Young Earth - 6,000 or 10,000 Years?

[Helen]

Charles, you want positive evidence for a young earth? OK

1. Men have recorded catastrophes all over the world that 'science' says happened long before men came on the scene. One of the first that caught my attention was the South Pacific 'legend' involving 'how the moon got a dirty face.' When you strip away the mythological elements, the fact remains that men remember a drastic change in the moon's appearance and associate it with large rocks. We call them asteroids or meteorites. We have a series of very large meteorite impact craters running from Europe to the Caribbean and across part of North America. This is on the opposite side of the world from the South Pacific. Thus, they were in a position to see that meteorite series hit the moon, but not see it hit the earth! The scars are on both places, however, and, according to 'science' happened millions of years ago.

2. Genetic load -- the build-up of negative mutations in the germ cells of a population -- is rapid and debilitating to any species. Life has not been around long, in any form.

3. Current science is at a relative loss to explain the very high redshifts at the seen boundaries of the universe, the maturity of some 'early' galaxies, the cohesiveness of the galaxies themselves, etc., only because they insist on an old universe. These problems do not exist in a young universe. Dark matter is not necessary in a young universe, yet it is supposed to comprise something like 90% of all matter simply because old agers need it to support the old age ideas!

4. Geology has shown us that strata can build up very rapidly in catastrophic conditions and need not take the uniformitarian millions of years.

5. Paleontologists are finding relatively fresh tissue in some dinosaur remains. There is even the smell of rot in some remains.

6. Back to astronomy -- the rings of Saturn should have long since disrupted, as we even now see them doing; the small moons should no longer be geologically active, but they are; Venus' atmosphere should have dispersed one way or another, but it hasn't -- all if the solar system were old. But it has all the signs of a young solar system.

Actually, there is strong evidence from every field of science that life itself and the universe itself are not old at all, but quite young.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
The thing that bothers me most about the YEC camp is that they seem to be willing to accept anything, even obviously untenable answers, as long as it is anti-evolution.

What bothers me about evolutionists (and those who believe Genesis 1-11 is an epic fable) is that they seem to be willing to accept anything, even obviously untenable answers, as long as it obeys naturalistic presuppositions.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Helen,

Actually, there is strong evidence from every field of science that life itself and the universe itself are not old at all, but quite young.

No there isn't! Your "evidence" is a list of inconsistencies in the current prevailing naturalist scheme. There are some unexplained phenomena and some things which do not seem to agree with the old earth theories. Any scientist would accept that. But that does not constitute disproof of prevailing scientific theories nor does it even come close to proving a young earth.

I never said that an old earth or evolution was 100% proven. I don't have a problem with those who believe in a young earth. But I have a problem, Helen, with those who are intellectually dishonest!!

 

[bapmom]

Charles,

you said Helen's evidence "is a list of inconsistencies in the current prevailing naturalist scheme."

What else is "evidence for a young earth" supposed to look like??

 

[Charles Meadows]

Scott,

The basic naturalistic presuppositions may be unproven but they are quite tenable. You know this to be true, even if you don't subscribe to their conclusions.

You can believe in a literal creation if you want. Fine with me. There is no empiric proof either way. But if you are knowledgeable in science (which you seem to be) then you realize (whether not you will admit in here) that the real proof for a young earth, scientifically speaking, is nonexistent.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
...that the real proof for a young earth, scientifically speaking, is nonexistent.

Evidences From Earth:
</font>

• The decaying magnetic field limits earth's age to less than 10,000 years old.</font>
• The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth's lava was deposited rapidly.</font>
• Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate gives only a few thousand years of accumulation.</font>
• The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175, 000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium here which would reduce the age more.)</font>
• The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years (destroying all old fossils).</font>
• Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation.</font>
• Niagara Falls' erosion rate (approx. 2 feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. (Don't forget Noah's Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters receded through the soft sediments).</font>
• Incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years.</font>
• The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate the mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah's day could have washed 80% of the mud out there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable time for the delta to form).</font>
• The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution.</font>
• Only a small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to evolutionists.</font>
• The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have formed in about 4400 years.</font>
• The Sahara desert is expanding. It could easily have been formed in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook.</font>
• The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now.</font>

Evidences From History
</font>

• The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old.</font>
• Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Over 250 of these Flood legends are now known.</font>
• Biblical dates add up to about 6000 years.</font>

Evidences From Space
</font>

• The Shrinking Sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "millions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth just the right distance for life to survive.</font>
• The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than 10,000 years old</font>
• Fossil Meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks.</font>
• The moon is receding a few inches each year. A few million years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have destroyed the earth twice a day.</font>
• The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.</font>
• The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young.</font>
• At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for more than a few thousand years.</font>
• Saturn's rings are still unstable, indicating they are not millions of years old.</font>
• Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. Jupiter's moon "Io" is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old.</font>
• It appears that the stars in the centers of many galaxies are moving faster than the stars at the outer edges. This would make the galaxies lose their spiral shape and spin into a homogeneous mass if they were billions of years old.</font>

Among other factors to consider, one is that all the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red giant and now it is a white dwarf. The life cycle of stars needs to be restudied, with the textbooks in astronomy stating one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" form a red giant to a white dwarf. In fact the Hubble Space Telescope is aiding creationists as opposed to the evolutionists as it continues to discredit their theories. You can see just about any edition of Astronomy magazine published over the last few years for verification of this.

Evidences From Biology
</font>

• The current population of earth (7 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years.</font>
• The oldest coral reef is about 4200 years old.</font>
• The oldest living tree in the world is 4300 years old.</font>
• DNA is 99.9% alike in all people.</font>
• All things reproduce "after his kind." As simple as this is, remember all biology textbooks teach that everything that is alive today arose from something else through evolutionary processes. There is no evidence for this. But plenty of evidence that everything reproduces as the Bible states "after his kind."</font>

Source: http://www.creationseminar.net/it's_a_young_earth.htm

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Scott,

The basic naturalistic presuppositions may be unproven but they are quite tenable. You know this to be true, even if you don't subscribe to their conclusions.

They are not universally "tenable"... and we both know this to be true. Supernatural/extra-natural presuppositions are often at least as valid and should not be automatically, prejudicially discounted.

We don't look at Stonehenge and presuppose natural causes even though extraordinary natural causes might well account for the construction. We look at the order and evidence then conclude that an intelligent force with sufficient power most likely constructed this mysterious formation. Yet, we are supposed to accept that the precise machine like functions of dna are the result of natural causes- ultimately leading back to an absolutely incredible assumption of abiogenesis.

Wouldn't we agree that the incidental construction of one viable strand of dna/rna is more fantastic than a natural cause for Stonehenge? Yet 'scientists' would simultaneously scoff at the idea that Stonehenge was a natural occurence while the formation of dna was not.

I have said several time here that evolution is not impossible. I think it is unlikely to the absurd... but mathematical probabilities aside, it is possible. Naturalistic presuppositions for the cause of everything in nature may be absolutely valid (though not biblical).

However I tire of people who accuse us of being ignorant and close minded while it is they who have limited the possible answers to ones they can "measure in a test tube".

I can accept naturalistic presuppositions when they make sense. I can accept non-natural presuppostions when they make sense and especially when scripture declares or leads to those presuppositions. The notion that truth in nature, science, or any other field is limited by naturalism is unproveable... and in fact demonstrated to be invalid by daily experience.

We readily presume that many things are the result of design and industry. But somehow "science" has quite arbitrarily forbidden the notion that this can be a good premise for studying origins or earth sciences. That is not only bad science, it is irrational.

You can believe in a literal creation if you want. Fine with me. There is no empiric proof either way.

Yes there is. We have an eyewitness account given by someone who cannot lie.

But if you are knowledgeable in science (which you seem to be) then you realize (whether not you will admit in here) that the real proof for a young earth, scientifically speaking, is nonexistent.

It is actually the same proof that exists for an OE interpretted differently... but with a critical advantage.

If I told you that a woman had lived through a war, genocide, economic depression, the introduction of electricity and running water, and a recent environmental catastrophy that caused them to be homeless... you might employ presuppositions that led you to a firm conviction that I must be talking about an elderly woman in the gulf coast region. But if I said that she had also had a 5 year old child die of starvation in the last year... your conviction would be disqualified. I might be talking about someone in southern Sudan but I could not be talking about an elderly person in the US.

Only one detail was necessary to disprove your assumption. The same is true in the OE vs YE debate. Every single proof for OE must be categorically true to the exclusion of all other explanations. There need be only one sound proof for YE to disqualify OE assumptions.

Of course, "proof" in these discussions is never absolute so even though I see many convincing proofs like those provided by Helen, I cannot say that OE is absolutely false.

Ultimately, this turns into faith in one idea or the other. I simply accept God's Word as the ultimate, immutable standard of truth around which all "proofs", theories, and philosophies must conform.

Others accept the philosophical assumptions of naturalism as the standard around which scripture must be conformed. Their interpretations of general revelation become the inerrant, infallible standard for judging and interpretting a quite errant, fallible Book.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Scott,

Others accept the philosophical assumptions of naturalism as the standard around which scripture must be conformed.

I never said that scripture must conform to naturalism.

What you refer to as naturalism is the same scientific climate and method which has given us cars, antibiotics, electricity, and computers!

I am willing to accept the position of those who believe in a 6 day creation (although I disagree with their hermeneutic) based on their reading of Genesis. I will not subordinate scripture to science.

But what I am not willing to accept is the intellectual dishonesty of the AiG crowd, which pander their pseudoscience to the masses. They offer "evidence" for a young earth. You said Helen offerred "convincing evidence". It may seem like convincing evidence to lay readers - but have you read reviews of that "evidence" by other scientists, namely professors at respected institutions? No thanks.

I think one can still reasonably hold to a young earth. Science deals more in theory than hard fact. But one must be honest about what we observe. We as Christians should admit that science suggests an old earth (at least for now) even if we don't agree with it.

[ September 22, 2005, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Charles Meadows ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Scott,

Others accept the philosophical assumptions of naturalism as the standard around which scripture must be conformed.

I never said that scripture must conform to naturalism.

What you refer to as naturalism is the same scientific climate and method which has given us cars, antibiotics, electricity, and computers!

Nope.

If you find a car in the desert, you wouldn't assume that it arrived there naturally. If you found a car buried in what was thought to be pre-Cambrian sediment, you wouldn't assume that it arrived there naturally. You would automatically assume an unnatural cause since engineering design and function suggest the forces of intelligence, not nature.

I am willing to accept the position of those who believe in a 6 day creation (although I disagree with their hermeneutic) based on their reading of Genesis. I will not subordinate scripture to science.

But you have Charles. The field that you cite to classify and interpret Genesis as epic literature or ancient mythology is a field of science.

At least that field is honest enough to see complex coding and assume that its source was intelligence... so I guess that much is a plus.

But what I am not willing to accept is the intellectual dishonesty of the AiG crowd, which pander their pseudoscience to the masses. They offer "evidence" for a young earth. It may seem like evidence to lay readers - but have you read reviews of that "evidence" by other scientists, namely professors at respected institutions? No thanks.

Charles, Isn't that a matter of whose interpretation you are willing to accept? And since those interpretations are based on either naturalistic or non-naturalistic premsises, aren't you showing deference to naturalism by ascribing this kind of authority to those at "respected institutions"?

An extreme but valid comparison would be a lay German deferring to "respected institutions" with regard to race in the 1930's. The most intelligent, well educated, powerful scientific people in the land devised plans to restore aryan god-men by genetics and selective breeding.

I think one can still reasonably hold to a young earth. Science deals more in theory than hard fact.

Me too. FTR, I don't accept anyone's interpretation at face value. Some of the explanations of creationists have been discredited, revised, abandoned... but so have countless explanations that were once accepted by evolutionists and "respected" scientists at "respected institutions".

That is the nature of scientific study... but when creationists are wrong, folks like you issue blanket condemnations of their work and integrity... and most importantly, their philosophical presuppositions and premises.

Any time a creationist is wrong, it is treated as a complete disproof of creationism. Yet evolutionists have been repeatedly wrong and their presuppositions and philosophy are treated as sacred cows.

But one must be honest about what we observe. We as Christians should admit that science suggests an old earth (at least for now) even if we don't agree with it.

I am honest about what we observe and I clearly disagree with you for the reasons given in my last post. Only one of the proofs for a YE must be proven true to invalidate OE. All of the proofs for OE must be proven true to invalidate YE. And, since the most relied on proofs for OE depend on unproven and unproveable assumptions... I find the proofs for YE more credible.

[ September 22, 2005, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Charles Meadows]

Scott,

But you have Charles. The field that you cite to classify and interpret Genesis as epic literature or ancient mythology is a field of science.

You keep bringing theology into this.

My only argument is against those put forth what I consider to be junk science.

You point out that there have been flaws demonstrated in the evolutionary scheme. No argument there. But that does not mean all of the old earth theory has been refuted. Nor does it mean by any stretch that the YEC stance is validated.

I, like you, refuse to simply take for fact the opinions of others without considering them myself. But I look around the scientific community at the opinion of creation science... Universal contempt. Now granted many professors are biased from the start. But I think some of that bias reflects a perception (which I share) that many creation scientists are being less than honest and are grasping at straws.

I think you and many others are conditioned to see science through the lens of scripture. There's nothing wrong with that per se. But I still think that within the naturalist scheme we should be honest. Science says the earth is old. You can trump that with the Bible if you want - but just honest about the facts.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Key phrase," I will not subordinate Scripture to Science".
So who are you going to belive God or a scientist or group of scientists?

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bill,

Don't misunderstand my post. My argument is not that we should believe science is always right. Rather I am arguing that we should report science honestly.

I have no problem with the believe who says, "Yeah I know what those scientists say - but I just believe the Bible."

I have a problem with those who are willing to twist what science has really shown in order to discredit evolution.

 

[JGrubbs]

I know what secular atheistic scientist say, but I just believe the Bible and those Christian scientist who have the evidence that proves those humanist wrong, as shown in my previous post.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
I know what secular atheistic scientist say, but I just believe the Bible and those Christian scientist who have the evidence that proves those humanist wrong, as shown in my previous post.

Science is a secular rather than sacred endeavor, whether the scientist be a Christian fundamentalist, a conservative or liberal Baptist, a conservative or liberal Lutheran, a conservative or liberal Presbyterian, a conservative or liberal Roman Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, an agnostic, or an atheist. And very few scientists are atheists.

And, JGrubbs, IF you know anything at all about science and scientists, you know these things for a fact. Therefore we have two possibilities:

1. You don’t know anything at all about either science or scientists and your post is of no merit.

or

2. You are deliberately and willfully misrepresenting the facts in order to defend your personal interpretation of Genesis. And if you are deliberately and willfully misrepresenting the facts, you are deliberately and willfully sinning against both man and God and you should be reading Romans instead of Genesis.

 

[Deacon]

Craig, somehow I think we all fall somewhere between those two possibilities.

Rob

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Deacon:
Craig, somehow I think we all fall somewhere between those two possibilities.

Rob

If that is true, we all need to get down on our knees before God, confess our sin, and ask for His forgiveness and the determination to honor Christ rather than the devil!

 

[Craigbythesea]

 

[Helen]

Charles, I'm not sure, but in reading one of your posts on page 7, it seems you implied that I was spreading false information and that I ama being intellectually dishonest. If you believe this is true, could you please let me know what I said that was false and/or dishonest, and give me some kind of back up information to show me that my information was false or dishonest? I would appreciate it, thank you.

Craig, you have flung some pretty nasty remarks out about my husband's work. I have asked you to back them up and you are still silent. If you cannot substantiate what you said, I would request a public apology. Thank you.

___________

Now, about the evidence one way or another. Since origins is a unique event, it cannot be proven one way or the other as there is no way to replicate it.

However, we have evidence. Not just interpretations, but actual evidence. For instance in the New Scientist, Sept. 10-16, 2005, there is an article that starts on page 32 intitled Tails of the Unexpected. Briefly, the article talks about what was expected from comets was entirely different from what they found. It was presumed that comets were icy masses left over from the initial formation of the solar system and that they would burn up a little each time they circled the sun at their closest points.

What they found is that there appears to be internal activity going on in these comets which release gas jets to the surface not just on the 'sun side' but on the shady side as well. In addition, these comets had craters that do not appear to be impact craters, but rather craters formed from internal heating and explosions.

In an old cosmos, this internal activity, which is clearly not fueled by the sun, would have ceased long, long ago.

In a young universe, there is no reason it should not be ongoing.

But since the idea of a young universe is out with mainstream science, they are desperately looking for alternative explanations.

The article is full of quotes such as
"We still do not know what drives comet activity."

"There's nothing as confusing as a comet."

"We really need to think differently."

"The best way to think of them is that theyare in a constant state of disintegration."

It's not proof. Nothing is proof. But it is one more evidence that God knows how to communicate and that this cosmos might, indeed, be very young.

___________

I do want to say a bit about the evidences for a young universe posted by JGrubbs. There are a number of items in the list which depend on uniformitarianism/gradualism being true. However it is not true, and that fact eliminates some of the evidences mentioned. This would include erosion of the continents, which can be offset dramatically by the catastrophic uprising of mountain ranges which has happened in the past. Standard geology admits to catastrophes (which it did not always do, granted) and so we must be careful about what we consider evidence that is currently good to discuss.

Other evidences, such as lava flows and mineral accumulation in the oceans are ignoring other factors involved and are not, I think, good points.

Things like the Niagara gorge are not good at all. First of all, Niagara was not present before the Flood. We have a two mile deposit of carbon-rich layer from the Flood BELOW the Cambrian strata. The world that was then was totally destroyed and Niagara was more than likely formed after the division of continents in Peleg's time. This is the same problem which exists with trying to use the Mississippi delta as evidence of a young earth.

The sun is not shrinking. It oscillates in size and our measurements are starting to pick that up.

All that being said, at least half of the points presented are accurate and strong points in favor of a young cosmos.

Just be very careful about the age and source of the lists you copy.

But yes, there is ample evidence that the entire universe is young -- enough evidence that those who are purposefully ignoring it are doing so at their own eternal risk.

About oil and gas pressure -- that also is not a good argument, for there is still internal heating going on in the earth from radio decay at the least. This heating is going to cause water to be driven out of rocks at points and also cause additional pressure in areas. So there is an explanation for high pressure under the crust which has nothing to do with the earth's age.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Helen,

I really don't know you or your background.

Actually, there is strong evidence from every field of science that life itself and the universe itself are not old at all, but quite young.

But I find your statements such as this to be very misguiding to those who do not have much scientific experience. Ask any astronomy or biology professor at a large university. What will be their opinions regarding the age of the earth? Yet you claim that science actually suggests that the earth is young. Either you do not appraise or do not want to appraise all of the data - or you paint a bit better picture than you know exists. I object to both.

You have raised objections, many of which seem to be regurgiutated from the standard "refute evolution" repertoire. These objections have all been addressed time and again - even on this board.

If you say that evolution has not been 100% proven, or that the earth might be young - fine I have no problem with that.

But you assert that science shows that the earth is definitely young. Science shows no such thing. By spreading this information you potentially set young believers up for a crisis of faith when they go to college and find out that the professors know a heck of a lot more than the apologetics guys think.

 

[just-want-peace]

Ask any astronomy or biology professor at a large university. What will be their opinions regarding the age of the earth?

Charles, I don't know you personally, so this is just an observation from your posts.

It seems to me that you are geared to back up most (if not all) of your beliefs based on what some large university professor says rather than the word of God.

Now if I did not believe in God and His word, I could accept these men as the final say in matters of science; BUT as a Christian, I will have to trust the Word of God when there is a conflict in THE WORD and their word.

The evidence is the same for all, but the interpretation will go either in light of what God says, or what man says.

I, personally, will choose God!