Old Earth is a myth
There is a profusion of evidence for the Bible’s view of a young earth. However, the Old-Earth perspective has held a monopoly in the public schools, in the major academic centers, and in the popular media for generations. It is no wonder then that most scientists share the Old-Earth perspective. It’s all they were taught growing up in school. It’s all they learned at the universities where they got their degrees. It’s what most of their colleagues profess. But there are dissenters among the scientific community and their numbers are growing. Why? Because more and more scientists are confronting a growing body of evidence which challenges the Old-Earth paradigm.
This is not to say that everyone who examines these evidences will reject the Old-Earth perspective. Some who have pondered these evidences regard them as anomalous yet-to-be-explained phenomena. Some believe they don’t stand up under close scrutiny. Some view them as deliberate misrepresentations of the facts by religious zealots.
There is no doubt that religious zealots have a tendency to distort facts when it suits their purposes. Old-Earth zealots have the same tendency when their careers and reputations are on the line. It’s human nature. It is also true that some of the Young-Earth evidences which have been proposed over the years have not withstood close scrutiny. But many others have, and the fact remains that a growing number of professionally-trained scientists—experts in their fields—are accepting a Young-Earth perspective as being at least scientifically plausible, if not compelling. Here are a few of the relevant evidences for consideration:
Continental Erosion and Fossil Remains. The continents are eroding at such a rate that, if not for tectonic uplift, meteoric dusting and volcanic influx, they would erode flat (Mt. Everest and all) in less than 25 million years. At this rate, high-altitude million-year-old fossils should have long since eroded away. And yet they remain. The implication is that these fossils are not millions of years old. If this were true, the entire Geologic Column would need serious revision.
Subterranean Fluid Pressure. When a drill rig strikes oil, it sometimes gushes out in huge fountains. This is because the oil is often under huge amounts of pressure from the sheer weight of the rock sitting on top of it. Other subterranean fluids kept under pressure include natural gas and water. The problem is, the rock above many pressurized subterranean fluid deposits is relatively permeable. The pressure should escape in less than 100,000 years. And yet these deposits remain highly pressurized. Once again, because of the supposed antiquity of these deposits and their location throughout the Geologic Column, this observation calls into question some of the interpretations which have led to the formulation of the column.
Global Cooling. In the 19th Century, the renowned physicist and inventor Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) was the first to point out that if the Earth began in a white hot molten state, it would have cooled to its current temperature billions of years sooner than the 4.6 billion years accepted today. Since then, Old-Earth advocates have pointed out that radioactive decay within the Earth would greatly slow down the cooling process. Young-Earth advocates respond that even given liberal assumptions concerning the amount of heat produced by radioactive decay, the Earth would still cool to its current temperature much sooner than Old-Earth advocates allow.
Lunar Recession. The moon is slowing moving farther away from the Earth. This has to do with the fact that the Earth’s spin is slowing down due to tidal friction and other factors. Lunar recession was first observed by Edmund Halley in late 1600s (the same Edmund Halley who is credited with being the first to predict the 76-year orbit of the famous comet which bears his name). Given the rate of lunar recession today, the fact that it has gradually accelerated over time, and upon taking several other factors into consideration, physicists have determined that the Earth-moon system could not have existed beyond 1.2 billion years. This is 3.4 billion years less time than Old-Earth advocates are willing to accept. Furthermore, the closer the moon gets to the Earth, the greater its influence on our tides. We can’t go too far back in time before we would all drown twice a day.
Helium diffusion from Precambrian Zircons. Helium is produced within the Earth by the radioactive decay of certain unstable elements (Uranium and Thorium being two such elements). Some of this decay takes place inside of crystals known as “zircons.” Helium diffuses from these zircons at known rates depending upon depth and temperature. Scientists have discovered that in zircons, where a billion years of Uranium decay has allegedly taken place, too much Helium remains—way too much Helium. It appears as if the Helium hasn’t had enough time to diffuse out of the crystals. This observation has a couple of implications.
First, this observation may overturn a key assumption underlying radiometric dating (the most common Old-Earth dating technique). Scientists believe that a billion years of Uranium decay has taken place within these zircons because they make certain assumptions about the unobservable past. One of these assumptions is that radioactive decay has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. Scientists have been able to vary decay rates in the lab but most don’t believe that it actually happens in nature. However, if billions years of Uranium decay has taken place so quickly that the Helium produced hasn’t had enough time to escape the zircons, this may be strong evidence that radioactive decay rates were greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.
Second, because the zircons came from Precambrian rocks below the Geologic Column, currently accepted Old-Earth interpretations of the Geologic Column may need serious revision. These and numerous other scientific evidences for a Young-Earth theory give credence to the Bible’s account of the creation of the earth and universe as found in Genesis.
- Login to post comments
The bible you mention is a story book, not a very good one mind you but stories none the less; collected from various cultures over verious centuries in what we call the mid-east. It is not then nor now a book of science, it was never ment to be such a thing; it is a book of theology and sociology. Try to wrap your limited I.Q. around that simple reality.
Your post tries to polorize young-earthers vs. old-earthers based on what a fictional story book says. Why not base it on tales of the brothers Grimm or Homer? Some of their tales are even older then the bible and they make as much sense.
If you want a science debate here; leave out the theology. If you want a theist debate then leave out the science.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Do you have opinions of your own or do you just plagiarize?
OP yanked entirely from here: http://www.gotquestions.org/young-earth-evidence.html
Funny that this profusion of evidence only listed one source at the end of it.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Bleh.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
wait, it's chuck what's his face again!
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
YAWN................
I admire the swift justice of DG's ban hammer, that's what I admire.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I was going to write a point by point refutation, but seeing as this is plagiarism I see no need to. Think up your own arguments. Don't stoop to Venomfangx's level and copy and paste others' arguments. And if you must use other people's arguments, give us a link to the source and say that source is something you trust and would like us to view. This should be common sense.
I find the subterranean fluid pressure one to be the funniest. It is exactly like asking "why hasn't the higher pressure at the bottom of the ocean escaped by now?" I try not be an asshole over the internet, but here it goes: that was one of the most retarded things that I have ever read. It shows such fundamental lack of understanding about the world that I don't even know where to begin. The pressure will never leak out; just like the pressure of the water at the bottom of the ocean will never leak out. The pressure is caused by the weight of everything above it. It saddens me that someone wrote this down thinking that it was a valid argument. Please, find better sources to steal from. Or, I dare you, think up some arguments of your own.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
There ya go, buddy. I fixed the preamble for ya!
I was going to write this one myself, but realized that I was taking up some 500 lines, so decided to act like a fundy and stand on the shoulders of others. And so a thorough debunking of this claim can be found below, although I'm sure you won't bother reading it. Oh well, you can bring a person to knowledge, but you can't make him think.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/erosion.htm
Please cite examples of oil exploration companies looking for oil under permeable rock. Please cite examples of oil being found under permeable rock. Please quote one geologist that suggests looking for oil deposits beneath permeable rock. Please remember that I have lived in the two largest oil producing states in the nation. Even though it isn't my field, I know oil.
Lord Kelvin didn't know about radiation, so it would be kind of difficult for him to have factored it into his equation. Your cut & paste attempts to gloss over this with the mention of radioactive decay, but fails to give equations to back the claim up. Remember that anything can be claimed by anyone. But unless the claim is backed up with something, it is just groundless bullshit.
It should be noted though that even without radiation, Lord Kelvin's math demonstrated a 20-25 million year old earth, clearly debunking YEC pseudoscience. I guess the Creationist liars neglected to tell you that.
So now Christians deny the theory of gravity as well! Or have they forgotten that gravity is directly proportional to proximity? But even if we ignore this, lets look at the math. NASA sets the estimated moon recession at 4cm/year. This means that the moon would move 40,000 km in a billion years! At its present distance of 384,000 kilometers from earth, it would take over nine and a half billion fucking years to get to its present location! That is roughly twice the age of the earth! Can't fundies do fucking math?
What scientists discovered this? Where are the results of this study published? On what grounds do they conclude that there is too much helium in the crystals? When will stupid fundy morons learn to check their facts before pouring out a steady stream of oral diarrhea?
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
The funny thing is that Christians seem to think they are the only ones, they may have been the first, but they are not the only ones, trying to bastardize sceince to jutify their myth.
I once debated a Muslim who quoted a verse about "mountains moving" to justify the absurd claim that Muhammed knew about plate techonics. Another mentioned a verse about congieled blood to justify the claim that Allah picked the sex of the baby.
This is cut and paste conveluted psuedo science, and just as bad as Sceintology's claims and just as bad as Jewish Kaballah. These are nothing more than attempts to retrofit after the fact.
Even science fiction fans falsely consider Rodenberry the enventor of the modern cell phone. That would be like a historic antique car fan claiming that Henry Ford invented the Lamborginni because he built a Model T.
The fact is theism is backpeddling trying to prop up myth trying to base it on tangential ambigious words.
Saying "The sky is blue" does nothing to demonstrate your knowledge of why it is blue.
Genesis alone is full of scientific inconsistancies and clearly demonstrates the complete lack of scientific knowledge we have today. Humans don't pop out of dirt. Plants need photosynthisis to grow, and the sun and moon are the same source of light|(sunlight bouncing off the moon). It falsely treats all points of light, other than the sun as all being stars, when we know that some are planets, others stars and others further out entire galaxies.
These attempts are nothing more than desperation to cling to a warm fuzzy feeling.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Might clue you in on something, hmm?
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby