Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Guyver

Young Earth Creationism

108 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

 
Wombat

No, a young earth is not possible.

I am amazed at how tenaciously creationists attack carbon dating (entirely unsuccessfully), especially since it's not even used to determine the age of the earth (let alone the universe).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wombat
Still, having said that it's hard to say exactly how old the earth really is.

Not quite. Wikipedia summarizes quite nicely how we know the age of the earth. Super condensed version:

Modern geologists and geophysicists accept that the age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 10^9 years ± 1%). This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. The Sun, by comparison, is about 4.57 billion years old, about 30 million years older.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Guyver, you might find this article very helpful and interesting (especially for any future 'debates' with YEC-types).

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. By Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

Damn, new page! Don't miss my post on the previous page Guyver.

Thanks for the link, Cope. Both of your posts were helpful and informative. Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Guyver, you might find this article very helpful and interesting (especially for any future 'debates' with YEC-types).

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. By Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

Damn, new page! Don't miss my post on the previous page Guyver.

great posts Copa!!! I'd add that its a really good thing we have science literacy standards now in education..its really pathetic how little folks know about basic elementary earth science, let alone anything of evolution......:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

I disagree here Guyver. "Real" science sounds like the whackado of some previous (now extinct) members.

There is only science and there is no valid scientific evidence that points to the earth being young. Really, there's none. Intentionally misusing a dating tool or quote mining an opinion piece is not science. I don't know what name you want to give that kind of malarky, but it certainly isn't science.

Young earther's problem, well any creationist really, is they start with their ending in mind then try and fill in pieces of the story that only agree with their ending. Unfortunately science simply doesn't work like that. Not because some atheist prick scientist says so, but rather a history failed "science". There are literally thousands of examples of how one ought not to do science.

Secondly, Young earther's don't necessarily use what's already been 'evaluated'-They use only things that agree with their worldview. How that is not obvious to everyone, I don't really know. Any and all data and evidence contrary to their point of view (which turns out to really be all of it) is dismissed, bam-boozled or ignored. Its never explained, its never refuted and when you shove it down a Young earther's throat they simply click their "autobots, transform!" button and morph into deaf, broken-record player.

Each sedimentary layer corresponds to a certain age, as sediments are laid down in layers. This is pretty obvious to anyone who wants to do the slightest bit of study of geology. For instance, deep ocean deposits can be differentiated from shallow oceans and seas because the grain of particle that makes up the sedimentation. Shallow water (like coastal waters) have much greater energy because of wave trains. Waves can carry and move much coarser sediment than water with less energetic currents.

What we then find is that certain fossils are found only in certain layers. This is something very important I pointed out earlier and it got no comment. Let's again, forget ages for a moment and just do some critical thinking.

For example, in the rock layer we describe as Archean, we find stromatolite fossils. Which we know are laid down by microorganisms and who's ancestors still lay down today.

In Ediacaran rock we find Porifera-like fossils. Like the Dickinsonia;

dickinsonia.jpg

Which is the first large and complex multicellular life we find. Never before.

In Paleozoic rock we find the first footprints of animals out of water. We find vascular plants, sharks in the ocean, insects and in the latter half; tetrapods.

Etc, etc, etc.

With your critical thinking cap on and no consideration of age (only relative ages) we should pay attention to these two points.

1. Certain fossil 'types' are found only in certain layers and their predecessors.

2. The deeper and older the layer, the more simple life becomes-The complexity of life is found advancing through the layers.

Now, if we were Young earther's (which we aren't) our science would be to find a way that this can fit with the story of creation-All the other evidence, we throw out because it disagrees.

Since we aren't YECs we need to explain how such a thing could happen. It doesn't logically follow that life should be found layered in complexity like this if everything was created at one time. Similarly, it doesn't logically follow that life should be found layered like this if Noah's flood happened.

To answer this paleontological riddle we then turn to the unifying theory of biology-Evolutionary theory, specifically descent with modification. Which would logically follow this progression.

Now as far as the ages are concerned, we do know the ages. Radiometric techniques are absolute dating methods. To explain; Above we were talking about the layers, relative to each other. That is to say, their ages relative to each other. We can say the Triassic rock occurs under Jurassic rock and is therefore older. Thus we know the ages of the fossils relative to each other. Triassic fossils are older than Jurassic fossils. However that doesn't really help us figure out the actual age of characteristic band of rock we call the Triassic, or Jurassic, or Archean etc.

To do that we need an absolute technique that will allow us to say this band of rock occurs for the periods of "X" to "Y" number of years before present.

No matter what absolute technique we use; Oxidizable Carbon Ratio, Amino acids Racemization, Electron Spin Resonance, Fission Track, archaeomagnetism, Radio-carbon, Optically Stimulated Luminescence, Thermoluminescence, Potassium-Argon, Uranium-lead, Samarium-neodymium, Argon-Argon, Rhenium-Osmium, etc all agree with the antiquity of the earth.

Those methods with have the greatest clock to measure all point to the earth being between 4 and 5 billion years old. And the most accurate of those point to the earth being ~4.5 billion years old.

Of course those dates have an associated margin of error, but this margin of error doesn't remotely aid Young Earther's.

Will we ever know the exact moment the earth was created? No (and I normally don't make such absolute statements), and the bottom line is, who really cares?

For all intents and purposes and when dealing with dates so old, 4,548,571,210 is the same as 4,501,379,234. The millions of years discrepancy on this kind of timescale is simply irrelevant.

Where it says predecessor under 1. it should say successor :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

I just re-read the last couple of pages. It seems that the primary criticism that most people are leveling at YEC is that "real" science is the superior approach to trying to understand the age of the earth. The reason for this is that "real" science is more objective and is willing to make adjustments to (i don't know what to call it - it's not truth i'm looking to use here) current understandings let's say.

The difference between "real" science and psuedo science is that in real science, no evidence can be ignored. If an observation doesn't fit your model, you have to explain why. Maybe it's a mistake - somebody inverted two digits; maybe somebody didn't observe that the 2001 tree ring was missing - maybe it's a real anomaly (Anomalies are a good place to look for a new discovery.).

A mantra we use in statistics is to "Let the data lead." Observe what each consecutive test is telling you, then devise another test to clarify what you've learned. It's like holding a conversation with the data set - I ask it questions, it answers with "Yes", "No" or a number.

While YEC is biased because rather than actually doing science objectively, they use what's already been evaluated by the scientific community and interpret the data based on presuppositions.

YEC is biased because it utilzes only data that it thinks will support its point of view. It does not try to look objectively at all data available. By ignoring data it doesn't like, it removes itself from science.

We have a geology school here. My daughter is a graduate student in it. She tells of a take-home essay exam question: "H0: The earth is 6000 years old. Write a ten-page paper confirming or refuting this hypothesis. Cite your sources and develop your line of reasoning." There was one YEC in the class; she had a masters in geology. She raised her hand to ask how she was supposed to defend YEC from the data available. I think she had just made a discovery - a PhD. student with a Masters in geology could not make a case for YEC.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erowin

TA-DA! The ultimate website that disproves young earth and all other anti-evolution things! Just find your argument, click it, and watch as they debunk it all!

www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.