Young-Earth Arguments

From SkepticWiki

(Redirected from Young Earth Creationism)

The current theories of Natural Selection require that the evolution of species takes place over long time scales; for example, the evolution of man from more primitive forms has occurred in the last million years or so, and the evolution of the cell took as long as a billion years. Thus, any evidence that the age of the Earth and its biosphere is too short to have supported such evolution argues against the current theories.

The astronomical and geological evidence supports a theory that the Earth is approximately four billion years old. The biblical account of creation places the age of the Earth at six to thirteen thousand years, depending on the interpretation.

There are two motivations for seeking evidence of a “young Earth”. The first is to provide support for a biblical account of creation directly. The second is to disprove the theory of evolution by Natural Selection, which in turn supports an alternative theory of human origin consistent with the Bible. Evidence that the Earth is, say, one million years old, would not support the biblical account, however it would, if proven, overthrow the current scientific theories.

1 Young Earth Arguments
2 Further Reading
3 Related Articles

[edit] Young Earth Arguments

While refuting every existing argument would be beyond the scope of this article (see the index page of Creationist Arguments for rebuttals of specific errors), here are examples of four general types of errors made by these claims:

[edit] Faulty Extrapolation

This error occurs when a current trend is assumed to have continued for an indefinite past time period. As Mark Twain outrageously put it:

"In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. Therefore ... in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period the Lower Mississippi River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long…There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."

Some young-earth arguments that fall into this category:

The sun is currently shrinking at a rate of about 6 feet per hour. A mere 9 million years ago, it would have engulfed the Earth. Therefore, the solar system is younger. (There is no evidence that the sun is shrinking, but if it were, then it would not be valid to assume the rate was constant)
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially. 25,000 years ago, it would have been unrealistically high. (The exponential decay is based on an obsolete model of the Earth; it is now believed that the magnetic field undergoes cycles of growth, decay, and reversal)

[edit] Age of other objects irrelevant to the age of the Earth

A popular type of argument is to identify a particular large solid feature of the Earth, and argue for its young age. In fact, geologists do this all the time, and we have consequently learned that many of the features of the Earth’s surface are recent and temporary. However, this has no relevance for the age of the Earth itself.

At its current rate of expansion, the Sahara desert can only be a few thousand years old (This is true: the Sahara desert is a recent feature of the Earth, but it does not prove anything about the age of the Earth itself)
The rings of Saturn are unstable; they cannot have existed for billions of years. (While Saturn’s rings may be gradually diminishing, this does not prove anything about the age of the planet itself)

[edit] Ignorance of accumulation and removal cycles

Another type of argument is to examine the rate of accumulation or removal of some feature, and extrapolate this to the distant past. Obviously, by examining only one side of any accumulation and removal cycle, ridiculous results will occur.

The Earth's crust contains abundant short-lived radioisotopes, which should be gone by now (The short-lived isotopes are replenished by fission of longer-lived radioisotopes)
The Helium in the Earth's atmosphere accounts for 175,000 years of production. (Helium emanating from the earth escapes to space)
The "short-period" comets should have all evaporated or collided by now. (The short-period comets are replenished by occasional capture of long-period comets)

[edit] Incorrect data and bad math

Finally, just using bad math or unproven data can be used to prove anything to an audience with poor critical thinking skills, especially if presented with an air of authority and the outward trappings of science.

The earth's rotation is slowing; it can't be older than a few million years (The current slowing suggests that 4 billion years ago a day was 14 hours long, which is not unreasonable)
The moon is receding several inches per year, a million years ago, it would have caused monster tides, been inside the Roche limit, etc. (At the current rate of recession, the moon would have been inside the Roche limit 1 to 2 billion years ago. Also faulty extrapolation; the current rate of recession is currently abnormally high.)