Taking opponents of evolution seriously?

Question

The reason most reject Young Earth Creationists is probably due to the overwhelming evidence that the Earth is significantly older than 6,010 years. The Earth is said to be more around 4.5 million years old, and as methods to measure its age enhance, we're only becoming more and more convinced that the figures are correct, and that ~6,000 years sounds ridiculous. Creationists keep reciting the same arguments: there are no transitional fossils, evolution is a godless religion, the Second Law of thermodynamics precludes increasing complexity, and so on. We evolutionists come back with: here are intermediates in horse evolution, creation is intrinsically religious and not scientific, the Second Law applies only to closed systems. Why does the argument's conclusion remain stagnant? Does anyone honestly reject evolution entirely? Yes--I can understand skepticism. But to reject it entirely and take Creationism as an alternative is like believing in a flat Earth today. Your thoughts?

Where I was going with Young Earth Creationists was, if Old Earth Creationists can't take them seriously, then do you honestly believe self-aware human beings have been around for nearly 4.5 *million* years, since the age of protozoa, where the Earth was a chaotic place, persisting through the dinosaurs, without having a shred of information written on a cave wall until about 25,000 years ago?

Billion? Thanks for the correction. That simply strengthens the case.

"We can't all go to Heaven. Can't say you'll be missed."

Does anyone else feel the irony in this statement?

@Elmer R: I see what you're saying. That's definitely a possibility. =) But I don't see how anyone can jump to the conclusion of a Creator like it's so a priori, you know?

@allenint...: The law of conservation of mass-energy. The premise of your argument assumes life came from total nothingness, fallaciously.

Answer 1

Take for example the "London, Texas" Hammer touted by Creationists. It is of recent manufacture and was found near Cretaceous rock but was not part of the rock, i.e. the matrix it is in does not match the rock formations in the area that it was found in. To compound this, other implements have been found similarly covered, and it has been shown that the matrix (rock) can form in a short time period (100+ years) . So creationists take this hammer and assert it proves a young earth, but further examination has shown it to be a recent artifact. The creationist claim was refuted in 1985, so this is essentially 22 years of lying that the have done.

This is why I give no serious credence to young earth "science".

Edit:
Polystrate Fossils are thought to be proof for a young earth but fit easily into conventional evolution and geology with no problem i.e. once again the creationist argument is built on one or more false assumptions.

Answer 2

There are many other scientific "arguments" for a young earth. These arguments, though they made be old, still point to a young earth. I will give basic information, you can read the article in the source for more info.

Population statistics - Using creationist figures, the current world population would be approximately 4.34 billion people. Evolutionary figures thus would imply an Earth population 104900 times greater than would fit into the entire Universe!

Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field - Knowledgeable scientists do not debate the fact of the rapid decrease in the Earth’s magnetic field. Using complex mathematical equations to try to calculate backwards (employing a known value for the half-life decay rate of the field) presents a very serious problem in relation to the time needed by evolutionists. The problem is that going backward for more than just a few thousand years produces an impossibly large value in the magnetic field, and of the electrically generated heat stored in the Earth’s core.

Polystrate Fossils - polystrate fossils testify loudly to a young Earth whose layers formed rapidly—and not very long ago! Trees, reeds, catfish, whales, and the many other organisms with which the fossil record abounds did not die and lie around for hundreds, thousands, or millions of years while slowly being turned into polystrate fossils. Such fossils provide clear and compelling evidence that the Earth is quite young, not ancient as evolutionists insist.

Hydrogen in the Universe - Hydrogen constantly is being converted into helium throughout the Universe. Significantly, however, hydrogen cannot be produced in any significant quantity through the conversion of other elements. If the Universe were vastly old, there should now be little hydrogen left in it—since hydrogen constantly is being converted into helium, and since this conversion is a one-way process.

Atmospheric Helium - It has been recognized for many years, however, that there is not enough helium in the atmosphere to correspond to: (a) the alleged age of the Earth; and (b) the rate of escape of helium into the atmosphere from rocks forming the crust of the Earth. Scientists have stated that the present atmosphere contains 3.5 x 1015 grams of helium, and that the rate of helium formation is 3 x 1011 grams/year. Given these figures, the Earth’s age turns out to be in the neighborhood of 10,000 years.

Answer 3

Excellent point, excellent question.

The known age of the Earth is a fact.

The lack of transition fossils is because Darwin wasn't entirely correct. While the observed process of slow evolution does operate, there are short periods of time where dramatic leaps occur. Darwin's theory doesn't account for this.

The laws of thermodynamics have a number of holes in them. For instance it cannot explain why there is no apparent source for the energy described as the strong nuclear force or even gravity, which remain constant. Also, it is obvious that not all systems tend towards increased entropy. In fact the universe tends to evolve to higher states. Life has evolved from simple to complex, rather than complex to simple.

The truth of the matter is that the Creator enacted a set of physical laws that led to the formation of the physical unverse as we observe it, just as a simple seed grows into a beautiful flower over time. Darwin and the Bible are both wrong, the truth lies somewhere between the two.

Answer 4

What I find so interesting about the determination of the age of the earth and the universe is that the age of the earth and the universe are blind estimates that will never have a true verifiable control (a true standard) against which to verify and determine a definitive age of the earth and universe. At best the age of the universe and the earth will be blind stabs in the dark with which the evidence or data seems to agree. Ultimately, a true scientific, empirical, objective, and repeatable, experiment to determine the true age of the universe and earth will never be in the realm of possibility due to the finite ability and capacity of man to accomplish such a feat. Thus we are left with mere semi-educated conjectures and some arrogance on the part of man to actually fool ourselves into believing we actually KNOW the answer.

Answer 5

Creationists only claim that life originated on this earth about 6000 years ago.

The earth itself could be much older than that just like the other uninhabited planets in the solar system.

Even if one takes the view that everything that we see today was created 6000 years ago, there's no problem with that since with God anything is possible. If God could create Adam a full grown-up man, I'm sure He can get things done at a faster rate than we can imagine. And no one can tell for sure that the earth or the universe is in reality that old. Those are numbers based on how things are today but we all agree things in the past may not have been the same. All options are open.

I wonder why someone has to be so closed-minded!

Answer 6

Whaaat? The earth Isn't FLAT? C'mon, you can see it is flat just by looking at that thar swamp out yonder. If the earth was round, the water'd run off. And the earth does NOT revolve around the sun. You can sit in your lawnchair out front of your trailer and watch the sun move across the sky. As for the animals, my hound dog still has not evolved into anything but a dog. Get real. Where do you people come up with this nonsense? (Just kidding)

Answer 7

Your issues with creationists are over-generalized. You need to read the book "The Evolution Cruncher" by Vance Ferrell. It contains thousands of scientific facts that prove that the Earth cannot possibly be millions of years old, and at the same time prove that the Earth cannot be older than 6,000-10,000 years old. I used to be a hardcore atheist and outspoken evolutionist for 20 years, until I actually studied the facts. The things that make you believe that the Earth is 4.5 million years old are based upon false assumptions. The evidence is far from "overwhelming".

Answer 8

How can they positively determine that something is 4.5 billion years old, they have nothing that they know is that old to compare it to. They were not around then to know the conditions, they can only do computerized simulations to assume that something would deteriorate at a given rate. How do they know that the figures they use are 100% accurate, they can't.

They have come up with a system to determine age, that happens to make everything fall in a line that satisfies what they believe to have happened. That is it, no more. It is not proof. The only way that you can KNOW for sure how old something is, is to have something to compare it with that you know the age of. Because if their calculations are even remotely off for something say 5000 years old, then by the time they try to figure something out earlier than that they are going to be further and further off on their results. IMO

Answer 9

I don't think it matters how old the earth is. The real question is how long has man lived on earth.

As far as evolution surely you can see, in and of itself, it doesn't come close to ruling out a creator. I believe there are certain viable parts of evolution that are misconstrued. Sure natural selection is for real, and quite miraculous if you ask me.

Answer 10

"In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the earth became without form and void" God did not create it that way, it became that way! Something must have happened. However many years you need, geology needs, can be put in between God created......... and it becoming without form and void. Aren't we told about a revolt and an attempted overthrow, Satan and his servants being cast out? when did that happen? Maybe that's what caused the darkness to be on the face of the deep!