice as much energy per unit mass as Jupiter. See The age of the Jovian planets.
- Speedy stars are consistent with a young age for the universe. For example, many stars in the dwarf galaxies in the Local Group are moving away from each other at speeds estimated at to 10–12 km/s. At these speeds, the stars should have dispersed in 100 Ma, which, compared with the supposed 14,000 Ma age of the universe, is a short time. See Fast stars challenge big bang origin for dwarf galaxies.
- The ageing of spiral galaxies (much less than 200 million years) is not consistent with their supposed age of many billions of years. The discovery of extremely ‘young’ spiral galaxies highlights the problem of this evidence for the evolutionary ages assumed.
- The number of type I supernova remnants (SNRs) observable in our galaxy is consistent with an age of thousands of years, not millions or billions. See Davies, K., Proc. 3prd ICC, pp. 175–184, 1994.
- The rate of expansion and size of supernovas indicates that all studied are young (less than 10,000 years). See supernova remnants.
- Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today’s population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer?
- ‘Stone age’ human skeletons and artefacts. There are not enough for 100,000 years of a human population of just one million, let alone more people (10 million?). See Where are all the people?
- Length of recorded history. Origin of various civilizations, writing, etc., all about the same time several thousand years ago. See Evidence for a young world.
- Languages. Similarities in languages claimed to be separated by many tens of thousands of years speaks against the supposed ages (e.g. compare some aboriginal languages in Australia with languages in south-eastern India and Sri Lanka). See The Tower of Babel account affirmed by linguistics.
- Common cultural ‘myths’ speak of recent separation of peoples around the world. An example of this is the frequency of stories of an earth-destroying flood.
- Origin of agriculture. Secular dating puts it at about 10,000 years and yet that same chronology says that modern man has supposedly been around for at least 200,000 years. Surely someone would have worked out much sooner how to sow seeds of plants to produce food. See: Evidence for a young world.
Image: Dr Mary Schweitzer
The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65+ million years claimed by the paleontologists.
Geological evidence for a young age of the earth
Photo by Don Batten
Radical folding at Eastern Beach, near Auckland in New Zealand, indicates that the sediments were soft and pliable when folded, inconsistent with a long time for their formation. Such folding can be seen world-wide and is consistent with a young age of the earth.
Erosion rates at places like Niagara Falls are consistent with a time frame of several thousand years since Noah’s Flood.
Along the mid-ocean ridges, the detailed pattern of magnetic polarisation, with islands of differing polarity, speaks of rapid changes in direction of Earth’s magnetic field because of the rate of cooling of the lava. This is consistent with a young Earth.
Radiometric dating and the age of the earth
Astronomical evidence for a young(er) age of the earth and the universe
Photo by NASA
Saturn’s rings are increasingly recognized as being relatively short-lived rather than essentially changeless over millions of years.
Human history is consistent with a young age of the earth
Last amended 8 May 2014.
Bible texts are referenced which indicate that creation took place about 6000 years ago. Massive theological problems associated with adding 'millions of years' to the Bible are also summarized.
How old is the earth? Evolution says the earth is 4.54 billion years old and the universe 13.77 billion years old. The Bible says it is about 6000 years old. What does science say? Discover the answer as Richard and Calvin discuss several scientific dating methods that refute the evolutionary timescale.
I spent an hour or more reading through this with my wife. And I have to say well done!
I was once brainwashed up until about 6 years ago. Going through high school my science teacher tried telling me that we were once rats living in bushes! I KNEW that was just crazy.. but where they got me was with how old the earth is. Up until 6 years ago when i met my wife, I just naturaly thought the earth was millions of yrs old. And dinosaurs were just as old. It scares me thinking back to that!
..But I do have a question.
I recently found out about this site/tomb they are digging up in between SYRIA and TURKEY that's "supposed" to re-write our history books. Its on a mountain and its called GOBEKLI TEPE. Its said to be no more than 12,000 yrs old.
Could you give you're opinion on it? Do you think the dating may be off?
Thank you guys for putting so much work into this site! The world needs it!
Regarding Göbekli Tepe, always check creation.com using the search engine. Here is an article about it: How does Göbekli Tepe fit with biblical history? I trust it answers your questions (as much as it is possible to do so with interpreting something from the past like this).
I believe in God, but earth is 6,000 years old? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
The devil also believes in God. You might believe in 'God', but clearly you don't believe God (Exodus 20:1,11).
Laughter is not an argument.
As I see it,just about all the churches in North America are heated either oil or natural gas which has been found by companies using evolutionary concepts. If those who support the creation ideas feel that they have a better understanding of how oil and gas form, then they should form a company to look for such commodities using their ideas. 'Do not hide your light under a bushel'! So far as I know, there is no law that restricts oil and gas exploration to those who believe in evolution. Go ahead and form a company that includes in its charter a statement that money raised will be used to apply creatist principles to oil and gas exploration. Believers should subscribe with alacrity. I look forward to reading the annual reports.
You are mistaken about oil or gas exploration depending on evolutionary notions and that these ideas actually help in finding oil and gas: see what geologist Dr John Morris said. As Dr Morris recounts, he attempted to do something similar to what you suggest. However, when an idea is entrenched to the point that nearly everyone accepts it without even a moment's thought that it might be entirely wrong, then you have little chance of getting any alternative proposal accepted, even a modest one. And it would take an huge amount of money to float a new company to do oil exploration using a creationist approach to geology, money that I would think most Christians would be better spent elsewhere.
Evidence of very recent or even present formation of oil is consistent with a young earth.
Coal is a powerful evidence for Noah's Flood; the evolutionary story of it forming from material laid down in peat bog swamps over eons of time just does not stack up.
Many science articles mention stars that are millions (or billions) of light-years away. How can this be if the age of the universe is only in the thousands of years?
See Chapter 5 of the Answers Book and
(Searching creation.com for 'starlight time' would have found these answers.)
The author's doctorate in science is often used to defend the veracity of the "101 evidences." However, a degree in plant science earned through the study of the mung bean would hardly give him the authority or expertise required to fully comprehend the evidence used in the Geological, Radiometrical, Astronomical, and Historical subsections which make up 90 of the 101 evidences.
Additionally, I followed the link for the first claim, that the presence of DNA in 'ancient samples' refuted the samples' supposed age. However, the 4th reference of that article, the one you claim proves that DNA cannot last for millions of years never makes this claim. It only speaks of ways in which DNA is damaged in living cells - (which fossils are clearly not). In fact, it mentions an experiment in which DNA from a sample millions of years old was extracted successfully.
The only comment that remotely resembles your first complaint is a response to a fact-free rant by a Paul C., from the USA, where Paul C. made unsupported charges about the article being "an insult to real science". In response, Dr Sarfati, a physical chemist, pointed out that the author is a real scientist.
Your approach is to 'shoot the messenger' (an informal fallacy), which is commonly done to avoid engaging the actual arguments.
But just who would be qualified to write such an article? Because of this, various specialists in different fields were asked to check areas where they had expertise. Note that several of the responses to comments are by a physical chemist and a geologist. An astronomer, a cosmologist and a physicist have also been consulted. Furthermore, in most cases I am citing work by specialists in their fields.
Regarding your claim about Lindahl's paper that I cited, note the introductory summary statement to the paper:
"The spontaneous decay of DNA is likely to be a major factor in mutagenesis, carcinogenesis and ageing, and also sets limits for the recovery of DNA fragments from fossils." [my emphasis] That is, the context of Lindahl's paper is at least partly to look at how long DNA could last in fossils. Then, after exploring various ways in which DNA degrades , even in vivo, under the heading "Ancient DNA" (p.713), he comments on what it means for the recovery of DNA from fossils:
"Thus, in connection with favourable preservation conditions, it seems feasible that useful DNA sequences tens of thousands of years old could be recovered, particularly if the fossil has been retained at low temperature." He suggests that partial dehydration of DNA, as in bacterial spores, could extend this ("further increased stabilization"). However, he says that air-dried tissues remain partly hydrated and susceptible to decay and that dessicated DNA, where the water in the grooves of the DNA double helix is removed, is susceptible to accelerated damage.
So, I stand by my characterization of this work that it argues against DNA lasting for millions of years.
Furthermore, with the experiment you claim he cites that shows a "sample millions of years old was extracted successfully", while acknowledging the authors' care in doing the experiment, consistent with his scepticism over DNA being extracted from fossils millions of years old Lindahl casts doubt on their findings (p. 714):
1. Lindahl says that the DNA not rejected as contamination, was "somewhat arbitrarily assigned as being representative of the [termite] fossil".
2. Lindahl: "It will now be important to assess the reproducibility of such findings."
He then goes on to criticize another claim of DNA found in a magnolia leaf said to be 20 million years old.
If what you claim in point 16 about oil being formed quickly then why don't you start making it and prove your point..i'll tell you why because you can't.If this was possible don't you think the oil companies would be producing it to make money!!!!The same goes for coal too if there's money to be made it would happen.
If you read the linked papers you would find that the claims come from mainstream peer-reviewed research; we did not make this up.
You would also have seen that with the main paper cited about oil, simulating assumed natural conditions, it took six years to produce oil, which would hardly be an economically viable way of producing oil to sell.
The economic viability of producing coal and oil depends on many things and is quite irrelevant to the matter of experiments that have shown how quickly coal and oil can form (it does not need millions of years).
I am considering your proofs, by the way. However, there is one thing that I want to argue with you: the origin of agriculture.
"Secular dating puts it at about 10,000 years and yet that same chronology says that modern man has supposedly been around for at least 200,000 years. Surely someone would have worked out much sooner how to sow seeds of plants to produce food."
Yes, you are absolutely right. Someone DID work out that when seeds are planted, sprouts grow, and they would produce something edible. However, it boils down to how they are motivated to do so.
10,000 years before, humans lived by either (a) fishing, or (b) hunting. And they're satisfied with that because they already have an easily-accessible and stable food source that is not going to kill them. Since it is easy to fish and hunt with sticks and stones, they'd have more time for leisure, entertainment, music, arts, etc.
Whilst agriculture, it demands more time, more effort, the domestication of animals, and producing food that will probably be eaten by someone else that is not you. It is also the same reason why roads are only built when they started to think that it is better to live for everyone else than just for yourself.
And some even speculate that agriculture was an accident. It was invented because, maybe, the population started growing and demand more food, so they have no choice but to start living for... not only themselves.
So, even though they knew the science of plants way back, it boils down to their decisions if they want to be giving and generous, and given the intense competition for life back then, it isn't surprising that they decide to just become selfish and live for themselves.
"Proofs"? In the introduction to the article I was at pains to make it clear that my list is one of evidences, not proofs. There is no 'proof' when it comes to the age of something, unless of course we have reliable eyewitnesses, such as God, and documents, such as a birth certificate; like the universe's birth certificate.
As for the origin of agriculture and other such things, one can always dream up scenarios to rescue the deep-time evolutionary worldview from the evidence, just like Dr Walker illustrates with dating methods; see How dating methods work.
200,000 years is a long time for it to take for someone to see the utility of actually planting edible plants (agriculture). While growing rice and wheat are labour intensive and a hunter-gatherer existence might look more attractive, there are many easier crops to grow (e.g. potatoes, sweet potato, yams, many fruit trees) where there is not a lot of work involved and the harvest provides almost instant gratification. 200,000 years is also an incredibly long time for the population in all locations to remain low enough to be sustained by a hunter-gatherer existence and thus not force the adoption of agriculture.
As a former-Satanist-now-Christian, I can understand why these people, dispite mountains of evidence for a young-earth and a young universe, would continue to reject it still, especially with a mind so closed that they won't even read through any of it: They don't want to admit that creationism has more scientific merit than any other worldview because if they did, their ego would be damaged, which is something that really hurts for them. They'd rather react violently then have to swallow their pride and be rational and admit to making errors. They hate the feeling of having to be held accountable for the things that they do. My exprience(verified by the Bible (Romans 1:18-21; Psalm 14:1)) has taught me that with them, the foundations for their mentality lie not in a misinterpretation of facts, but a dislike/hatred for Christianity. And since creationism argues for a young earth and a young universe (just as the Bible claims) then it's only natural that they're going to hate creationism too.
Thanks for sharing, Stephen. Yes, there is hatred of God. The infamous atheist Christopher Hitchens admitted he was a misotheist ('god-hater'). See Why do atheists hate God?
Thank you CMI for continuing encouragement, and especially for enabling the comments. It shows a level of transparency that is refreshing. Being a student at a secular university these rebuttals give me a great deal of confidence because I now know what will be thrown at me, and how to refute it.
As an atheist and a firm beleiver of the scientific method I was intrigued to find this page claiming to have scientific proof of a young earth (ie. one created about 6000 years ago). I was overwhelmed by the very long list of evidences. I decided to check out one of the evidences and randomly picked no. 49 about the earth’s magnetic field. I followed the link and found an article containing a critisism of the traditional scientific explanation and the creationist explanation. Reading this article I quickly found a contradiction: the article claims that if the exponential decay of the earth’s magnetic field was extended back in time it would have been ridicoulusly strong if we go back more than 10,000 years and that the earth therefore could be no older than 10,000 years. This argument assumes that what we have observed the last 1,000 years can be freely extended back in time. This is what the main article calls uniformitarianism and critizises traditional science of using indiscriminately. So creationism are allowed to use uniformism while traditional science is not. This is clearly not a sound scientific line of argument.
I then read on. It quickly became obvious that the main scientific source for the creationist explanation was an article by Russell Humphrey. This article is also based on the exponential decay explanation and addresses the, rather annoying, fact that there has been many reversals in the earth’s magnetic field, as observed in sea bed sediments. These reversals are of course not consistent with the decay theory and have to be explained. The explanation is found in a book by Merrill, R. T. and M. W. McElhinney documenting a series of reversals in the magnetic field during the third millenium BC, at time the flood is supposed to have happened. A search for this book led me to an article [url removed as per feedback rules] commenting on the book and on the theory. The evidence for these reversals is a number of observations from aboriginal sites, that is, only from Australia, not the whole world. Further does the data in the book not show reversals at all, thus falsifying the argument.
All in all my investigation of a random evidence among the 101 listed took about 20 minutes and revealed that:
- The argumentation was inconsistent and not scientifically sound, and
- The theory was based on false evidence
I guess similar investigations could be made for the remaining evidences with similar results and I urge others to do so. Any theory claiming to be scientific should be able to withstand such scrutiny.
"As an atheist and a firm believer of the scientific method"? You seem to be confusing the scientific method with philosophical naturalism. The Christian founders of modern science had no such confusion.
Furthermore, the Baconian scientific method does not help much when it comes to matters of history, which is what you are objecting to here. See "It's not science!" (the link was provided in the introduction).
You say that this page claims "scientific proof of a young earth". Clearly you have not even begun to read the introduction, choosing rather to cherry pick something to have a go at. Indeed, the first sentence says: "No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here." I also made the point of uniformitarian assumptions applying to all dating methods! However, the amount of extrapolation for the evidences for a young creation is trivial compared to the extrapolations for the deep-time dating methods (for example, the decay rates of the Uranium-lead series have been measured for less than 100 years, and yet the dating is extrapolated to billions of years, which is five orders of magnitude more than Dr Humphreys' extrapolation!).
As for your attempted refutation of the evidence regarding the decay in the energy of earth's magnetic field, it seems that your checking seems to have been about as superficial as your reading of the introduction to the article. Indeed the article by Dr Sarfati that I linked to covers the reversals of Earth's magnetic field and links to papers by Dr Humphreys (note spelling) that deal with this in detail. Not only are magnetic reversals accounted for in Dr Humphreys' papers, but he successfully predicted evidence for rapid reversals, which was found three years later (contrary to expections based on the usual secular deep-time dynamo-model thinking). So, not only are reversals not "annoying", they are a nice confirmation of Dr Humphreys' model.
Furthermore, if you had actually done any of your own research, rather than just Googling for an Internet blogger's 'refutation' you would know that the evidence for rapid reversals was found in lava flows at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon, USA; not "from aboriginal sites, that is, only from Australia", etc.
Furthermore (again!), sea-floor magnetic striations are actually evidence for a young-Earth time-frame (you would also know this if you had read the linked article).
You have not even read the linked article, let alone the papers that Dr Humphreys has published (your boast that you did your 'research' in a mere 20 minutes shows that you did not even read and digest the papers that are readily available on the Internet, let alone the ones that might take a visit to a library).
You commented, "I was overwhelmed by the very long list of evidences." Yes, and the one you cherry-picked to criticize remains intact.
I'm a brazilian Physics student who already participated in the World Physics Olympiad and I made research in Dark Matter at Weizmann. I loved this article and I'm translating to portuguese to use here in Brazil (with your permission).
Thanks for getting involved to help, Gabriel. Be aware that this article is not static. As knowledge increases, some arguments strengthen and some weaken, and stronger arguments come along that can replace weaker arguments. That is the nature of this topic. So it is always a 'work in progress'. Look for the "Last updated" date just before the readers' comments.
This is hilarious. No peer reviews at all, and full of pseudo-science. I won't bother trying to post links to disprove this, anyone who reads this and believes it does so because they want to believe it, not because of your 'scientific evidence'. I have book-marked this to show my nerdier friends. Thanks for the laughs!
"Hilarious"? Thomas Jefferson: "Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us."
"No peer reviews at all"? This is what boxers call "Leading with your chin." You did not read very far did you? The very first evidence listed is squarely based upon this mainstream, peer-reviewed paper: Fish, S.A., et al., Recovery of 16S ribosomal RNA gene fragments from ancient halite, Nature 417(6887):432–436, 2002 (and there are other peer-reviewed papers cited). If you care to read the other articles linked, you will find that probably every one of them references 'peer-reviewed' articles as their basis (not that this is a guarantee of scientific rigour, as numerous examples of scientific fraud, especially in evolutionary papers, demonstrate).
"I won't bother trying to post links to disprove this"; IOW, you can't disprove any of it, so you will resort to bluff (and please don't send a link to a gutter atheist website; you will have to show some personal effort to engage the arguments to merit posting).
It is the very nature of such a compilation of evidence that it is not peer reviewed as such, but each of the points is clearly based on peer-reviewed work.
" ... anyone who reads this and believes it does so because they want to believe it". Perhaps you are not open to the strong evidence here because you don't want to believe it? (it cuts both ways). Whether you or anyone else believes it or not is beside the point; the important question is, 'Is it true?'
"I have book-marked this to show my nerdier friends. Thanks for the laughs!" Perhaps your "nerdier friends" will be more open to engage the evidence than you are; be careful!
It seems no matter how much evidence of a young earth you throw at some people, they will stick dogmatically to their arbitary belief in billions of years. The ever increasing rescue devices of assumption piled onto assumption in order to keep this myth alive is becoming untenable.
This is a very useful article to use as a reference point for refuting interpretations of evidence for an ancient Earth \ Darwinism, but I have to say I'm not quite in agreeance with the subtitle. Most of the examples given are not "evidences for a young Earth", just evidence against the naturalistic stories which are routinely peddled to prove an ancient Earth and corrsponding Darwinism. DNA in dinosaur fossils, for example - all this demonstrates is that the fossils are not ancient (i.e., questions the interpretation of the geological column), it says nothing about the age of the Earth. Oil and opals forming quickly; this just shows that the deposits are not necessarily as ancient as the naturalists' story-telling presumes. Radiocarbon in "ancient" coal, wood and diamonds merely disproves the nonsense that these particular things are even 1\20th of a million years old, never mind over a billion in some cases.
We can use known facts of science to debunk the nonsense of the Theory of Evolution (Law of Biogenesis, mutations being unable to generate new genetic information, etc.), and we can also use the fossil record for this purpose. But I contend that we cannot use any form of science to say anything much about the age of the Earth. But for the chronogeneologies recorded in Genesis (particularly 5 and 11), no-one, Bible-believer or otherwise, would have the foggiest idea how old the Earth was. Uniformitarian assumptions can always be disproved - using both naturalistic and supernaturalistic starting axioms. But ultimately, the Bible is the only conclusive means of knowing the age of the Earth, and most of the pieces collated by this article are not aimed at proving a young Earth scientifically, but at debunking contra-Bible, naturalism-based claims.
I feel a more appropriate subtitle would be "101 reasons to accept the Biblical account of the age of the Earth".
I agree. These points were actually made in the introduction:
"Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend."
"Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events. The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos. See The Universe’s Birth Certificate and Biblical chronogenealogies (technical). In the end we believe that the Bible will stand vindicated and those who deny its testimony will be confounded."
In this Internet era, where we are trying to maximize the number of people who find an article, titles are chosen with this in mind (so we use words in the title/subtitle that people will be searching for).
I LOVE LOVE LOVE this page...It is refreshing to see this information in a manner in which it can be understood, and I especially love the Witty rebuttals to refutations.
i find it funny that people are blaming you for doing exactly what the evolution lie has been doing from the start. they have created time scale, tables and charts to suit their opinion, and have also constantly adjusted these, proving there is zero science in these Theories. evolution is just a religion for those who choose not to believe in a creator. the Word of God has NEVER changed, and is still being proved right by real science today!!!
I too like Ryland R. am gobsmacked by the weight of evidence supplied in your articles, and find it hard to take it all in, but am happy that it is available to the most intellectual of readers. I read recently Christopher Hitchens, leading but now deceased atheist, expressed one of his greatest concerns was that so many even more intellectual people than him believe in a supreme creator, our one and only God, something that also worries Dawkins and Hawking.
Why doesn't God just tell us in person?
If a company boss issued written instructions about something and an employee refused to believe it unless the boss came in person to tell him/her, what would you think of that? What would the boss think?
But God has told us 'in person' when he came as Jesus Christ, as a man, and you can find the written record of what he said in the New Testament part of the Bible. Jesus authenticated the Old Testament as God-inspired and from there we can ascertain the age of creation, by the historical method.
Hebrews 1:2-3 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,...
We are called to follow Him.
I love your witty and logical answers to the ninnies who are hoping evolution is true so they don't have to face God when they died. Most of what was said in the article was above my head. My most convincing argument that evolution is false is because God changed my life completely. He took away the hate and gave me love. He took away the guilt and gave me peace.
Hi, I understand that if you're not a scientist then it's diffficut to differentiate the good and bad models. The dynamo is the best model for the core, which is basically a conducting fluid, so it makes sense to model it as such. So we are left with looking at magnetohydrodynamics (MHD).
Barnes model used an obsolute model for the core of the Earth and has not stood the test of time, so from the very basic pronciples of his models.
So you to your claim that dynamo theory is "as old as the hills" is incorrect and flies in the face of current scientific research.
For some more reading on the whole physics of the Earth's core is "An introduction to magnetohydrodynamics" by P.A. Davidson where he has a whole chapter on geo-magnetism.
Dynamo theory goes back to at least 1919 (Lamor), so I stand by my hyperbole "as old as the hills".
Dynamo theory is not just about the core being a conducting fluid (actually the outer core only), but that the rotation of Earth imparts kinetic energy to the fluid, and combined with complex convection currents maintains an electric current and so a magnetic field over billions of years (with cyclic variations).
This is "the best model"? It is the only model that has any hope of explaining a long-term magnetic field, so this reasoning is circular (assuming the long ages, the dynamo model is 'best'). However, even today it has not been numerically modelled successfully.
The work referred to here was done by physicist Dr Russell Humphreys, who has developed Barnes' model. Details of the latest work can be found here: Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Decaying Steadily—with a Little Rhythm. All measurements of Earth's magnetic field fit with a rapid decay that suggests a young age for the earth.
The Barnes/Humphreys model also provided accurate predictions of other planetary magnetic fields; the dynamo model did not (the dynamo model cannot explain the presence of magnetic fields in 'cold' moons and planets lacking a fluid core). It also provided the basis for predicting rapid localized reversals (unlike dynamo theory).
I suggest that if you think you know more about the physics of planetary magnetism than Dr Humphreys that you take it up with him.
Regarding the magnetic field argument, you know that the current best model for the core of the is that of a dynamo and with that, you can get the concept of a pole reversal of the magnetic field and that is what you see with the decay of the field.
Please read the linked articles before commenting! The dynamo theory is 'as old as the hills' and does not explain rapid reversals or rapid decay. If you had read the linked articles you would understand that it is decay in the total energy of the magnetic field that is under discussion, which has nothing to do with the direction of the field. Note particularly the box titled "Addendum: Answering sceptical objections" in The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young.
Thank you for a very enlightening article. From an early begining I was a beliver in evolution. Your articles have continued to show that the path I now take is the correct one. Too much scientific data relies on things always being the same and for rates of decay/erosion to have remained the same. I now can see the young age of the Earth to be close to the truth. All of the articles you have published plus others I have had the opportunity to read show the errors in the Earth being billions of years old. Thank you for your work.
I will never be able to understand atheism. Even if the world is old, even if the evolution is true, you still have the same problem: THERE IS STILL A GOD! But I can't understand how lots of scientist still defend the theory, and say there is no god. I will never understand.
Cosmic evolution is purely materialistic; there is no need or room for the supernatural. Furthermore, it contradicts the Bible's history, which is the basis for salvation in Jesus Christ - where Adam brought the curse of death and suffering into the world through his sin/rebellion against God and Jesus Christ, "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15), overcomes sin and death through paying for the price of our sin and being raised from the dead, demonstrating his power over sin and death.
Thank you. I have been debating with atheists about the age of the earth and keep finding myself in a corner because of my lack of specific knowledge in certain areas. This article is not only helpful in extending my understanding, but also encouraging to an embattled apologist.
MAINSTREAM SCIENCE? WATCH "EXPELLED NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED" THAT"S WHAT HAPPENS TO SCIENTISTS WHEN THEY FIND THE TRUTH. Polonium's Halo's half life IS the smoking gun! The earth formed in under 3 minutes with intervention. TEST AT ANY LAB ON ANY GRANITE/ROCK ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. Now try and hide that Scientific Evidence!
Polonium halos are indeed powerful evidence against old earth ideas, but research has moved the argument on since some claimed that they were evidence of instant creation of the Earth. 'Orphan' halos are found in granites formed during/after the Flood of Noah. They are evidence for rapid decay of uranium to polonium as well as rapid formation of the granites. See Radiohalos: Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes on a young earth.
I would like to point some of the critics to a non-believer's writings in evolutionary biology and the fallacies contained within: Getting Over the Code Delusion. I realize that other websites are not generally posted, but this is one that pokes massive, giant holes in both the ideology of current evolution theory as well as the scientific community behind it.
Anyway, thanks for keeping up the good fight. It is something that the world needs more of!
This is a very interesting article that does indeed (indirectly) raise serious problems for the simplistic evolutionist idea that mutations (accidental changes) in DNA bases ('letters') changed microbes into microbiologists. Thanks. However, one criticism is that, as a throw-away remark, the author perpetuates the myth that humans and chimps share 98-99% of their DNA. Not so. Proper comparison since the publication of the chimp genome shows as much as little as 70% similarity. The April 2012 Journal of Creation has two papers on this topic, accessible to subscribers only until April 2013.
96. Human population growth. You are assuming that human populations should always be growing. Humans, like other organisms, are subject to population size limits based upon carrying capacity, which is determined by the quantity of resources available. Humans (like other relatively large mammals) would have lived at low population densities until the agricultural revolution about 10k years ago. The increase in available food allowed for an expansion of population size. Humans stabilized at this higher population density until the industrial revolution in the 1800s. Since then, population size has been increasing as a result of greater availability of food (as well as medical care). There is no reason to assume that human population size would have always been increasing, any more than we should assume that rabbit populations have always increased. The history of human population growth mirrors that of other species when their carrying capacity increases.
97. Where are all the people? As indicated above, there weren't that many. Moreover, the VAST majority of dead bodies (of plants, rabbits, humans, whatever) decay rather than fossilize. You might as well ask where all the rabbit skeletons are. Decayed. Recycled into the soil. There's no mystery here. For a dead body to fossilize, it needs to be located in conditions that prevent rapid decay. It's more astonishing to me that we have SO MANY well preserved members of our ancestry.
98-101. With regard to your concern about why various cultural developments ('civilization,' writing, agriculture, etc.) appeared to occur so late in human history and to arise close to each other in time, I recommend reading 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' by Jared Diamond. It's a fascinating account of why cultural advancements occurred when and where they did.
Evolution is beautiful. Embrace our connectedness with nature and our kinship with so many other beautiful organisms. It doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Millions of people who accept evolution are also devoutly religious.
You need to actually read the linked articles, which cover your objections. For example, I did not "assume that human population size would always have been increasing". Likewise with the humans skeletons and artefacts.
I would not recommend Jared Diamond to anyone; as a vitriolic atheist he is hardly an impartial writer. Indeed he uses such trickery as equivocation to hoodwink readers into agreeing with him on evolution; see, for example: Evolution under (or wool over?) our eyes.
"Evolution is beautiful" and compatible with being "devoutly religious"? Not according to the philosopher of science, Professor David Hull: Evolution’s God diabolical.
People can believe all sorts of contradictory things, but it is clear that it is not possible to believe the Bible as it is meant to be understood and also evolution (which is about how everything came to be without God, including even belief in God, according to your own Jared Diamond, even!). And I take it that your very own unbelief drives your 'love' of evolution. See: Who's who of evolutionists.
Thanks for the info! Really helpful. Glory to God.
Also, does anyone else think that the world just doesn't look millions of years old?
I agree with this page, but [a gutter atheist website] has a supposed refutation if this page, would you shed some light on it? They make the claims that you "quote mine" information on some of the examples.
‘Quote mining’ is a common resort of God-haters when they have no argument. If you have an example that you have investigated where you agree that we have misrepresented someone in the way we have quoted their work, then please give me the details of this. I can then check that particular example and fix it if necessary. We do not wish to misrepresent anyone (what would be the point of that?). There is plenty of good evidence for a young world/universe without resorting to deceit (and the Bible enjoins Christians to be truthful whereas there is no compelling reason for atheists not to tell lies as there is no objective moral code in atheism). For more on the way God-haters use the ruse of ‘quote mining’, see Objection 5 in 15 Questions—Response 1.
The currently accepted calculation of the solar system’s age is derived from comparing lead-206, a daughter isotope of uranium-238, to lead-207, a daughter isotope of uranium-235. This is the current wisdom used by the science community, from which we can then derive the age of the Earth. These calculations can not be taken in isolation as they supported by other known principals.
You on the other hand appear to use as your source a book that was written around 2000 years ago describing events surrounding a man for which there is little or no contemporary evidence, with most of the 'evidence' for the events described in the bible all being written many years after the events took place,. Even accepting the events happened as written there is no proof that the man in question, Jesus, was any more the son of god as my next door neighbour.
It is extraordinary that every university in the world other than those that are faith based, that run courses on cosmology and evolutionary biology are all in agreement on two key points. They all agree on how we evolved from an ancestor that was common to both humans and modern apes and they all agree that the earth is around 4.7 bn years old.
If you were able to forget for a few moments who you were and conducted a thought experiment and carefully considered the evidence I wonder what conclusion you would really reach?
All age calculations are based on assumptions and you can get any age you like depending on the assumptions you make. Find the review of "The Dating Game" (by Cherry Lewis) on creation.com to see how ages are chosen to agree with the philosophy of the researchers.
Your comment about every university simply shows that they are all working according to the same philosophy (all are "faith based", just different faiths). You owe it to yourself to break free from the one-sided approach you have been fed. It has huge implications for your view of your life, why you are here, and how you should live.
Regarding Jesus, there is abundant evidence that he was/is the Son of God. Please see articles on the Jesus Q&A page. (That you raise objections to Jesus here, when this article does not mention Him specifically, underlines the fact that the age of the earth is really 'about God' for you, as it was for Hutton and Lyell, who gave impetus to the idea of deep time).
I won't deal with the other issues you raise because there are lots of articles on this site that address each of them. I'd encourage you to used the search box on the site with relevant key words. You will soon discover that things are not all the way you have been told and I hope it helps you find a new outlook on life.
Its very difficult to comment on a website like this where the underlying motive is to squeeze the square peg of religion into the round hole of truth regarding the origins of not only the earth but the universe itself. I would refute all of the evidence you put forward to support the notion of the earth being 6000 years old. It makes a mockery of science. I live in Scotland where rocks are fond that show we were once joined to North America. The rocks contain salterella that is a small shelly fossil found only in Lower Cambrian rocks in NW Scotland and North America. We broke apart some 60 million years ago and have been drifting apart ever since. For us to have moved 3000 miles in 6000 years just beggars belief. I think someone may have noticed the continents moving at some 0.5 miles every year.
If we just examine for a moment the very matter that we and our earth is made from. All the elements other than Hydrogen, Helium, some Lithium and Beryllium were produced by Nuclear reactions inside long dead during their life cycle prior to them going super nova and spreading these elements across the cosmos forming vast clouds of material that eventually condensed out forming our solar system. The evidence for the standard model of the formation of our solar system is quite robust There are many pieces of evidence to support the Nebular Hypothesis:
1. All planets lie on the same plane, and orbit the sun in the same direction
2. The outer planets are composed mostly of volatiles, ices and gases, while the inner planets are rocky
3. The solar system contains rocky asteroids and icy comets
4. disks of gas and dust, called "protoplanetary disks" have been observed around young stars.
To say all this happened some 6000 years ago is nothing short of preposterous and contradicts much of the scientific basis of our current knowledge. The same knowledge that
recently found the Higgs particle. This was only found after years of looking for evidence to support the standard model that predicted the existence of such a particle and has been proved to be one of the most robust theories other than evolution. For your young earth theory to be be correct it would contradict much of what the standard model says about the very matter we are all composed of.
I see no evidence that you have employed a robust scientific method to arrive at your conclusion. Instead you started with an answer and you have proceeded to look for facts that you can bend to suit your views.
Why not try looking at the evidence and in the true spirit of science question your own position rather than cherry picking and distorting 'facts' to fit your view of the world.
Hi Eric. Actually, you do the same thing. Everyone does. They start with the answer and interpret the world according to their worldview. Your surprise at the approach of this site, evident in your feedback, is because you have not thought enough about these ideas. I suggest you search this website (creation.com) on the various issues that you have raised. Try key words such as: "plate tectonics", "nebular hypothesis", "operation historical science", "higgs boson", and "worldview". You will discover that some of the ideas that you have assumed to be rock solid are not that way at all. All the best.
It's so silly when I hear people present the same old "science" that is based off of circular reasoning and false assumptions! If people would just take a deeper look, they will realize the belief in evolution requires a lot more faith than the belief in the Bible. Praying that people will be un-brainwashed with this site. :)
Thank you for this! It's always easy to show evidence that debunks evolution, but people like to see evidence FOR Creation as well. :) This was very good, I must send it to all my contacts!
I am not a scientist, but as a trained geographer, (1) I believe in presentation of information based on thoughtful and logical consideration and (2) I did an instant doubletake when I saw the location of John S. (16 June comment) given as Bouvet Island. Thank you, Dr. Batten, for not letting him get away with what he possibly assumed that most people would not recognise as being foolish. Can he possibly think that this foolishness would make his comment more valuable or acceptable???
But I appreciated your reply to him, especially the part about "the academic majority who are running away from God." This is indeed fundamental to the understanding of, and reactions to, the whole question of accepting or rejecting God's own witness about His handiwork.
The fact that God is evident in the way the material and responses are presented is absolutely wonderful. I also appreciate your knowledge of the fallacies of arguing and how to structure your argument as to not invalidate it. I pray that the Truth will prevail and I thank you CMI and it's authors for the enlightening experience. I look forward to reading more as this "debate" develops.
Psalm 1 (NIV)
1 Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers, 2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and who meditates on his law day and night. 3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither—whatever they do prospers.
This is all well and good, but all the links and citations only direct back within this very site. Whether I, you or anyone else believes in creationism or science or whatever is irrelevant - you need to link outside sources in order to be credible.
A self-contained site can write anything they want, true or not, and call it a day. A site that refers to several sources, studies, and external references is a lot more reliable.
Sorry, I can't believe in anything on this site when every link inside it goes within creation.com :/ Hopefully you can find some objective material out there to either rationally support or disprove your theories, and then link it back here!
And remember, the point here isn't to find articles specifically tailored to support your claim - that gives you a huge bias. The point is to find objective evidence of WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, creation or no :)
Thanks for the write-up, looking forward to things with more outside links!
Others have made the same point, which has been answered repeatedly (above): read the linked articles and you will find the external sources. For example, just look at #1 in the 101: the creation.com article linked from this has 50% of the references to outside (and secular) sources. Now look at #2; the first linked article cites 11/11 (100%) external sources. It's hard to get more than 100%. :-) Clearly, it does not take much effort to find the "external references".
"Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us." Thomas Jefferson.
This is absolutely ridiculous. As an Oceanographer and Hydrographer I can say with 100% certainty that the "information" contained in this web page is biased and completely misconstrued to show an unscientific view of the world. Unless you cite PEER REVIEWED papers the scientific and educated public in general will continue to laugh you into non existence.
1. “100% certainty”? That does not sound very scientific; because of the inductive nature of science, it can only deal with probabilities, not certainties.
2. ‘Elephant hurling’ does not constitute a reasoned response, but an informal fallacy.
3. Your argument from authority is another informal fallacy. And just how many of the 101 evidences would an oceanographer and hydrographer (someone who maps bodies of water) be qualified in anyway?
4. Peer review? Probably all the 101 points are based on peer reviewed papers at some point. If you care to read the linked articles and note the sources you will find them. But peer review is no guarantee of truth or an excuse for refusing to consider an argument. See: Creationism, Science and Peer Review.
5. Your ridicule is an indication of a lack of reasoned counter-argument. “Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us.” Thomas Jefferson
I'm no scientist and I'm not sure exactly how peer review works, but has an article clearly stating all of the things stated here and drawing the same conclusions ever been published in a major independent scientific journal? If so, which one(s) and can you provide links.
I am a scientist and I do know how peer review works and it is no guarantee of accuracy. It does ensure that work toes the line of scientific orthodoxy, such that maverick ideas, upon which progress depends, are difficult to get published. This is especially so when they also point to the truthfulness of the Bible's history. This is forbidden knowledge to the academic majority who are running away from God. This is not the sort of catch-all review article that would be published by any peer reviewed journal, including creationist ones such as the Journal of Creation. However, if you care to read the linked articles you will usually find peer-reviewed sources of the information upon which the arguments are based. You just have to exert a bit of mental effort to see if the arguments stack up. Ceding your right to think to 'peer review' is not a sensible thing to do. See also: Creationism, Science and Peer Review.
BTW, I somehow doubt that you live on Bouvet Island (a condition of commenting is that you give a genuine name and location).
I've rarely read anything so stupid in my life. Is it any wonder we laugh at the United States?
"Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us." Thomas Jefferson.
You ridicule the article as being American, but the author is an Australian. Furthermore, the United States leads the world by a 'country mile' in scientific output, even on a per capita basis, so maybe the high level of belief in biblical creation there actually helps science. Indeed it was the basis for the development of modern science. Godless thinking ultimately leads to futility (Romans 1:21).
In response to 98, the 'length of recorded history' may be around 5,000 years, but there is overwhelming evidence for much earlier human existence, through stone tools, cave paintings and the like, which the linked-to article acknowledges and does not attempt to refute. Also writing is not a necessary part of human society, and it certainly didn't develop everywhere 'all about the same time'. The islanders of Tahiti, for example, had a purely spoken language until they encountered Westerners in the nineteenth century. In response to 97, we might as well ask where are all the animals from the last 5000 years? Although there have been large numbers of burials found all over the world from about 40,000 years ago at the latest, bodies break down very quickly in most conditions, even when buried. Even before radiocarbon dating stratigraphic evidence led to most of the Church accepting the evidence for man's antiquity in the mid-nineteenth century. Human history is just not consistent with a young earth.
When someone twists what was written, you know that they know that they are in a weak position. I did not say that "writing is a necessary part of human society" or that it developed "everywhere" about the same time.
Also, it is not just human bodies, which it was pointed out have been widely buried, unlike animals, but also human artefacts. Did you actually read the articles, or just skim them looking for loopholes?
As for the supposed evidence for older existence of humans, that's what this article is about; lots of evidence to the contrary. But it was not evidence that hoodwinked the 19th century churchmen, but the ascendancy of the uniformitarian paradigm. See James Hutton and the overthrow of biblical authority. This seems to have been presaged in 2 Peter 3 (scoffers saying "in the last days" that "all things are continuing as they were from the beginning").
This might possibly be the dumbest thing I've ever read. If all of this [expletive deleted] is true why can't it stand up to peer review in the scientific community?
As I have said before (above), if you care to read the linked articles you will find the peer-reviewed sources for nearly all of the points. But such hiding behind under skirts of peer review is really an excuse for refusing to engage the arguments. Appealing to 'consensus science', which is effectively what you argue with your appeal to 'peer review' impedes scientific discoveries; see: Michael Crichton on scientific consensus. But when it comes to historical 'science', which the age of the earth is, it is driven by philosophy, not evidence. The philosophy (of naturalism - 'no intelligence allowed') is almost never questioned in 'mainstream' peer review. A former president of Harvard was scathing of the approach to historical science, calling the outcome a "fantasia which is neither history nor science".
After reading the article, which I did like very much, on young earth and old earth facts, I can't help but notice some of the comments that have been posted against the article. I have noticed, as I do my own research on the subject, how defensive and upset people get when someone tries to argue on the subject. Those people end up being the "Evolutionists", or people in support of an old earth. I don't think they realize the magnitude of their argument. They want to so badly be right about their world belief, that they don't realize what is at stake with their argument. Do they really want to be right? Do they want a world where everyone has no hope? Where all we are, are supposed chemical accidents? Love is the greatest bond of humanity. There is no love in primordial soup. There is only love that is created from a god that loves. Do you think man invented love? Generally I guess people do suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Even if you do not believe, yet, read Romans 1 and try to remember that it was written approximately 2000 years ago. (Without radiocarbon testing).
Great stuff! Thank you so much for all the work you are putting into this.
God bless you!
Brilliant, love the article. What I love more is reading CMI’s replies to the anti creation comments. You guys clearly have the wisdom of God. I love your work!
Thanks for the article, although some of the 101 facts were a bit above my understanding. I think people should just stop and smell the roses so to speak, the wonder and beauty of the creation itself speaks of a Creator how much more do people need to be convinced?
Although I can say that I don't understand everything stated from this article, I do know that even as a child in science class I was shocked to hear that the Universe and Earth were billions of years old and my closest family member is a monkey. It is completely absurd to think that a human with all of the intricate body systems and capabilities evolved from a line of organisms that have nothing significantly or observationally in common. I have been researching the arguments and evidence findings of Young Earth and Old Earth scientists and the side that I find most often leaving the topic of science and hatefully and illogically defending their point of view are the Old earth traditional evolution believing scientists. I just took a microbiology class where in the text it would actually have little inserts about a bacteria and fungus mutually existing and how that supports evolution theory...WHAT? If that's the little evidence Evolutionists have to support their theory I think I will put my trust in the Holy God who performs miracles and wonders witnessed by many each and every day.
Thanks for the lovely fairy tale. I hope your wonderful thinktank will soon converge the theories of santa clause and paul bunyan so that babe the blue ox can lead santa's sleigh next christmas eve!
"Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us." Thomas Jefferson
It's ironic that you accuse me of using the argument from authority, but then use the exact same argument in support of Don Batten in your comment to Paul C.
Creationists love the argument from authority, as seen here: Creation scientists.
The argument from authority is a poor argument to support any position, however, it should speak to reason that if 99% of scientists in biology support evolution, and 99% of physicists support radiometric dating, and 99% of geologists support an old earth, maybe that should trigger you consider why the vast majority of scientists disagree with the creationist viewpoint. Are the thousands of scientists at hundreds of universities in dozens of countries, having published hundreds of thousands of articles over a dozen decades, all getting together to promote a giant conspiracy against a specific literal interpretation of an iron age origin story, or do you think they might be on to something?
It would help if you actually read the article I referred to: The fallacy of arguing from authority, since that answers your objection. Neither the Creation scientists page nor my support of Dr Batten was in that category. Rather, as explained, these are to refute those who claim that no real scientist believes in creation. Check out also the No True Scientist fallacy.
About trying to decide truth by majority vote, it’s hard to improve on Michael Crichton on consensus science.
It's also hard to take consensus seriously when it’s reached by counting heads, which themselves reached their opinion by counting heads. When it comes to actual evidence, the trail runs cold. For example, we see a great evolutionary paleo-ornithologist defend evolution, and instead of fossil birds, he gives us corn changing into corn! Of course, this is just variation within a kind, as the biblical model predicts!
If you have any proof that the “literal” (or rather, the plain or grammatical historical) interpretation of Genesis is wrong, let’s hear it! But before you answer with some sort of post-modern nonsense, please first check out Is biblical interpretation infallible, and does it matter?
If there was one article attached to any of these claims that was not linked to your own website, then your claims might have some weight. You have one agenda, while scientists have an agenda for truth. Also, just because the author of this article has published in peer-reviewed journals before doesn't mean that any of the claims made here are in those journals. Why aren't they? Because they get shot down due to complete nonsense and conjecture. If you want to make a claim that a certain method is not "the most accurate" then make it, but it does not then cause "your idea" to be right. You have to prove "your idea" with EVIDENCE. Remember the scientific method?
Funny: others accuse us of 'quote mining' and you accuse us of not citing external literature! You did not read very far if you did not find the articles from mainstream literature that are the source of much of the evidence. Clearly the authors of many of these papers do not agree with us and were not overtly publishing evidence for a young earth. Rather, the evidence published was inadvertant, but nevertheless real.
You need to deal with the evidence presented, not hide behind claims about peer review (the Journal of Creation is peer reviewed) and unsupported abuse ("complete nonsense"), etc.
All you people are drinking from the Jim Jones punchbowl! All the ‘scientific data’ listed here was compiled by creationists for the benefit of this propaganda piece. Dinosaurs lived with people? If anyone who agrees with this dribble can produce independently peer-reviewed data regarding the crap in this article, I wanna see it. This is an insult to real science!
Why would we want to drink from a punchbowl of one of your fellow atheists? Yes, Jim Jones is listed in “10 People who Give Atheism a Bad Name” [listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/] as one who “took the church and used the church to bring people to atheism”. (Also, for the record, it was actually poisoned Flavor Aid, not Kool-Aid or punch.)
Note that the author is a real Ph.D. scientist with many publications in secular journals. See also Creationism, Science and Peer Review.
So would you like try again, but with real arguments rather than a fact-free tirade?
I am concerned at the misleading information and conclusions presented here. For example the speed of coastal erosion does not support a young earth. All it shows is that the softer coastlines can erode rapidly. In fact other areas of coast gain material and beaches are formed or become larger. And what about ancient or ice-age coastlines for which there is huge evidence?
Coastal erosion is an example of a geological process that is far more rapid than expected from the slow-and-gradual geological philosophy. If you look at the map of coastal erosion in the USA in the article on coastal erosion, virtually the entire coastline has severe or moderate erosion. Very little is shown as stable.
The effects of changing sea level in the past mean that this method is not particularly conducive to calculating a specific age. However, the speed of erosion graphically illustrates that the geological processes could not have been going on for tens of millions of years, or more.
Reading this reminds me watching kids explain something to other kids that neither of them understand.
You use a lot of science-sounding words, but you really don't have a clue about what you are talking about.
But that is ok. You gave me a good laugh.
I'm sorry that you did not understand it. Perhaps we need to write an "Age of the Earth for Dummies" article. :-)
I am also a chemist, and will speak to radiocarbon dating listed here. Carbon-14 found in coal, oil, and fossil wood may be generated by nearby uranium deposits producing carbon 14 from nitrogen 14. Thus, “new” carbon 14 is being formed, long after the organism has died. When measuring carbon 14 in any sample, we scientists need to take into account any contamination the sample may have been exposed to, including uranium. That’s why we double and triple check the age of the samples using a number of different techniques. If we suspect uranium contamination, we can test that hypothesis, and if found, we can throw out carbon dating as a reliable technique for dating that particular sample. Science wins on consilience, the “jumping together” of many different forms of analysis, methods, techniques, and studies. If you would read the articles you cite, you would find the authors have very good explanations for why some of the radiometric dates don't match what we think they ought to be.
In summary, it would need a neutron flux many orders of magnitude stronger than observed today. Even more seriously, this theory would predict a very strong correlation between nitrogen content and 14C activity, so high-N samples should be “dated” far younger. Indeed, this would be serious enough to invalidate radiocarbon dating completely.
About “consilience”, the above 101 evidences are very consilient, I would have thought ;)
Seriously? You people obviously have access to the internet. What kind of filter are you using to eliminate actual facts and data to this ridiculous extent?
Mary has not provided any facts or data to back up her complaint over an article that is actually replete with them! :-)
The 1st time I read this article on November 2011 had me giving up my theistic evolutionist worldview and thanking God for revealing me that His Word is true from the beginning to the end! I just love what you're doing, keep up the good work!
OK - I really tried to understand the argument that you guys have put forward.
I read the article that said either the earth is 6000 years old or the Christian religion is on very shakey ground, and I followed a link here to find out why you think the earth is 'young'.
There is a huge amount of reading material here! I started with the first bullet point, which was a pretty heafty article in itself. This passage seems to summarize the main thrust of the argument.
"To recap the cause of the conflict:
One group of chemists insists (with sound reasons) that DNA can’t last millions of years.
Another group of scientists has presented solid evidence that they have found DNA in layers which evolutionists/long-agers believe to be 425 million years old (with sound reasons that the DNA was in the layers from the time they formed).
The obvious way to resolve these conflicting views is by realizing that the ages attributed to the layers containing the salt crystals are in error; the crystals are only thousands of years old!
In short, the presence of DNA in this ‘ancient’ salt is about as close as one can get to scientific proof that the ‘millions of years’ scenario is fiction."
So - to groups of scientists disagree about the validity of some conclusions regarding the age of some DNA, and this is as close as you've got to a scientific proof that the earth isn't millions of years old!?
I find it a little ironic that your 'proof' that scientists are wrong about the age of the world was based on a resolution of a conflict between scientists so that they can all be right.
It would be helpful if you highlighted your best five-or-so arguments - the ones that aren't along the lines of "This obscure reference about something very complicated said this, but this one said this... etc".
Occam's razor: prefer the simplest solution to a conundrum. Here is a conundrum that is solved by realizing that it it the vast ages that is the problem. Clearly DNA cannot last even 1% of that supposed time.
I'm sorry that you found it difficult to understand.
The best five arguments? And I guess you are asking for the easiest-to-understand ones, too. Try this subset of 18: Evidences for a young age of the earth and universe.
However, this article (101 evidences ...) is designed to dispense with the false idea that there is not much evidence for a young creation; there is lots of evidence from many different fields of study.
Great info—thanks, it is very helpful for those of us who are not scientists but believe in the biblical version of a young earth.
Thank you for the information. I am a chemist, and I can see errors in the theory of a 4.6 billion year old Earth. Thanks again! It’s hard to see geographic evidence for a young earth, or space evidence for a young earth, with a field in chemistry. I would not be suprised that in a couple of years, evidence will greatly support Creationism due to more evidence supporting a young earth. I hoped scientists in distantly related fields could work together to compile evidence for a young earth. And seems like you guys have done that! :D
Thankyou for this helpful information. I am a Christian and a Relief High School Geography Teacher. Praying for people to give glory to God in what they see in the rocks, plants, animals and human beings.
This is great! A gal just commented on my blog asking if I could provide some “cliff notes” on the age of the earth-this is a great page to start on Thank you! will include links on my blog too and will forward this to her! Thank you again CMI—my home page, and I go to it several times a day because it is THAT useful and necessary in my daily life—the CMI site and blueletterbible.
I, too, am a chemist, and can’t comment on many of the “facts” you have presented. However, I can comment on much of the chemistry “evidence” you have presented, which is not evidence at all, but a complete misunderstanding of basic science. Radio carbon dating cannot date anything further than approximately 65,000 years due to a dynamic equilibrium found in organic matter. There is a small amount present, and at the constant decay it exhibits, it can only be accurately measured up to 65,000 years. If more carbon-14 was present, a longer dating could be measured, but we would die from that much carbon-14 being present (oops). Furthermore, you dismiss radioisotope dating of ALL kinds… UNLESS they support your claims? That’s absolute hypocrisy and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
If you had read any of the references given in the brief points made about carbon dating you would have seen that there is no misunderstanding on our behalf of the process of carbon-14 dating (please read the explanation we give here, for example, the first link given: What about carbon dating?)
You have entirely missed the point about the carbon-14 in ancient fossils, coal, etc. The problem is the presence of carbon-14 in material that is supposedly millions of years old. If they are really millions of year old, then they could have no carbon-14 present, because of the short half-life of carbon-14 (it would have all decayed away, even if there were unrealistically large amounts of carbon-14 present when the fossil formed). This has nothing to do with any “dynamic equilibrium found in organic matter”; this is only present while an organism is alive; once it dies or becomes coal or whatever, the carbon-14 just decays, there is no equilibrium. But this is totally irrelevant to the argument.
“If more carbon-14 was present, a longer dating could be measured, but we would die from that much carbon-14 being present (oops).” This makes the problem worse for the presence of carbon-14 in things that are claimed to be millions of year old, if you care to think about it.
“Furthermore, you dismiss radioisotope dating of ALL kinds … UNLESS they support your claims? That’s absolute hypocrisy and you should be ashamed of yourselves.”
Please at least try to follow the logic of the argument, which is that it is the evolutionists who pick and choose what dating they will accept; it is the evolutionists who are inconsistent. We are not saying that we accept carbon dates any more than we accept any radiometric date (you cannot measure the age of something simply by measuring isotopes in the present). Please see this short article by one of our staff geologists, which explains this: How dating methods work
TIL When proving something I only have to cite myself as the source and not an actual scientific medium to disprove a large population of scientists on earth. This article is ridiculous.
Thanks for commenting, but if you care to read the articles linked from each point you will find the peer-reviewed sources of the information cited.
As someone who was raised from my younger years on the “gap theory”, I enjoyed this article greatly.