Is there any evidence of a young earth that has been validated...?

Question

by the geologic community, anthropologic community, biological community, or paleontologic community?

Jaime,

Have any of those claims been validated? Or are they the assumptions of people who don't understand the science behind them?

Perfect example, the sea floor mud...techtonic movement is not the only way that seafloor is diversified.

Mark

A good point, however you're making the same mistake that you claim science does...assumptions. Uniformitarianism is not the only technique used to determine the earth's age. Also, more to the point of my question, is it not geologists that would know better than anyone the properties and characteristics of sediment?

Answer 1

No, as someone else mentioned Jaime M. listed claims have been widely disproven by the majority scientific community. I have for a time followed the debate with the idea of keeping an open mind but I have reached the point where I think its just a ridiculous waste of time. As one young earth theory after another is exposed as bad science they just invent another and another. Often they keep recycling those that have been discredited, I think knowing that some people not knowing science will be confused. Some links refuting some of the points Jaime made below if you are interested.

Answer 2

The small (trace amounts) of helium in the atmosphere, although beta radiation from decay should have deposited many more times that.

Also, comets-- each time they swing around the sun, mass is lost (hence the tail) due to the solar wind. If they have been flying around for billions of years they would have disappeared long ago.

There are lots more, but suffice it to say that there is good evidence for both and old and a young universe-- isn't that freaky? I suspect we just don't look at things properly, because the only way that can be true is if the earth had previously existed in multiple time frames- but then again I wasn't there.

But you can't deny (I've seen them with my own eyes) salt caves where the oceans have dried up, reformed, and dried up time and time again.

Answer 3

I don't keep up with that debate, but I know about the history of science and the philosophy of science. If there was strong evidence of a young earth (or any strange minority view), one should not expect it to be validated by any mainstream scientific community. That would be tantamount to validating arguments that undermine the credibility of their own work, institutions, careers, and funding. The politics and economics of science are such that no threatening view will be given due process until absolutely forced to do so. How it is forced to do so varies.

Secondly, the notion of peer review and repeated experimentation is over-emphasized when defending the certainty of scientific practices. In reality, most funding is not diverted there but kept with primary research. In other words, one can get away with strategically false claims for a long period of time.

Answer 4

No.

In response to some of the points above that the answerers claim to show a young earth, I would direct you to check each one at TalkOrigins.org's Index of Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/). Every single thing mentioned is responded to exhaustively on this list. And, you can even take it from there to verify each answer on your own, if you desire.

I have a list of rebuttals to the 14 points above, but I will refrain from posting them here. Feel free to contact me if you want to read them, but most come from the website mentioned above.

Answer 5

How old is our earth?

The oldest historic records on earth date back no further than between two to three thousand years BC.

A study of the numerous Biblical chronologies available dates the earth to a maximum of 10,000 years with most chronologies advocating an age of 6000 years.

Even if we accept a Biblical age of 10, 000 years, the discrepancy between 10,000 years and the scientifically accepted age of 4, 560, 000, 000 years is vast.

Given such vast ages, how do scientists calculate the age of the earth?
The age of the earth's strata can be derived by applying the principle of Uniformitarianism. The concept that the processes in evidence in the world today are assumed to have existed in the past and a study of present events can be used to create models of past events.
For example, it can be observed how quickly sediments accumulate in a shallow lake. Assuming that we find that the rate of accumulation is 0.1 cm/year over our study period, then we could use this figure to calculate the approximate age of a sedimentary geological feature which we consider to have developed under similar circumstances. A layer of sediment 10m thick could then have taken 10,000 years to form. It is easy to see that geological age can be considered vast indeed.
The conclusion reached in the above scenario is, however, only correct if the uniformitarian principle applies. What if there had been a catastrophic flood, that washed vast amounts of sediment into our shallow lake within one day? As is all too apparent from the media today, whole villages can be buried in sediment in an instant after catastrophic floods. Our assumption that the sedimentary layer took 10,000 years to develop might be based on logic, but it need not necessarily be right. It could have formed rapidly.
Interestingly, the more data is accumulated, the more the various ages come into conflict. In fact, recent arguments on rates of evolution have produced a storm of scientific papers in the world's top journals where scientists are slashing millions if not hundreds of millions of years out of the geological time frame in order to accommodate their ideas. If this is acceptable in the scientific fraternity, then surely it is an admittance that their time frame is not as rigid as they would have us believe.

Answer 6

Absolutely none. Alll those things Jaime M has posted have been refuted by REAL science, not pseudo-science.

Answer 7

Nope. There's no evidence at all for a young earth.

Answer 8

no it is a religious concept

non of Jaime M's links work! hmmmm

Answer 9

no, only in the minds of those who look at the science through faith coloured glasses.

Answer 10

Footprints of a man and dinosaur together. Look it up.