Creation vs. Evolution: Another missing piece?

Question

http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/graphics/creation/fonte23.mov

Does this prove that there was a global flood and is it also likely that the earth is closer to 6,000 years old instead of the 6 billion year old earth that science has to use in order to give ample time for evolution to take place?

Answer 1

Well lets take a close look... Firstly, it needs to be understood that this video is not a proof of anything. Even if we were to assume that everything stated in the clip is correct, then at best, this offers a possible scenario for the formation of various geographic features. It doesn't prove anything at all because Brown fails provide any evidence for his claims other than the fact that they support the bible's creation story.

Lets look a little closer at some of Brown's claims. One major problem I can immediately see is Brown's suggestion that his Hydroplate Theory explains 17 features of the earth which could not be previously explained by science, including ice ages, frozen mammoths, submarine canyons, the mid-Atlantic ridge and oil formation. However all of these features are quite adequately explained and well understood by modern science. Granted, the currently accepted scientific explanation for these formations does not include a global flood and happened far more that 6000 years ago, which I assume is the reason why Brown finds these explanations distasteful.

Brown's theory, while claiming to be more complete than traditional models of geological formation fails to explain several observed features which are explained by conventional plate tectonics, such as the data from magnetostratigraphy of the ocean crust, overlying sediments, and terrestrial lava flows, correlated with radio-isotope dating. In addition, any global flood scenario has serious problems explaining such things as arctic ice layers and fossil varves.

Another problem with Brown's theory from Joyce Arthur:

"Brown is a young-earth creationist, so the cracking of the earth's crust and the ensuing flood must have happened only six or eight thousand years ago, and within the space of a few weeks (i.e., forty days and forty nights!). However, geology tells us that it took hundreds of millions of years for the continents to move to their current positions. Their current rate of movement has been measured at about 2 to 3 centimeters per year. In Brown's scenario, however, the continents must have been moving much faster, at least initially. Let's remember that if the continental plates were still moving rapidly after the flood waters had subsided, the earth would be unlivable due to tremendous earthquakes and volcanic activity. This means the continents must have slowed down considerably within a year after the flood, which is about the time Noah disembarked. If this is the case, we're talking about continental speeds of up to three meters per hour during the flood year! That something as huge as a continental plate could move that fast defies credulity. Therefore, the time factor alone destroys the credibility of Brown's theory."

Another major problem with Brown's model of an outer crust floating on a layer of water is that the simple physics of it don't work. An earth under this condition would have been so fragile that the slightest movement, even a tiny bump of the crust against the mantle, would be enough to release the water beneath the surface. Remember, rock doesn't float on water. The earths crust would have needed to form a perfect, water tight seal in order to keep the water below and the slightest crack would have released it all. Additionally, any unevenness in the earths crust, which we know there is a lot of, would pose a significant problem for this model remaining stable for any period of time. This is discussed further here: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html

One more nail in Hydroplate's coffin is that if you actually calculate the velocity of the water escaping from the earths crust in Brown's model, we see that it would have exceeded earths escape velocity. That is, it would turn to vapor and escape the earths gravity into space. This is also discussed at the link above.

The simple fact is that Brown's Hydroplate Theory is far from new (it was originally proposed in the 1800s - see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hydroplate.htm) and has been addressed many times and found to be completely lacking. While it does its best to explain how the earth could be a young as 6000 years, it contains far too many inconsistencies and questions which are already answered by existing geological scientific knowledge. While it's a great religious theory, it completely fails as a scientific one.

When you've already decided what the answer to a question is - in this case, that God created the earth 6000 years ago - there will always be the temptation to grab hold of any theory which fits your chosen answer as proof that you were right all along. Unfortunately, that not how science works. There's theories out there which support just about any creation story you can think of. Just because you can think of a scenario which fits Genesis, doesn't make that theory a good one. Unfortunately for the young earth believers, the only current theories which stand up to scientific scrutiny describe an old earth, shaped over many years by natural forces.

Answer 2

There is a lot of evidence that the global flood was a regional spilling over of the Black Sea (the sea covered the whole world, in one biblical translation). There is a lot of difference between the term "whole world" and "global flood" (the latter term is not in the bible). To the ancients living in the fertile crescent their world was what are now Iraq, Iran, and (if my geography is correct), Afghanistan. Most of this area would have, indeed been covered by the Black Sea event. 6,000 years is rubbish (carbon dating). And, don't get me started on the "missing links": missing links are precisely rejected by the process of biological evolution. And as far as the computer answer goes, of course computers have evolved...starting with counting on fingers and toes, then the abacus, mechanical adding machine, slide rule, and then the electronic digital computer.

By the way I am a christian and believe in God. Biological evolution has nothing to do with religion and does not deny the existence of God. It is only the creationists that say that it does, for their own financial gain.

Answer 3

You may dispute evolution,but to accept as a fact that the earth is 6000 years old is not reasonable.
Archeology says the earth is at least hundreds of millions of years old.
Astronomy says the earth is 6 billion years old.
The only way around these claims is faith.
Some one must tell you the earth and man were created 6,000 years ago and you must believe them
This is called faith and is a fact of most of the human race.
Creation-evolution they will never be resolves among all!

Answer 4

There may be some hidden truth to the 6,000 years but not the age of the earth. I find that one hard to believe.There may have been several near extinctions over thousands or millions of years for all we know.Someone it seems has been saving us from permanent extinction. There is one site that makes some tabloid type claims of certain artifacts found in what others say would have taken thousands or millions of years to get that way. Interesting reading though.

http://www.ufoarea.com/main_relics.html

Answer 5

I believe in God with all my heart, and if someone said that the earth is 6000 years old is ignorant or lives in a fairy tale land. Also WATER is SELF LEVELING, and it is going to be the depth it is when it is done "filling up" whatever the location it is in. There is much more to this answer, but it would take more then a few minutes to give it to you. If you would like more BIBLICAL evidence of the question you have asked please let me know. A link or Web Site is only as good as the knowledge of the one posting it.

Answer 6

The only people who deny evolution are the BAD christians in the extremist sects! The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept the big bang and evolution! Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”! Nice that christians and atheists can agree and laugh together even if it is at fundie expense! But behind the laughter is the despair at the fundamentalists striving so hard to destroy christianity by turning it from a religion to an ideology! Surveys suggest that 29% of American christians are so extremist in their beliefs that they fall well outside of the accepted bounds of christianity! Have you not noticed these people never state which extremist sect they belong to so that GOOD christians can disassociate themselves from them and their sects!

Answer 7

Excuse me.

The Bible does not say the Earth is 6,000 years old; you DO know that, right?

There is no quote from scripture, from God, from the prophets, from the Old Testament, from the New Testament , from Jesus, from an angel, from a time traveller, or from anyone, is there?

Oh, yes. Bishop Ussher. Figured it out, did he?

Well, the Bishop was a very foolish man who added up the lives of the patriarchs and declared not only the age of the Earth- a neat trick in itself... but he had the AUDACITY to declare the time of day too!

Your Bible and mine both say that," there will come many in My Name, prophesying...."

My friend, I have to tell you that Bishop Ussher is no prophet. And he never claimed his results came from God either.

Answer 8

Carbon datings don't lie. May be you're right Earth is 6000 years old and someone brought 6 billion year old dirt and rocks to cover the Earth surface. Yea, that must be it.

Answer 9

If you're a creationist why don't you stop pretending evidence matters a damn to you, you'd reject anything that disagrees with what you've been brainwashed to think and say its from satan or put there to test your faith.

If you were interested in truth you'd look at science - science isnt anti-god, its just pro-truth. Are there any actual scientists who believe that the world is that young? No, there aren't.

Answer 10

Zero evidence. It proves nothing other than the fact that Creationists make unsubstantiated claims. The 4.5 - 4.6 billion years is supported by evidence, not hand waving.