101 evidences for a young age of the earth...and the universe

CMI ^ | June 4, 2009 | Don Batten, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

101 evidences for a young age of the earth...and the universe

Can science prove the age of the earth?

There are many different categories of evidence that the cosmos and the earth are much younger than is generally asserted today...

[Claud]

You left out the entire context of Augustine’s argument. He was arguing against the “highly mendacious documents” of the pagans which purported to give a history of the human race of many thousands of years, and none of which agreed with each other.

But be that as it may, Augustine is arguing there about the date *of the creation of the human race*—NOT the creation of the world, which as you know as two separate things, especially if one holds some variant of the day-age hypothesis.

And while I’m on the subject, Augustine didn’t believe the universe was created in six days either. He believed it was all created SIMUL = “simultaneously” and that the 6 days in Genesis represent progressive revelations to the angels. ANd he ALSO said in his “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis” that it was an extraordinarily difficult text to interpret and that perhaps a better explanation could be found than that which he was offering.

He was not reckless with the text. He was careful. So his admonition stands against those who prop up one explanation and pretend to speak for all of Christianity in this regard instead of being a little more humble and admitting that we don’t have all the answers.

[CottShop]

[[When ever I hear someone saying that something is millions of years old I always wonder how they know that their calculation is correct. To me, that’s an act of faith.]]

They don’t know- they simply insist- their calculations are FULL of problems, but by golly- ‘it’s science’ and so their conclusions can’t be questioned or exposed- if one does so, they are then ‘anti-science’. I have a wholel ist of links showing hte problems with each and every one of hte dating methods used to calculate ages past 5000- You are correct- it is a pure act of faith to beleive in their asusmption driven calculating methods which extend beyond actual testable, verifiable ages up to 5000 years- beyond that the methods rely on pure assumptions and outright guesses-

[GodGunsGuts]

Wrong XXX. When Augustin said that not more than “6000 years have yet passed,” he was referring to all of creation. Where he differed from biblical creationists is that he thought creation occurred in an instant, whereas biblical creationists believed creation occurred over six Earth days.

[Claud]

When ever I hear someone saying that something is millions of years old I always wonder how they know that their calculation is correct.

Look, I believe the Sacred Scriptures are completely infallible, but how do you know that *your* calculations are correct? The Bible nowhere gives an exact age of the earth. We can arrive at one only by inferring a figure by tallying up lifespans and generations, and that's not an exact science. It's not clear whether the descendants are all strictly "offspring of" or merely "descendants of"--and some of the geneologies may be incomplete. Plus the Septuagint, Masoretic text, and Peshitta all give different figures, so we come up with widely varying ages of the earth.

I don't think that many people fully appreciate the difficulties of exegesis here.

[varmintman]

This is a good list. You are doing a great service to the conservative movement by providing FR with a view of how gargantuan the case against evolution is.

[JDW11235]

Thanks for that. I sat in World Archaeology in college years back thinking the same things.

Professor: Such and such piece of pottery, tens of thousands of years old...

Me: “Um, how do you know?”
Professor: Well science...
Me: “Um, has anyone actually witnessed tens of thousands of years.”
Professor: No
Me: “Oh, ok, so this is just what we put on the test..gotcha.”

If any remembers in recent history the khouros (dunno how it is spelled) that was faked by putting a potato mold on the surface which changed the chemical composition of the stone, which supposedly could only happen from thousands of years of exposure, one would recall if man can simulate anything, it means calculations based on phenomena can all be manipulated. Because if we can alter variables, so can forces which we know nothing about alter them.

Science proved the khouros to be genuine, when it was and remains a fraud. So are thee=se “dating” methods, subject to variables we know little about, cannot witness, and often “proven” incorrect.

[GourmetDan]

"I like this one. Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today’s population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer? Yeah and 6 flies can produce a trillion desendents in 5 years, so the fact we ain't up to our necks in flies must mean the earth is less than 2 years old. War, Crime, Plagues, etc? Ever hear of those?"

How could you 'like it' and not understand that periodic population declines for 'war, crime, plagues, etc' are factored in the .5% growth factor?

"Let me guess, You are really an Atheist and are posting this stuff just to make Christians look bad."

Let me guess, you are really a Christian and are posting this stuff to make the atheists look bad.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[GourmetDan]

"Look, I believe the Sacred Scriptures are completely infallible, but how do you know that *your* calculations are correct? The Bible nowhere gives an exact age of the earth. We can arrive at one only by inferring a figure by tallying up lifespans and generations, and that's not an exact science. It's not clear whether the descendants are all strictly "offspring of" or merely "descendants of"--and some of the geneologies may be incomplete. Plus the Septuagint, Masoretic text, and Peshitta all give different figures, so we come up with widely varying ages of the earth."

Exact? No. Close to 6,000 years? Yes.

"I don't think that many people fully appreciate the difficulties of exegesis here."

I don't think that people fully appreciate the impact of the assumptions involved in a 'scientific' age estimate for either the universe or the earth.

[Mind Freed]

The Bible nowhere gives an exact age of the earth

Very true, and that's why I believe it's not important. What is important is that we are here right now, and have a life to live. Studying different cultures from the past, different events in the past, and things like that are informative and good to know. Worrying about how old the earth is has no benefit whatsoever. In my opinion anyway.

[Claud]

Why wrong? He says that right in your quote “the nature and origin of the human race”.

And yes, he believed it happened in an instant. My point is why should I believe you and not him? You’re not claiming to be infallible on your interpretation of Genesis 1 are you?

[Larry Lucido]

Why are you excepting a blog?? If it’s do dang important, post it. If it’s not important enough to post here, I’ll move on.

[GodGunsGuts]

Thanks for your kind words. You might consider reading the following. I found it fascinating when I first read it, and I hope you will to :o)

http://creation.com/the-meaning-of-yom-in-genesis-1

All the best—GGG

[GOP_Party_Animal]

But to my question: Who *needs* evidence?

Man does. Our faith is flawed and finite, but we have a God that leaves clues to His own existence. Personally, I find that the clues buttress my own faith and make it easier to convince others.

[CottShop]

[[I don’t think that people fully appreciate the impact of the assumptions involved in a ‘scientific’ age estimate for either the universe or the earth.]]

Precisely- they FIT the evidences to match the a priori belief, and hteir support for fitting the evidences is based purely on assumptions- when discreprencies arise, or are discovered- such as evidence where it shouldn’t be, all maner of ‘explanations’ are given to discount the evidences- again,m based on nothing but assumptions- but again- here I go being ‘anti-science’ by exposing the assumptions that drive the various dating methods used to ‘determine’ ages beyond 5000 years:

Superposition
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
http://www.fbinstitute.com/powell/evolutionexposed.htm

Stratigraphy
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/bulletins/135/home.html

Dendrochronology
Up to 10000 years tops

Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.”
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
http://www.scientifictheology.com/STH/Pent3.html

Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Very little info on this method
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm

Luminescence Dating Methods
http://karst.planetresources.net/Kimberley_Culture.htm

Amino Acid Racemization
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/

Fission-track Dating
http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html

Ice Cores
Varves
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties

Pollens
Corals
Highly unreliable- you’d need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp

Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
http://www.present-truth.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-13.htm

Patination
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio

Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating

why it’s wrong:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059

RaDio helio dating disproves:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/369
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/
http://www.rae.org/

[Travis T. OJustice]

Wouldn’t you agree that the science of global warming...

No. That is propaganda, not science.

[editor-surveyor]

You remember the Rusty Pelican? (gone now - new owners)

In the parking lot, on the north side.

[Travis T. OJustice]

Your reading skills are hopelessly inadequate. Evolution, and Old Earth propaganda have nothing to do with science.

My reading skills are just fine, and there's no reason for you to be such a damn jerk. Someone, on a previous thread similar to this said "science is stupid". I am not debating anything, it's just an observation from a previous thread, jerk.

I expect your apology soon for being such a jerk. If you are too embarassed to do it on the thread, FReepmail is just fine.

[GodGunsGuts]

Are you talking about Henry’s beach?

[Claud]

Exact? No. Close to 6,000 years? Yes.

The case for ca. 6,000 more or less is most compelling in relation to the creation of Adam. It's the 6 days prior though that are the sticking point.

Ever read Gerald Schroeder? He makes an interesting case, though I have reservations about it. Anyway, his main point is that time is relative and that time is dilated at our position in the universe because of the expansion of space. It may *look* like 15 billion years from our vantage point, but that from another vantage point only 6 days elapsed. This, I think, cuts right to the heart of the day-age debate by stating (and quite correctly I think) that relativity ensures that the universe could be *both* 15 billions old AND 6 days old, *depending on where you look*. And of course we recall in this context the Scriptural quote that "the day of the Lord is like a thousand years".

We can have this debate. But I'm sick and tired of exegetes puffing up their chests with their own very fallible interpretations instead of some humility, as is proper toward the Word of God.