Young Earth creationism

| | 0 Comments

At the time that Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published, the earth was “scientifically” determined to be million years old. By , it was found to be 1. In , science firmly established that the earth was 3. Finally in , it was discovered that the earth is “really” 4. In these early studies the order of sedimentary rocks and structures were used to date geologic time periods and events in a relative way. At first, the use of “key” diagnostic fossils was used to compare different areas of the geologic column. Although there were attempts to make relative age estimates, no direct dating method was available until the twentieth century. However, before this time some very popular indirect methods were available. For example, Lord Kelvin had estimated the ages of both the Earth and the Sun based on cooling rates.

Age of the Earth

Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System Answers in Genesis , the leading young-earth creationist ministry, disowns cosmic dust arguments. The most amazing thing about the cosmic dust argument is that it is still being used! It has coasted along on obsolete evidence, and nothing but obsolete evidence, for the last 25 years!! It nicely illustrates how creationists borrow from each other and never do any outside reading.

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several.

This age is obtained from radiometric dating and is assumed by evolutionists to provide a sufficiently long time-frame for Darwinian evolution. And OE Christians theistic evolutionists see no problem with this dating whilst still accepting biblical creation, see Radiometric Dating – A Christian Perspective. This is the crucial point: Some claim Genesis in particular, and the Bible in general looks mythical from this standpoint.

A full discussion of the topic must therefore include the current scientific challenge to the OE concept. This challenge is mainly headed by Creationism which teaches a young-earth YE theory. A young earth is considered to be typically just 6, years old since this fits the creation account and some dating deductions from Genesis.

The crucial point here is: Accepted Dating Methods Here we outline some dating methods , both absolute and relative, that are widely accepted and used by the scientific community. Absolute dating supplies a numerical date whilst relative dating places events in time-sequence; both are scientifically useful. Radiometric Dating This is based upon the spontaneous breakdown or decay of atomic nuclei.

Radioactive parent P atoms decay to stable daughter D atoms e. The time required for half the original number of parent atoms to decay is called the half life. Some half-lives are listed below:

1. Rate of Decay

Reference to a case where the given method did not work This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts: First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work.

Dating Calculator: To find the percent of Carbon 14 remaining after a given number of years, type in the number of years and click on Calculate.

Until recent years, scientists who believe in creation haven’t had the necessary resources to explore radiometric dating in detail. A 10 gram sample of U Now that has changed, and some important discoveries are being made. When granite rock hardens, it freezes radioactive elements in place. The most common radioactive element in granite is Uranium This element is locked in tiny zircons within the granite.

As part of the decay process, helium is produced.

History of Earth

How old is the earth? First published in Refuting Evolution , Chapter 8 Evolutionists fallaciously think that billions of years of time makes particles-to-people evolution possible. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science presents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36— The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6, years ago.

The Age of the Earth Strengths and weaknesses of radiometric and other dating methods. See also the discussions on Dating a Young Earth and Biblical Earth Dating.

Primary source references As a preface to this document, I want to point out that it is a shame that we have to continue to refute the same arguments that evolutionists keep bringing up over and over again in their attempts to argue against the fact of creation, which fact has been well established since the day the earth was created ex nihilo several thousand years ago.

It is also a shame that the masses have bought all this based on some circular reasoning about fossils, where fossils tend to be found buried, similarities between various life forms, the presence of certain decay products in rocks, and other inherently speculative arguments about the past, based on phenomena that exist in the present. If I hope to accomplish anything, it will be to simply encourage critical thinking.

One must get past the arguments ad populum that its popularity counts for something , ad hominem that if you attack the person making the argument, this counts for something , and especially ad baculum that there are people who have the clout to decree it as true , to ask the key questions and challenge the unsubstantiated assumptions and thinking of those who would hold to the evolution position.

Today there are an increasing number of anti-creationist authors who are producing books and periodicals that make this relatively brief presentation insufficient to deal with all the points in dispute. Those defending creation today who don’t have the time to devote their life’s study to gaining expertise in all fields of inquiry must principally be prepared to think critically, logically, and challenge unsubstantiated assumptions made by these people.

They must also keep a level head in the face of some vicious attacks and diatribes that will be directed against them, as is advised in the scriptures 1 Peter 3: By way of definitions, I want to point out that when I speak of “evolution,” I am referring to the popular contemporary use of the word, which in a nutshell is the belief that all life forms are related by ancestry, and that the first life form occurred spontaneously, all due to completely natural processes.

When I speak of “creation,” I am referring to the inherently obvious fact that the origin of all life forms can be attributed to a creator who purposefully created them with planning and intent, and the documented fact that this occurred over the course of a week’s time several thousand years ago.

How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?

History[ edit ] Biblical dates for creation[ edit ] The first major comprehensive draft of Genesis was composed by the Yahwist in the late 7th or the 6th century BC, during the Babylonian captivity , with later additions made by the priestly source in the post-exilic period. The poor world is almost 6, years old. In particular, discoveries in geology required an Earth that was much older than thousands of years, and proposals such as Abraham Gottlob Werner ‘s Neptunism attempted to incorporate what was understood from geological investigations into a coherent description of Earth’s natural history.

James Hutton , now regarded as the father of modern geology, went further and opened up the concept of deep time for scientific inquiry. Rather than accepting that the Earth was deteriorating from a primal state, he maintained that the Earth was infinitely old.

A Generic Young Earth Model. The following is a generic model combining features and concepts from a number of similar YE models, and in particular from the YE models proposed by Setterfield and objective is to present plausible concepts rather than one particular model.

Consider also the most popular explanation offered for the photo right , that a concretion formed around an s-era hammer as minerals precipitated out of the surrounding limestone. From Adam until Real Science Radio , in only generations! Another paper, in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology Eugenie Scott ‘s own field on High mitochondrial mutation rates , shows that one mitochondrial DNA mutation occurs every other generation, which, as creationists point out , indicates that mtEve would have lived about generations ago.

That’s not so old! As our List of Not So Old Things this web page reveals, by a kneejerk reaction evolutionary scientists assign ages of tens or hundreds of thousands of years or at least just long enough to contradict Moses’ chronology in Genesis. However, with closer study, routinely, more and more old ages get revised downward to fit the world’s growing scientific knowledge. Consistent with this observation, the May issue of National Geographic quotes the U.

Forest Service’s scientist at Mount St. Helens, Peter Frenzen, describing the canyon on the north side of the volcano. But this was cut in less than a decade. Helens, the volcanic mount, is only about 4, years old! Secular scientists default to knee-jerk, older-than-Bible-age dates. Rather than having been genetically isolated from other fish for 13, years which would make this small school of fish older than the Earth itself , according to a paper in the journal Nature, actual measurements of mutation rates indicate that the genetic diversity of these Pupfish could have been generated in about years, give or take a few.

Previously, seven sedimentary layers in Wisconsin had been described as taking a million years to form.

The Age of the Earth

The sun, moon, and stars 2. The fish and the birds 3. The fertile earth 6. The land animals and humans 7. Rest and satisfaction In light of these correspondences, Kline interprets days one and four as different perspectives on the same event, and likewise days two and five, and three and six. He concludes that while the creation account is historical, historicity and narrative sequence are not the same thing, so the account need not—indeed, should not—be read as chronological at all.

Thousands not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth [Donald DeYoung] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. “Evolutionary models for life, earth, and space are questioned today by a significant group of scientists worldwide. They are convinced that the earth and the entire universe are the result of a supernatural creation event which.

Planetary differentiation An artist’s rendering of a protoplanetary disk The standard model for the formation of the Solar System including the Earth is the solar nebula hypothesis. It was composed of hydrogen and helium created shortly after the Big Bang As the cloud began to accelerate, its angular momentum , gravity , and inertia flattened it into a protoplanetary disk perpendicular to its axis of rotation. Small perturbations due to collisions and the angular momentum of other large debris created the means by which kilometer-sized protoplanets began to form, orbiting the nebular center.

After more contraction, a T Tauri star ignited and evolved into the Sun. Meanwhile, in the outer part of the nebula gravity caused matter to condense around density perturbations and dust particles, and the rest of the protoplanetary disk began separating into rings. In a process known as runaway accretion , successively larger fragments of dust and debris clumped together to form planets. The same process is expected to produce accretion disks around virtually all newly forming stars in the universe, some of which yield planets.

Having higher densities than the silicates, these metals sank.

Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth

When things get too heavy just call me helium, the lightest known gas to man. But there are many applications for helium — both scientific and non-scientific — that make it incredibly useful and practical. Too bad for the kids who want hydrogen balloons for their birthday parties!

The Bible and an Old Earth. Inserting vast ages into the Bible’s first chapter sets it at odds with modern secular scientific opinion regarding the order of events.

Outlook Other The earth is only a few thousand years old. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. The following series of articles presents what Answers in Genesis researchers picked as the ten best scientific evidences that contradict billions of years and confirm a relatively young earth and universe. Despite this wealth of evidence, it is important to understand that, from the perspective of observational science, no one can prove absolutely how young or old the universe is.

And we do have such a witness—the God of the Bible! He has given us a specific history, beginning with the six days of Creation and followed by detailed genealogies that allow us to determine when the universe began. Based on this history, the beginning was only about six thousand years ago about four thousand years from Creation to Christ.

Interpreting the facts of the present becomes especially difficult when reconstructing the historical events that produced those present-day facts, because no humans have always been present to observe all the evidence and to record how all the evidence was produced. Forensic scientists must make multiple assumptions about things they cannot observe. How was the original setting different?

Were different processes in play? Was the scene later contaminated? Just one wrong assumption or one tiny piece of missing evidence could totally change how they reconstruct the past events that led to the present-day evidence.

Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth

The Oldest Living Thing: The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4, and 4, years old. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about rings.

The standard model for the formation of the Solar System (including the Earth) is the solar nebula hypothesis. In this model, the Solar System formed from a large, rotating cloud of interstellar dust and gas called the solar was composed of hydrogen and helium created shortly after the Big Bang Ga (billion years ago) and heavier elements ejected by supernovae.

Share by Mail The question of the meaning and proper interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis is one of the most heated subjects in Christendom today. Few other topics have evoked such polarised opinion and division. The diversity of views on Genesis, even among the most learned of exegetes and scholars, is staggering.

While one extreme insists that the days of Genesis must strictly be interpreted as seven consecutive hour periods thus rendering the earth very young indeed — in the order of thousands, and not millions or billions, of years old , at the other extreme lies the notion that the early chapters of Genesis are devoid of any historical content at all. There is a plethora of competing views which reside in the middle of those polar extremes: In this article, I attempt to show that, while it is possible to interpret the book of Genesis in light of a young earth, there is no Biblical mandate for this conclusion: That is to say, Genesis could be interpreted in that manner, but it does not have to be.

And, as a scientist, the arguments for an ancient earth seem to be very compelling needless to say, when it comes to Darwinian evolution, it is a very different story. Having shown that Genesis does not require that one read it as conveying a young earth, I hope that readers will be convinced that we can thus read and understand the science on its own terms as well. It seems to me that there are three major subtopics which an article of this nature must address.

Science Blogs

History[ edit ] Biblical dates for creation[ edit ] The first major comprehensive draft of Genesis was composed by the Yahwist in the late 7th or the 6th century BC, during the Babylonian captivity , with later additions made by the priestly source in the post-exilic period. The poor world is almost 6, years old. In particular, discoveries in geology required an Earth that was much older than thousands of years, and proposals such as Abraham Gottlob Werner ‘s Neptunism attempted to incorporate what was understood from geological investigations into a coherent description of Earth’s natural history.

James Hutton , now regarded as the father of modern geology, went further and opened up the concept of deep time for scientific inquiry.

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism, a religious belief, which holds that the universe, Earth, and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God less than 10, years ago. Its primary adherents are Christians who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the creation narrative in the Bible’s Book of Genesis and believe that God created the Earth in six hour days.

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. 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.

How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 52 Helium In The Atmosphere


Greetings! Would you like find a sex partner? It is easy! Click here, free registration!