Talk:101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe
|
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. |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
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. |
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? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (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
"I felt the need to clear up an issue concerning the main subject of the article."[edit]
[By Viralnugget: I wish to inform whoever may read this that this document is rather biased, and does not reflect the reality of the issue at hand. I'd like to think this won't get edited out since this site claims to be "rational," so the only way to test that hypothesis is to see if this edit gets approved.]
First, I need to say that I've studied the natural creation vs. special creation debate for almost 10 years now, and have studied at least 24,000 hours of scientific lectures during this time, by well over 50 PhD. scientists, in nearly as many disciplines. All of these scientists were educated at accredited secular universities, and all were at one time ardent natural creationists. (I prefer to to refer to the two parties in this debate as natural creationists [evolutionists], and special creationists [creationists], since these terms are much more accurate since they reflect the fact that both world views are creation models, and both sides have access to, and utilize the exact same body of evidences, and that both are scientific, and can be investigated scientifically, in spite of, and contrary to popular belief. In addition, since both models require their own measure of faith, both are religious in nature. Anyone who disagrees with this simply has not investigated the subject to any appreciable degree.)
I'm only addressing two issues in this article, since if I read it in its entirety, and addressed everything I did not agree with, I would spend far too much time on it, only to possibly have my work deleted. The first issue concerns the following statement made above: "[Creation] dismisses all scientific evidence that does not fit this philosophy." I chose to address this for the simple fact that it is an all too typical tactic that natural creationists use, and that is to blame their opponents for doing exactly what they do on a regular basis, and is something I've witnessed many hundreds of times in the past. If you were to watch Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," you would see several excellent examples of this rather disturbing tactic. [Ben Stein's movie can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g ] This is also a tactic natural creationists use when they have no good argument for the evidence presented to them. When this happens they tend to attack the person, rather than address evidence they have no answer for.
I'm going to finish with a comment on the subject of the article - the age of the Earth. First, without deep time natural creation is nothing less than a useless hypothesis that would have been discarded and forgotten well over a century ago since without "billions of years" there simply is no time for natural creation to occur. For this reason, deep time is the very foundation of the natural creation model. Second, a 19th century lawyer turned hobby scientist named Charles Lyell is the one who made up the mantra "the present is the key to the past," which is still in use today even though it has been disproved many times. Lyell also postulated the "geologic column" long before there was any real evidence for its existence at that time.
It is also a well-known fact that he was not only biased against any form of religion, but had other ulterior motives he put to use prior to becoming a "geologist." His bias was so bad he intentionally skewed the data from his study of erosion rates at Niagara Falls, while completely ignoring evidence offered to him by locals from the region, including photographic evidence of actual erosion rates. His intent was to exaggerate these rates in order to get people back in England to believe in deep time, thus discrediting the Genesis account of creation in the Bible. He did this by simply multiplying the known erosion rates by a factor of 6 which effectively increased the actual rates to reflect an age of 35,000 years for the falls, as opposed to the 6,000 to 7,000 year range the actual data suggested, and the photographs offered to him clearly illustrated.
Additionally, Lyell had yet another unscientific ulterior motive of wanting to “free the [then new] science [of geology] from Moses.” This pseudo-scientific practice of Lyell’s was discovered after his death in a letter dated June 14th, 1830, to his friend and fellow geologist George Poulett Srope. In this letter, Lyell was postulating how to debunk the Genesis account of creation as laid out in the Bible, but how to do so without angering English Christians.
These documented, historical facts about the 19th century "father of modern geology," sets him in not such a favorable light that glaringly illustrates how unscientific his work was. In fact it not only totally discredits Lyell as a scientist, his anti-scientific methods tears natural creation completely down starting with its very foundation of deep time, without which the theory is dead in the water.
Since Lyell's actions would be considered to be fraudulent today, anyone who would condone this type of unscrupulous practice by any scientist from any era, are themselves anti-scientific, and most likely are suffering from their own case of cognitive dissonance and/or conformation bias.
I'd like to think this edit will get approved, but I'm not very confident that it will, and that is unfortunate since it has an extremely important bearing on this debate. Especially considering how integral and vital the concept of deep time is to the natural creation model.— Unsigned, by: Viralnugget / talk / contribs
- @Viralnugget If you'd like to dispute the points of this article, it would be better to do so here (or, perhaps, at the RationalWiki:Saloon bar, which is also quite active.) This is the dedicated place for that type of discourse. We have such spaces to maintain some level of professionalism, because having such discourse in the article itself tends to be confusing. If a pro-creationist work suddenly read "actually, creationism is bunko because..." and then afterwards continued on with its pro-creationist arguments, readers would be confused because they'd get conflicting opinions, unless the work made it clear that it was showing counterarguments or something like that.
- A minor point, but we also don't really "approve" edits, or at least, there isn't some council or whatever that decides what edits go through or not. I'm not sure if you're new to wikis or just come from a wiki with that kind of system, but I would recommend reading up on the RationalWiki:Newcomers guide either way.DietMondrian (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)