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 -
TheVeryFirstDinosaur

Young Earth Creationism

167 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

TheVeryFirstDinosaur

I'm sorry, but I honestly can not see how some people believe the earth to only be around 6000 years old.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html REALLY?

Radiometric dating overpowers fake facts and "scripture" any day, sorry.

I need some opinions on this crock of ignorance..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Psykonos

Creationism is good for ONE thing, and that is having a good laugh at it's expense. it's a completely ludicrous idea that insults the spiritual message of the Bible, and makes those who believe it look like complete morons.

I could rant for hours about how amazingly ridiculous it is :lol:

Edited by Psykonos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saucy

What's the point of a discussion if you're just going to gang up on us, laugh at us, then call us idiots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNibs

Creationism only works if an individual takes a religious text as literal and they ignore the evidence supporting evolution.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FlamingLiberal

There is an entire museum dedicated to this concept:

http://creationmuseum.org/

I do have to say, one of my favorite images is that of a saddled dinosaur:

2785282539_6b02de2d57.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Psykonos

What's the point of a discussion if you're just going to gang up on us, laugh at us, then call us idiots?

Saucy, it's because Creationism tries as much as possible to make facts fit a book written by humans who didn't have vast knowledge of the mechanical aspects of the world. We have more knowledge in that respect. Evolution is a fact. There's no debate about it's actual reality, just the details for some.

Creationism is a recent invention that evolved out of a group of American Christians who opposed Darwinism because they thought it justified people treating the less fortunate as weak or non-intelligent. A flush of fundamentalist groups began reading the Bible literally, which was almost never condoned by the mainstream church, and it's became a rather large percentage of Christians in the "Bible Belt" of the U.S.

I think that if you read the holy books with a symbolic eye you will be less inclined to dismiss evidence. And you may come away with a greater spiritual understanding.

And I am sorry if you're not a creationist, :lol: it just seemed like you implied you were.

And I mean no disrespect to you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Psykonos

There is an entire museum dedicated to this concept:

http://creationmuseum.org/

I do have to say, one of my favorite images is that of a saddled dinosaur:

2785282539_6b02de2d57.jpg

:w00t: I want one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FlamingLiberal

:w00t: I want one

I am embarrrassed to admit that I know someone who brought her children to this museum on a family vacation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saucy

I don't know where my beliefs lie when it comes to creationism. My main beef with either creationism or evolution is that I wasn't there to witness it. So who wins? I don't know. I believe God created the world. He could've done it in six days if he wanted to. When he created everything, it was done with maturity. Adam and Eve were older...old enough to bare children. All the trees were grown with fruit on them and the animals were also older. He created the stars so that they were already visible and the strata and earth was formed exactly how it is...with the appearance of age.

On the other hand, evolution comes to us as "fact" but in reality, it still remains a "theory". Again, the scientific process can't be completed in this matter because after hypothesis, you must be able to witness your hypothesis in action to say if you're right or not. Science can't witness the beginning of time to say for certain what really happened. If carbon dating or whatever dating is 100% accurate, then why can't they nail down the age of the earth? It seems like it's always changing. Science has dating things wrong before. What they do, basically, is date something multiple times and average it out. So, again, in reality, science isn't exact. Creationism can't be proved either...it's a belief. They're both based on faith and what you want to put your faith in.

What I believe is that God created the world. I don't know how He did it or how long it took and to me those details don't matter. Call me stupid if you want, but that's what I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FlamingLiberal

I don't know where my beliefs lie when it comes to creationism. My main beef with either creationism or evolution is that I wasn't there to witness it. So who wins? I don't know. I believe God created the world. He could've done it in six days if he wanted to. When he created everything, it was done with maturity. Adam and Eve were older...old enough to bare children. All the trees were grown with fruit on them and the animals were also older. He created the stars so that they were already visible and the strata and earth was formed exactly how it is...with the appearance of age.

On the other hand, evolution comes to us as "fact" but in reality, it still remains a "theory". Again, the scientific process can't be completed in this matter because after hypothesis, you must be able to witness your hypothesis in action to say if you're right or not. Science can't witness the beginning of time to say for certain what really happened. If carbon dating or whatever dating is 100% accurate, then why can't they nail down the age of the earth? It seems like it's always changing. Science has dating things wrong before. What they do, basically, is date something multiple times and average it out. So, again, in reality, science isn't exact. Creationism can't be proved either...it's a belief. They're both based on faith and what you want to put your faith in.

What I believe is that God created the world. I don't know how He did it or how long it took and to me those details don't matter. Call me stupid if you want, but that's what I believe.

To the bolded:

Carbon dating is a variety of radioactive dating which is applicable only to matter which was once living and presumed to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere, taking in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis.

Cosmic ray protons blast nuclei in the upper atmosphere, producing neutrons which in turn bombard nitrogen, the major constituent of the atmosphere . This neutron bombardment produces the radioactive isotope carbon-14. The radioactive carbon-14 combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and is incorporated into the cycle of living things.

The carbon-14 forms at a rate which appears to be constant, so that by measuring the radioactive emissions from once-living matter and comparing its activity with the equilibrium level of living things, a measurement of the time elapsed can be made.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html

You can't carbon date soil. Carbon dating is accurate. Obviously the earth is older than 6,000 years old when we can date fossils older than that.

Edited by FlamingLiberal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saucy

sounds like you can't carbon date fossils either, since it's nothing more than rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FlamingLiberal

sounds like you can't carbon date fossils either, since it's nothing more than rock.

It is more than "a rock". Teeth, bones, and hair are found in fossils:

What is a fossil? Simply put, a fossil is the remains or evidence of any creature or plant that once lived on the Earth.

Now let's look at the long answer.

There are quite a few fossil classification systems in use today, but my favorite is the one used by Peter Larson and Kristin Donnan in their book, Bones Rock! They group them into two categories:

Type I-the remains of the dead animal or plant or the imprint left from the remains.

Type I includes:

bones

teeth

skin impressions

hair

the hardened shell of an ancient invertebrate (an animal without a backbone) like a trilobite or an ammonite, or the

impression of an animal or plant, even if the actual parts are missing.

So now you have one short and one long answer to the question: "What is a Fossil?

http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/what_is_a_fossil.html

That's how we get to carbon dating.

Edited by FlamingLiberal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

I don't know where my beliefs lie when it comes to creationism. My main beef with either creationism or evolution is that I wasn't there to witness it. So who wins? I don't know. I believe God created the world. He could've done it in six days if he wanted to. When he created everything, it was done with maturity. Adam and Eve were older...old enough to bare children. All the trees were grown with fruit on them and the animals were also older. He created the stars so that they were already visible and the strata and earth was formed exactly how it is...with the appearance of age.

On the other hand, evolution comes to us as "fact" but in reality, it still remains a "theory". Again, the scientific process can't be completed in this matter because after hypothesis, you must be able to witness your hypothesis in action to say if you're right or not. Science can't witness the beginning of time to say for certain what really happened. If carbon dating or whatever dating is 100% accurate, then why can't they nail down the age of the earth? It seems like it's always changing. Science has dating things wrong before. What they do, basically, is date something multiple times and average it out. So, again, in reality, science isn't exact. Creationism can't be proved either...it's a belief. They're both based on faith and what you want to put your faith in.

What I believe is that God created the world. I don't know how He did it or how long it took and to me those details don't matter. Call me stupid if you want, but that's what I believe.

Saucy many a Christian has managed to find a way to belief in g-d and evolution.

For me I find Science to be able to reasonably justify why it has drawn the conclusions it has; how it has done so, so I can too. And it the nature of the scientific process allows room for new evidence to change the conclusion as the evidence warrants..

Christianity has no such system of checks and balances in place, Faith is the locus for the ideas .In other words the only option you have is to take creationism on faith as there is no evidence for it..

How can there be?

Edited by Sherizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saucy

how do you know there is no evidence for it? Nobody actually sits down and listens to a creationists ideas or reads the evidence with an objective mind. Anything to do with God is preposterous to the non-believers and they won't even entertain the thought for five seconds. They just dismiss it. I used to be an evolutionist and AFTER opening my mind and really looking at it, I don't necessarily believe everything science says. Science hasn't really done anything to earn my trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

I'm sorry, but I honestly can not see how some people believe the earth to only be around 6000 years old.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html REALLY?

Radiometric dating overpowers fake facts and "scripture" any day, sorry.

I need some opinions on this crock of ignorance..

Young Earth creationism isn't the only view held by christians who are also literalists. I am a christian and have never accepted YEC. There are other ways to look at the Genesis text that are literal but allow us also to accept scientific views on the subject.

Among the all inclusive term creationists we have the following views...

Flat Earthers

Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source of Noah's flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible, such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do.

Geocentrism

Geocentrists accept a spherical earth but deny that the sun is the center of the solar system or that the earth moves. As with flat-earth views, the water of Noah's flood came from above a solid firmament. The basis for their belief is a literal reading of the Bible. "It is not an interpretation at all, it is what the words say." (Willis 2000) Both flat-earthers and geocentrists reflect the cosmological views of ancient Hebrews. Geocentrism is not common today, but one geocentrist (Tom Willis) was intrumental in revising the Kansas elementary school curriculum to remove references to evolution, earth history, and science methodology.

Young-Earth Creationism

Young Earth Creationists (YEC) claim a literal interpretation of the Bible as a basis for their beliefs. They believe that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, that all life was created in six literal days, that death and decay came as a result of Adam & Eve's Fall, and that geology must be interpreted in terms of Noah's Flood. However, they accept a spherical earth and heliocentric solar system. Young-Earth Creationists popularized the modern movement of scientific creationism by taking the ideas of George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist, and publishing them in The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris 1961). YEC is probably the most influential brand of creationism today.

Old Earth Creationism

Old-Earth Creationists accept the evidence for an ancient earth but still believe that life was specially created by God, and they still base their beliefs on the Bible. There are a few different ways of accomodating their religion with science.

Gap Creationism (also known as Restitution Creationism)

This view says that there was a long temporal gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, with God recreating the world in 6 days after the gap. This allows both an ancient earth and a Biblical special creation.

Day-Age Creationism

Day-age creationists interpret each day of creation as a long period of time, even thousands or millions of years. They see a parallel between the order of events presented in Genesis 1 and the order accepted by mainstream science. Day-Age Creationism was more popular than Gap Creationism in the 19th and and early 20th centuries.

Progressive Creationism

Progressive Creationism is the most common Old-Earth Creationism view today. It accepts most of modern physical science, even viewing the Big Bang as evidence of the creative power of God, but rejects much of modern biology. Progressive Creationists generally believe that God created "kinds" of organisms sequentially, in the order seen in the fossil record, but say that the newer kinds are specially created, not genetically related to older kinds.

Intelligent Design Creationism

Intelligent Design Creationism descended from Paley's argument that God's design could be seen in life (Paley 1803). Modern IDC still makes appeals to the complexity of life and so varies little from the substance of Paley's argument, but the arguments have become far more technical, delving into microbiology and mathematical logic.

Evolutionary Creationism

Evolutionary Creationism differs from Theistic Evolution only in its theology, not in its science. It says that God operates not in the gaps, but that nature has no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, allowing, for example, that the events of creation occurred, but not in time as we know it, and that Adam was not the first biological human but the first spiritually aware one.

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries.

Methodological Materialistic Evolution

Materialistic Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution in saying that God does not actively interfere with evolution. It is not necessarily atheistic, though; many Materialistic Evolutionists believe that God created evolution, for example. Materialistic evolution may be divided into methodological and philosophical materialism. Methodological materialism limits itself to describing the natural world with natural causes; it says nothing at all about the supernatural, neither affirming nor denying its existence or its role in life.

We also have a number of creationist views that are not based on the bible...

Raelians

The Raelians believe that life was created by scientists from another planet. The scientists continue to visit earth and were mistaken for gods.

Panspermia

Panspermia is the position that primitive life, in the form of bacteria or other microbes, was carried to earth from other star systems. Other life evolved from there.

Catastrophic Evolution

This position says that evolution occurred suddenly, driven by extreme, planet-wide catastrophes.

Islamic Creationism

Contemporary Islam has a greater tendency to literalism than Christianity does. The Koran is taken by almost all Muslims as the direct and unaltered word of Allah, and Genesis is considered a corrupted version of God's message. However, the creation accounts in the Koran are more vague and are spread among several surahs (chapters) (2:109-111, 7:52-57, 16:1-17, 40:66-70, 41:9-12, 42:28, 65:12), allowing a range of interpretations similar to those described in part 1. Most Islamic Young Earth Creationism is imported directly from the USA. (Edis 1994)

Vedic Creationism

Hinduism speaks of a very ancient earth. One book influenced by Hindu belief argues that anatomically modern humans have existed for billions of years.

American Indian Creationism

The term "American Indian" refers to hundreds of groups with at least as many stories of creation. Deloria has put together a version of creationism which takes from many Native American cultures. It says that originally there was no essential difference between people and animals, that giant people and megafauna once coexisted, and that people and animals shrunk in stature after the golden age came to an end with the earth being ravaged by fire from volcanism.

Personally, I will state that my view is that of Gap Creationsim but has a measure of Catastrophism.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
markdohle

how do you know there is no evidence for it? Nobody actually sits down and listens to a creationists ideas or reads the evidence with an objective mind. Anything to do with God is preposterous to the non-believers and they won't even entertain the thought for five seconds. They just dismiss it. I used to be an evolutionist and AFTER opening my mind and really looking at it, I don't necessarily believe everything science says. Science hasn't really done anything to earn my trust.

Saucy, there is a reason why many (though not all by any means)atheist come from a fundementlist background. The earth is very old, the universe is billions of years old, this is proven by science. The first book of the bible tells a story about how the world came about, though God. To take it literally means that you have to fight a losing battle with this kind of thing and I feel it makes an idol of the bible. I doubt any author writing any of the books thought they were writing scripture....canons come much later.

Peace

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder

how do you know there is no evidence for it? Nobody actually sits down and listens to a creationists ideas or reads the evidence with an objective mind. Anything to do with God is preposterous to the non-believers and they won't even entertain the thought for five seconds. They just dismiss it. I used to be an evolutionist and AFTER opening my mind and really looking at it, I don't necessarily believe everything science says. Science hasn't really done anything to earn my trust.

People sit down and listen, they just leave after they realize there Really is NO evidence for it.

Thats fine if you dont accept scientific facts like evolution, and have turned to a made up religion.

What has religion done to earn your trust, and What Exactly, do you expect from science to do, to Earn your Trust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheVeryFirstDinosaur

how do you know there is no evidence for it? Nobody actually sits down and listens to a creationists ideas or reads the evidence with an objective mind. Anything to do with God is preposterous to the non-believers and they won't even entertain the thought for five seconds. They just dismiss it. I used to be an evolutionist and AFTER opening my mind and really looking at it, I don't necessarily believe everything science says. Science hasn't really done anything to earn my trust.

Jesus H. Christ, your ignorant. I honestly refuse to debate with people like you, sorry.

Besides, while anything to do with "God" is in fact preposterous and ridiculous to me, I'm not going to say that to someone. I'd let them state their opinion. And, there is no evidence for creationism. None. At all. Zero percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder

I don't know where my beliefs lie when it comes to creationism. My main beef with either creationism or evolution is that I wasn't there to witness it. So who wins? I don't know. I believe God created the world. He could've done it in six days if he wanted to. When he created everything, it was done with maturity. Adam and Eve were older...old enough to bare children. All the trees were grown with fruit on them and the animals were also older. He created the stars so that they were already visible and the strata and earth was formed exactly how it is...with the appearance of age.

Thats a lovely bed time story to tell kids, who will hopefully not believe it when they grow up.

But, you can witness evolution. We have the fossils.

On the other hand, evolution comes to us as "fact" but in reality, it still remains a "theory". Again, the scientific process can't be completed in this matter because after hypothesis, you must be able to witness your hypothesis in action to say if you're right or not. Science can't witness the beginning of time to say for certain what really happened. If carbon dating or whatever dating is 100% accurate, then why can't they nail down the age of the earth? It seems like it's always changing. Science has dating things wrong before. What they do, basically, is date something multiple times and average it out. So, again, in reality, science isn't exact. Creationism can't be proved either...it's a belief. They're both based on faith and what you want to put your faith in.

No, in reality, Evolution IS Fact, and it IS reality. Accept it.

We have the fossils. Thats witnessing it. But, its hilarious how youll believe in a god with witnessing Squat for it.

Science deals in fact, not faith. You dont Believe in science. Get over yourself and accept it. Just telling yourself that youre right doesnt mean anything, or change anything.

The dating was already shown to you.

What I believe is that God created the world. I don't know how He did it or how long it took and to me those details don't matter. Call me stupid if you want, but that's what I believe.

I would. But thats kinda mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saucy

Again, I said I don't exactly believe either one fully. I believe science has made some mistakes and I believe that the bible can and has been mistranslated. I don't know what I fully believe. I just believe God made the earth. I don't know how and it's really not all that important.

What I want is for someone to look at the creationist views and actually disprove them...not just write them off. If you can explain the "evidence" the creationists use, then hey, you have a reason for your beliefs. But what creationists do is take something proven by science and say, "hey, this proves young earth creationism."

According to the link, not enough mud on the ocean floor proves the earth is young. What is the counter argument to that? That's why I get upset...nobody offers one. They just post threads like this and post how ignorant it is to believe in such a thing. Well, it's a valid piece of evidence YOU said doesn't exist. Prove it wrong. So really, what this discussion becomes is what evidence out weighs the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Again, I said I don't exactly believe either one fully. I believe science has made some mistakes and I believe that the bible can and has been mistranslated. I don't know what I fully believe. I just believe God made the earth. I don't know how and it's really not all that important.

What I want is for someone to look at the creationist views and actually disprove them...not just write them off. If you can explain the "evidence" the creationists use, then hey, you have a reason for your beliefs. But what creationists do is take something proven by science and say, "hey, this proves young earth creationism."

According to the link, not enough mud on the ocean floor proves the earth is young. What is the counter argument to that? That's why I get upset...nobody offers one. They just post threads like this and post how ignorant it is to believe in such a thing. Well, it's a valid piece of evidence YOU said doesn't exist. Prove it wrong. So really, what this discussion becomes is what evidence out weighs the other.

Carbon dating and uranium dating have proven the young earth creationists wrong without a single shadow of a doubt. If the Divine exists he acts through stellar evolution, planetary evolution and life evolution.

Radioactive decay is rigorously mechanical in its predictability (like an atomic clock) and decay has been observed to occur at a specific rate, the ratio's of different isotopic species of these atoms (carbon and Uranium) give a very accurate prediction of when they were actually formed. In the case of Uranium it is billions of years ago. There is every reason to infer that this has been going on since the dawn of time and that no creator would interfere with this immutable physical law - to assume otherwise is very illogical and would make all the laws of physics disfunctional.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saucy

hey, I like you Mulder, try not to be so mean to me :lol:

We have the fossils. Thats witnessing it. But, its hilarious how youll believe in a god with witnessing Squat for it.

I believe in wind, but I can't see it. I believe in gravity, but I can't see it. I can't see a lot of things. But I feel them. And on more than one occasion, I've felt God. It's something a person who has never taken God seriously can ever experience. I have witnessed miracles and the supernatural...things that only help prove the existence of God. And I didn't say science is complete trash either. I said I don't believe all of it. And I don't believe everything a pastor tells me either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNibs

hey, I like you Mulder, try not to be so mean to me :lol:

I believe in wind, but I can't see it. I believe in gravity, but I can't see it. I can't see a lot of things. But I feel them. And on more than one occasion, I've felt God. It's something a person who has never taken God seriously can ever experience. I have witnessed miracles and the supernatural...things that only help prove the existence of God. And I didn't say science is complete trash either. I said I don't believe all of it. And I don't believe everything a pastor tells me either.

Recognizing the fact of evolution doesn't mean that you have to give up your belief and faith in a god/s.

There are many people on this board who do reconcile both just fine.

The subject becomes an issue when a religious "literalist" begins damning others and refuses to recognize valid evidence.

Many people believe a god/s created the Big Bang and the process of evolution. It's not something I adhere to but there are those that do.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Euphorbia

hey, I like you Mulder, try not to be so mean to me :lol:

I believe in wind, but I can't see it. I believe in gravity, but I can't see it. I can't see a lot of things. But I feel them. And on more than one occasion, I've felt God. It's something a person who has never taken God seriously can ever experience. I have witnessed miracles and the supernatural...things that only help prove the existence of God. And I didn't say science is complete trash either. I said I don't believe all of it. And I don't believe everything a pastor tells me either.

Saucy, I can't see the wind either, but I can feel it on my skin. It's speed can be measured. It's composition can be analyzed.

We can't see gravity, but we can surely measure it's effects.

You would do yourself a great service if you would read up on and understand some facts from this site!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html

Edited by Euphorbia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChloeB

According to the link, not enough mud on the ocean floor proves the earth is young. What is the counter argument to that? That's why I get upset...nobody offers one. They just post threads like this and post how ignorant it is to believe in such a thing. Well, it's a valid piece of evidence YOU said doesn't exist. Prove it wrong. So really, what this discussion becomes is what evidence out weighs the other.

Awww, don't get upset. I was just looking at this about the ocean floor. Take a look at this and see what you think, I'll post a bit, but probably check the whole link, there's more than this:

Humphrey's argument focuses on subduction at convergent plate boundaries. He overlooks what occurs at divergent plate boundaries, where new ocean crust is being formed. As two tectonic plates move away from each other, new sediment begins to be deposited on the new seafloor that is created by their boundary. The sediment on the young sea floor is not very deep because it has not had nearly as much time to accumulate. The older the ocean crust, the more sediment there is covering it. Therefore, the thickness of sediment on new crust can be used as crude type of geologic clock. The thickness of sediment is in any particular location is generally consistent with the age of the sea bed and the modern rate of accumulation in that region (Duxbury et al. 2005:113). By contrast, a world-wide flood would be expected to distribute a more uniform layer of sediment throughout the oceans.

Although the age of the ocean floor roughly corresponds to the amount of sediment accumulation, dating the seafloor and its sediments is not a good way to estimate the age of the Earth as Humphreys (2005) implies. Because the seafloor is constantly being created and destroyed, the ocean floor is actually much younger than the Earth as a whole. The oldest seafloor has been radiometrically dated to only about 200 million years (Duxbury et al. 2005:114), whereas continental rocks have been dated to four billion years, and the earth is thought to be about 4.6 billion years old (Dalrymple 2004). Therefore, the age of the ocean floor is not an accurate tool to measure the age of the Earth.

While Humphrey's claim that depth of sea floor sediment proves the Earth cannot be older than twelve million years may seem logical, there is a lot that he is overlooking. Yes, subduction is one major means by which sediment is destroyed, but that does not mean that measuring the depth of sediment and determining the rate of subduction versus sediment deposition will create an accurate natural clock. There are many factors that Humphrey does not take into account, such as sediment not reaching the ocean floor, sediment dissolving, uneven distribution of sediment, and the fact that sediment accumulation varies greatly with the type of sediment involved. Seafloor sediments also support uniformitarianism, rather than Humphrey's proposal of catastrophism, since the seafloor sediments closely match the regional sediments being deposited today.

http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/creationist_clocks/ocean_floor_sediment.html

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.