Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Someone address this creationist's proof

Lao Tzu

New member
http://www.creationseminar.net/it's_a_young_earth.htm


It's A Young Earth

Some of the specifics in the following examples are continuing to be refined; however, the overall conclusion is...

-As True Science Advances the Evidence Mounts for Creation

Evidences From:

Earth
History
Space
Biology

Evidences >From Earth:

The decaying magnetic field limits earth's age to less than 10,000 years old.
The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth's lava was deposited rapidly.
Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate gives only a few thousand years of accumulation.
The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175, 000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium here which would reduce the age more.)
The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years (destroying all old fossils).
Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation.
Niagara Falls' erosion rate (approx. 2 feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. (Don't forget Noah's Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters receded through the soft sediments).
Incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years.
The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate the mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah's day could have washed 80% of the mud out there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable time for the delta to form).
The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution.
Only a small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to evolutionists.
The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have formed in about 4400 years.
The Sahara desert is expanding. It could easily have been formed in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook.
The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now.
Go to Top

Evidences >From History

The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old.
Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Over 250 of these Flood legends are now known.
Biblical dates add up to about 6000 years.
Go to Top

Evidences >From Space

The Shrinking Sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "millions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth just the right distance for life to survive.
The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than 10,000 years old
Fossil Meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks.
The moon is receding a few inches each year. A few million years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have destroyed the earth twice a day.
The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.
The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young.
At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for more than a few thousand years.
Saturn's rings are still unstable, indicating they are not millions of years old.
Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. Jupiter's moon "Io" is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old.
It appears that the stars in the centers of many galaxies are moving faster than the stars at the outer edges. This would make the galaxies lose their spiral shape and spin into a homogeneous mass if they were billions of years old.
Among other factors to consider, one is that all the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red giant and now it is a white dwarf. The life cycle of stars needs to be restudied, with the textbooks in astronomy stating one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" form a red giant to a white dwarf. In fact the Hubble Space Telescope is aiding creationists as opposed to the evolutionists as it continues to discredit their theories. You can see just about any edition of Astronomy magazine published over the last few years for verification of this.

Go to Top

Evidences >From Biology

The current population of earth (6 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years.
The oldest coral reef is about 4200 years old.
The oldest living tree in the world is 4300 years old.
DNA is 99.9% alike in all people.
All things reproduce "after his kind." As simple as this is, remember all biology textbooks teach that everything that is alive today arose from something else through evolutionary processes. There is no evidence for this. But plenty of evidence that everything reproduces as the Bible states "after his kind."
 
a friend i have wants me to attend this pro-creationism 'thing' and i want to see what the counterpoints are.
 
I'll start..

"The creationist "magnetic field decay" hypothesis is simply not capable of giving us any scientific estimate of the earth's age."

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/magnetic.htm
------------

"The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate
of efflux yields only a few million years. The earth is not billions of
years old.

At present, when mountains are actively being built up, the
output of magma is almost certainly much higher than usual. There may
have been long, quiet periods where little happened in the way of
volcanic activity. Enormous amounts of crust have been recycled in the
subduction of oceanic plates. Enormous amounts of the earth's crust have
been eroded away, only to be recycled. Morris has not addressed these
and other problems.

Morris and Parker [1982] list an age of 500 million years based on
the "influx of magma from mantle to form crust." This calculation, which
appears in Morris [1974], is based on the volume (0.2 cubic km/yr) of
lava erupted by Paricutin Volcano in Mexico during the 1940s. Morris
[1974] notes that intrusive rocks are much more common than lava flows:

... .so that it seems reasonable to assume that at least 10 cubic
kilometers of new igneous rocks are formed each year by flows from the
earth's mantle.

The total volume of the earth's crust is about 5 x 10^9 cubic
kilometers. Thus, the entire crust could have been formed by volcanic
activity at present rates in only 500 million years, which would only
take us back into the Cambrian period. ... The uniformitarian model once
again leads to a serious problem and contradiction. [Morris, 1974, p.157]

But the "uniformitarian model" of which Morris [1974] is so
critical is a product of Morris [1974], not science. He has pulled the
value of 10 km3/yr from thin air, assumed that this fictitious rate has
been constant over time, and neglected erosion, sedimentation, crustal
recycling, and the fact that the injection of magma into the crust is a
highly nonuniform process about which little is known. Morris' (92)
calculation is worthless.
(Dalrymple, 1984, p.111)

Thus, another young-earth argument bites the dust due to the use
of a dubious rate. It's not good enough to find some rate; one must show
that it is sound."

-------------

If we divide the amount of various minerals in
the ocean by their influx rate we get only a few thousand years of
accumulation. Therefore, the earth is young.

In the case of aluminum we "get" only 100 years! In the case
of sodium we "get" 260 million years. Where Dr. Hovind gets his "few
thousand years," as though there were some kind of general agreement, is
anyone's guess.
The table that one sees in a couple of Henry Morris' books was
copied from a chapter by Goldberg (1965) that appears in Riley and
Skirrow (1965).

Goldberg's [1965] Table I is a list of the abundances and residence times
of the elements in sea water; it is these residence times that Morris
[1974, 1977] and Morris and Parker [1982] give as indicated ages of the
Earth. The residence time of an element, however is the average time that
any small amount of an element remains in seawater before it is removed,
not, as stated by Morris [1974], the time "to accumulate in ocean from
river inflow," and has nothing to do with the ages of either the Earth or
the ocean. Morris [1974, 1974a, 1977] and Morris and Parker [1982] have
totally misrepresented the data listed in Goldberg's [1965] table.
(Dalrymple, 1984, 116)

Dalrymple concludes with:

The influx of chemicals to the ocean is an invalid and worthless
method of determining the age of the Earth. Morris [1974, 1977] and
Morris and Parker [1982] have misrepresented fundamental geochemical data
and ignored virtually everything that is known about the geochemistry of
seawater.
(Dalrymple, 1984, p.116)

It's all in a day's work for your typical creationist author!
They are quite good at ignoring unfavorable facts. Never mind that the
elements are in approximate equilibrium with the ocean; never mind that
residence times are not the times for elements to accumulate from river
inflow. Never mind that plankton concentrates these elements sometimes a
thousand fold or more in their skeletons, and, when they die, they remove
these elements from the sea waters (Glenn Morton). Press that banner
high and march on! And that's exactly what a new generation of
creationists are doing with this intellectually dishonest argument.


There are numerous agruments against each of these claims, i'm not going to take the time to post them all..
 
my parents went to it. it was over the course of several days, and they said it was amazing.
 
Part of the problem with many of us who oppose Darwinian evolution and think intelligent design is more valid is that we get mixed up with these 'young earthers.'
 
Synpax said:
Part of the problem with many of us who oppose Darwinian evolution and think intelligent design is more valid is that we get mixed up with these 'young earthers.'

thats pretty true. ive never seen this explanation before though
 
nordstrom said:
Evidences >From Earth:

The decaying magnetic field limits earth's age to less than 10,000 years old.
The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions.


You don't need to read any further than this. The Self important JACKASS argues against himself if the first TWO lines of this argument.

Rack another one for the arrogant religious freaks.

.....IMO they are no better than a greasy suicide bomber. The sooner we get rid of the fools and their organized religion, the sooner we will all have "salvation".

But no!!!! Ask me how I really feel. ;)
 
nordstrom said:
Evidences >From Space

The Shrinking Sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "millions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter.

Uh, since when is the sun getting smaller? It won't start shrinking until our sun switches to helium for fuel and becomes a red giant, but this is only after it has expanded to engulf Mercury and even possibly Venus. Then it will eventually shrink and collapse into a white dwarf.

This guy is an idiot.
 
Top Bottom