Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Talk:101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Goldenbrain.png
Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>

Updates since (including yet another removed/changed argument) (8th May 2014)[edit]

Boredom struck. Rows are on a line-by-line basis. Try and guess which is the changed argument. (Spoiler: It's #67) (Original pageimg)

Argument number 26/03/2012 08/05/2014
Can science prove the age of the earth?
age of the universe or the earth age of the earth and the universe
this sort of evidence for a young earth this sort of evidence for a young age of the earth
those accepted ages (about 14 billion years for the universe and 4.5 billion years for the solar system). those accepted ages (13.77 billion years for the universe and 4.54 billion years for the solar system).
Biological evidence
6 Many fossil bones "dated" at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really? 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).
7 Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen) are not consistent with their supposed age, but make more sense if the remains are young. 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).
Geological evidence
12 Lack of plant fossils Scarcity of plant fossils
14 Auracaria spp. king billy pines Araucaria spp. king billy pines
20 were still soft when it happened. were still soft when they formed.
22 many millions of "gap" time. many millions of years of "gap" time.
33 Rate of erosion of continents vertically. Rate of erosion of continents vertically is not consistent with the assumed old age of the earth.
35 The recent and almost simultaneous origin of all major mountain ranges around the world: all "dated" at only 5 million years ago, whereas the continents have, it is claimed, been around for up to billions of years. 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.
42 Lalomov, A.V., 2007. Lalomov, A.V., 2006.
44 on a random grid." Lalomov, A.V., 2007. on a random grid." —Lalomov, A.V., 2007.
49 with a little rythm with a little rhythm
50 on the young age of the earth. Journal of Creation on the young age of the earth, Journal of Creation
Radiometric dating
54 Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, 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: Objectionsimg.
56 the dating methods that give millions of years. the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).
60 Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 848 pp., 2005 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.
62 both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time. both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time and a vast age of the earth.
Astronomical evidence
65 http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/at-long-last-moons-core-seen.html?rss=1 http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/at-long-last-moons-core-seen.html
67 Slowing down of the earth. Tidal dissipation rate of Earth's angular momentum: increasing length of day, currently by 0.002 seconds/day every century (thus an impossibly short day billions of years ago and a very slow day shortly after accretion and before the postulated giant impact to form the Moon). See: How long has the moon been receding? 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.
68 Ghost craters on the moon's maria (singular mare: dark "seas" formed from massive lava flows) are a problem for long ages. Evolutionists believe that the lava flows were caused by enormous impacts, 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 hardened before the impacts. This suggests a very narrow time frame for lunar cratering, and by implication the other cratered bodies of our solar system. 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.
74 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 ethane. As the original Astrobiology paper said, "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. 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).
76 Our created solar system DVD; Walker, T., 2009. Enceladus: Saturn's sprightly moon looks young, Creation 31(3):54–55). Our created solar system DVD; Walker, T., Enceladus: Saturn's sprightly moon looks young, Creation 31(3):54–55, 2009).
89 — (added on the end) 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
92 moving away from each other at speeds estimated at 10–12 km/s. moving away from each other at speeds estimated at to 10–12 km/s.
94 See Davies, K., Proc. 3rd ICC See Davies, K., Proc. 3prd ICC

— Unsigned, by: Einstein95 / talk / contribs

Anyone feeling up to updating it? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 20:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

TOC[edit]

I think it'd look better if it was made into a left-aligned div -- eg:

---- ---- ----
TOC  PAGE PAGE
TOC  PAGE PAGE
TOC  PAGE PAGE
PAGE PAGE PAGE
PAGE PAGE PAGE
REBUTTALS AREA
---- ---- ----

Currently it looks like it's just floating there. Thoughts? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you're picturing. But it was basically adapted from something else that was ... somewhere ... on the wiki. So do whatever works. I mean, it looks fine to me on my 1366px-wide laptop and my 1920px-wide screen at work ... - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks fine, aspie. Conscience (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Another two cents[edit]

I can't understand why YECs are so obsessed with their ideas being true, when if that was the case the implications would be very deep -and not just because if YHWH was real why not other gods too, especially those of faraway lands where the Bible was not known until missionaries carried it there?- not only for us and this planet but also the entire Universe (just imagine the latter as we know to be, administrated by someone as YHWH as appears on the OT. Either that or the 'verse being just a big lie to test our faith, never mind the issues that idea could bring. It's not pleasant at all) --Panzerfaust (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Asking if all religions can be right is like asking if all political parties can be right. If asked if people who die without ever hearing The Word get a free pass, many theologians would reply "Yes." And as for other planets, all I'll say is this: when the Bible says that humans are special, it means as compared to mountains and microbes and moles and such. (For the record, I am not a YEC. I embrace both the ancient age of the universe and evolution, but I don't really fit into any of the "Old Earth Creationist" categories you folks have listed here.)Skadooshbag (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

create theological version of this page[edit]

There should probably be a sister page to this which addresses the theological arguments for YEC. I could help with such a page if you want. Skadooshbag (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

#4 the "response" isn't a response at all[edit]

The creationist's argument is that the measured mutation rates for mitochondrial DNA from multi-generational studies indicate an age that is at least "five times younger" than the accepted age. The response only restates what "most scientists believe" about the age, without dealing with the argument that the creationist is making. At the end of the creationist's article he states--"In short, I think MacAndrew is very premature and overconfident when he says that ‘subsequent research has largely resolved’ the challenge presented to long-age dates for ‘mitochondrial Eve’." So to refute the argument, we need to look into MacAndrew's claim and demonstrate that it is correct. — Unsigned, by: Themumblingprophet / talk / contribs