what evidence is there to support the young earth theory?

Answer 1

None whatsoever, but that doesn't stop the nonscientists from saying so.

I knew someone would cite the Morris/Gish Gang!

(The ICR- what a load of buffoons!)

Answer 2

Actually no.

The "young Earth" theory was the original theory. It was abandoned because all the evidence goes the other way.

There has been of late some more evidence for the role of catastrophe plays in the evolution of the Earth and life herein, such as the evidence that the Dinosaurs didn't slowly go extinct over time, but rather as the result of a meteor strike.

However even that evidence is well outside of the "young Earth" theory.

Answer 3

Evidence for a Young World
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.

Click here http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842 to read the rest.

Answer 4

None that I know of. I have read plenty of claims but not one substantiated one that bears up under scrutiny.

For instance, the religious claims that moon should have more dust on it, therefore disproving a young universe. The fact is, if they were right, there would be dust on the operational reflector that was left there from the moon landings...

Most of the claims I have read also misrepresent actual scientific claims or finds. This is itself is strong indication of a religious agenda, not an actual scientific theory.

Similarly, if science was practiced in order to make a claim or to disprove an opposing discipline (i.e religion), I would disown science also. But actual science has real results and cannot afford to practice dishonesty. Real world results such as vaccines and modern medicine are hard to refute.

Some common criticisms of the 'evidence' for young earth theories:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit

Answer 5

a million. If the earth is getting extra and extra faraway from the solar, which potential scientifically the earth grow to be interior the solar in easy terms some hundreds of thousands of years in the past. 2. If the earth's rotation is slowing down (2nd regulation of thermodynamics) how briskly grow to be it spinning while the evolutionary technique began billions of years in the past? To rapid for a perfect gravitational base for existence! 3. while guy landed on the moon scientist have been awaiting billions of years of area airborne dirt and mud to be gathered on the floor. curiously, there grow to be in easy terms approximately 10 thousand years nicely worth of accumulation. 4. yet another element with the moon... that's receding from the earth (Getting extra away) If one multiplies the cost of this recession by potential of the presumed evolutionary age, the moon could be lots farther faraway from the earth than that's, whether it had started from the earth. 6000 years is the sole element that explains the dynamical cut back interior the earth-moon device. 5. The earth-moon tidal friction reasons has been scientifically shown to reason the earth's spin cost to be slowing down. Lord Kelvin used that changing spin cost, assumed an preliminary molten earth, and proved that the earth ought to no longer be 1000000000 years previous, or the earth's latest shape could be very distinctive. there are a number of extra, yet i'm going to supply up for now.

Answer 6

There can not be any young earth theory, all the ages and ages old earth, was prepared ages down to man.
After man come the lost and dying world [ the world that will end ], that is in day seven already 6073 years and still headed for the promised salvation when Jesus was 2007 C. E. and the bible has been circulating in the world 396 years to end the last days, for those in the time of the end to have the bible to prepare them to be alive at the second coming of the savior to reign 1000 years and make all as new and perfect as it was intended to be before and at Eden. By 7130 after Eden, this will have been done, 130 years was of Day [ age, era, eon ] six of God's time, our time came with plant life days and years in day four.

Answer 7

Absolutely no evidence, just conjecture based on theories of their own.

Yesterday I saw one person attempting to reason that because the earliest account of writing goes back to about 4000BC, and the Biblical chronology dates the day of creation to about 4000BC, the correlation is evidence that man was indeed created then.

Clever argument, but hardly conclusive.


edit: The Bible has only been in circulation for 396 years? Umm... wow it took 1580 years after Jesus rose for the Bible to come into existence! I just learned something!

Answer 8

If evidence could be provided (not some bs story from the book of blah blah) that Noah, his ark or just the massive flood existed .

Answer 9

there's no evidence, but there's plenty to the contrary... that the earth is 4.5 billion years old

Answer 10

religion is so confusing. i suggest you watch at movie called Zeitgeist. go to google.com and click on videos. then search zeitgeist. its long but i swear on my life that it will change your life!