Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Young and old earth Creationism » Evidence that the earth is Young

Evidence that the earth is Young

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

26Evidence that the earth is Young  - Page 2 Empty Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:20 pm


Adam to Noah
If we take Adam’s creation by God to be year 0 we can determine the
approximate age of the Earth as follows;

Year 0: Adam and Eve were created by God
Year 130: Seth was born (Genesis 5:3)
Year 235: Enosh was born (Genesis 5:6)
Year 325: Kenan was born (Genesis 5:9)
Year 395: Mahalalel was born (Genesis 5:12)
Year 460: Jared was born (Genesis 5:15)
Year 522: Enoch was born (Genesis 5:18)
Year 587: Methuselah was born (Genesis 5:21)
Year 774: Lamech was born (Genesis 5:25)
Year 956: Noah was born (Genesis 5:28)
Year 1456: Shem, Ham, and Japeth were born (Genesis 5:32)
Year 1556: Flood began (Genesis 7:6)
Year 1557: Flood ended (Genesis 8:13)

Noah to Abraham
Year 1559: Arpachshad was born (Genesis 11:10)
Year 1594: Shelah was born (Genesis 11:12)
Year 1624: Eber was born (Genesis 11:14)
Year 1658: Peleg was born (Genesis 11:16)
Year 1688: Reu was born (Genesis 11:18)
Year 1720: Serug was born (Genesis 11:20)
Year 1750: Nahor was born (Genesis 11:22)
Year 1779: Terah was born (Genesis 11:24)
Year 1849: Abram, Nahor, and Haran were born (Genesis 11:26)

Abraham to Jesus
Year 1949: Isaac was born (Genesis 21:2)
Year 2009: Jacob was born (Genesis 25:26)
Year 2156: Jacob died (Genesis 47:28)
Year 2586: Nation Israel left Egypt (430 years in captivity)
Year 2936: Saul became king (about 1050 BC)
Year 3986: Jesus was born
Year 4019: Jesus was crucified

From the death of Jacob to Jesus is a close approximate as the Bible and Archeology do not pinpoint exact times but we can certainly be sure that these ages are within 100 years of being accurate. Therefore if we add 2015 years (at the time of this writing) we see that Biblically the Earth cannot be more than 6034 to 6134 years old.

27Evidence that the earth is Young  - Page 2 Empty Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:51 pm


The Hebrew word yom, day, is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. We know precisely in what sense the word is used everywhere, except, of course, in Genesis 1.
Sometimes the word means "time" in the day of the Lord" or "in the day(s) of the Judges" WHERE THE WORD IS NOT PLURAL IN HEBREW, THE WORD MEANS TIME. So how do we determine when the word means a literal 24 hour period?
Outside of Genesis 1,
The word is used 410 times with the word day PLUS A NUMBER, and it always means a 24 hour period.
The word yom is used WITH EVENING AND MORNING 38 times, and always means a 24 hour period.
It is used WITH MORNING 23 times and WITH EVENING 23 times and each time it means an ordinary day.
The word day is used WITH THE WORD NIGHT 52 TIMES and each time it means a 24 hour day.
To sum up, outside of Genesis 1, yom means 24 hours when it is used with a number (six days), whenever the phrase "evening and morning" or "evening" or "morning" is used with yom, and whenever the word is used with the word night.
I have heard it said that the creation story in Genesis 1 is a unique genre, since there is absolutely no parallel to it in the rest of Genesis. Not true.
No one ever questions whether Joshua might have marched around Jericho for 100,000 years or millions of years because day with a number always means a 24 hour period or a daylight period.
What if we apply these tests to Genesis 1, we have in Genesis 1: 5, night, evening, morning number, 1:8, evening, morning, number, 1:13, evening morning number, 1:18, evening, morning, number, 1:23, evening morning number, and 1:31, evening morning number. So God's intention is clear. HE IS SPEAKING OF ORDINARY DAYS.
Why do we reject it? Because of what the ATHEISTIC SCIENTISTS say. But forensic science is not observational science. it is an INTERPRETATION of data.
When the atheist sees the results of the flood of Noah, with fish fossils on the mountain tops all the way to Everest, and hundreds and thousands of feet of fossil laden sediment layers that cover whole continents and even extend across continents, he says millions of years of gradual sedimentation. We say the flood of Noah.

28Evidence that the earth is Young  - Page 2 Empty Evidences for a Recent Creation on Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:04 pm


Evidences for a Recent Creation


A Comparison of the Old Earth and Young Earth Creationist Models

Just a short overview of my position on the old/young earth issue:

Either is possible, but I lean toward a young-earth view for the following reasons:

A literal 6 day creation is the most clear and simple interpretation of Genesis and other scriptures that speak of creation and the 6 days thereof.
Most or all of what we view from a geological viewpoint that would seem to point to an old earth can be explained or interpreted in light of the fact that a great flood (and its geological/meteorological aftermath) utterly transformed the earth and totally altered the geological “record”.
The fossil record can be largely or entirely viewed as a result of the flood.
While there are some unresolved issues/problems with a young earth view, there are an equal number (or more) problems with an old earth view. This fact is largely ignored by “secular” science.
A young earth view is the historic view of the Church and Rabbis in Judaism. Both Rabbis and the post-apostolic fathers wrote of the earth as being young. Some, in fact, believed it would last for 7000 years (2000 years of nations (chaos?), 2000 years of Law, 2000 years of Grace, and 1000 years of Messiah).
Old-earth dating methods are inconclusive, often conflict, and often produce bogus results (giving ancient dates on recent lava flows, living shellfish,etc).
Old-earth views often discount the Flood as of little significance when interpreting geological strata (most “secular” geologists do not believe such a global flood even happened). For example, oldeartherswould view the Grand Canyon as the result of millions of years of sediment deposition and erosion. Young earthers would view the area as a result of massive sediment deposition during the flood, accompanied by land upheaval and massive river flows during immediate post-flood era. Consider what a raging torrent the Colorado River must have been as the flood waters receded!
A “day-age” interpretation of Genesis 1 has some logical problems:
— Just how many millenia did plants live (created “day” 3) without sunlight (created “day” 4), which all land plants are dependent upon for light, warmth, reproduction, photosynthesis, and their day/night cycles?

— Many plants are almost totally dependent upon insects for pollenization and reproduction. Some also depend on birds and animals. Such plants could not have survived for more than a single life cycle much less millions of years (again, plants came on “day” 3, insects day “6”… millions/billions of years later?).

— God did not “give every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth…” as food for “all the beast… birds… creatures… [and] everything that has the breath of life in it…” until day 6. Why would God wait millions/billions of years to declare this? The phrase “And it was so” seems to indicate that it was at the moment that God spoke that this law was established for both man and beast.

How Old is the Earth? (

I’m open to other opinions. [My friend] has made some excellent points that bear consideration. But the evidence that we see on earth can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Old-earthers see it through their rose-colored glasses, young-earthers through theirs.

So I ask, what does the text most plainly say? What has the Church historically taught? To me, both say “young earth”. So, for now, there I stand.

30Evidence that the earth is Young  - Page 2 Empty Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:18 am


Lindsay Marks Harold
1. Radiogenic helium from the Helium Diffusion Dating method far exceeds what should be present in zircon. Given the known thermal history of these sites, helium diffusion rates match YEC predictions exactly, but are off by a factor of 100,000 from old earth predictions.
2. Soft tissue in dinosaur remains. All the decay studies on proteins show they cannot remain intact for more than 1-2 million years, even under the most ideal circumstances. Yet we find intact proteins in soft, stretchy tissue in dinosaur bones that have experienced very sub-optimal conditions such as water, bacteria, freeze-thaw cycles, and summer heat.
3. C-14 in every natural carbon source regardless of supposed age, including coal, dinosaur bone, and diamond. The amount of subterranean radiation that would be necessary to produce this would make these sites very productive uranium deposits.
4. Salt in the ocean. The ocean grows saltier over time because water evaporates while salt does not. Even the most conservative estimates, with the most generous assumptions for long ages, give a maximum age for the oceans of around 60 million years.
5. Cold slabs of continental crust deep in the mantle. At present subduction rates, these slabs should reach thermal equilibrium with the surrounding mantle rocks as quickly as they are subducted, but instead are more than a thousand degrees C cooler.
6. Recession rate of the moon. The moon grows farther away due to tidal friction. The measured rates of recession are not consistent with the proposed age of the earth-moon system.
7. Expansion rates of supernovae remnants are consistent with young earth chronology.
8. Mitochrondrial DNA shows that the most recent female ancestor of all humans lived about 6,000 years ago, and that all humans have since descended from one of three women (Noah's daughters in law). This clock comes straight from measured mutation rates applied to the measured differences in mitochondrial DNA among humans. In other words, unlike the official age given to "Mitochondrial Eve" in the mainstream model, this calculation is based solely on data rather than fudge factors.
9. The earth's crust is literally covered with evidence of a global flood. If Genesis did not mention a global flood, then secular geologists would have adopted that as the best explanation of earth history long ago. Some have proposed a global flood for Mars (even though that planet has no known source of liquid water).

31Evidence that the earth is Young  - Page 2 Empty Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:57 pm


Here's a short list of some dating methods that refute deep time.
Helium in the atmosphere,
Helium in the ground,
Geological activity of the moon,
Roche limit, Build up of carbon 14 [Only enough in the atmosphere for an earth less than 20,000 years old],
Human population,
Natural plutonium,
Erosion of continents,
Earth’s magnetic field,
Oil pressure in the earth,
Natural gas in the earth,
Orphan radio halos,
Neutrons & strontium,
Coral reef growth,
Oldest living plants,
Human civilizations,
River delta growth,
Under sea oil seepage,
Uranium in sea,
Neutrons and lead,
Interstellar gas expansion,
C-14 in meteorites,
Interplanetary dust removal,
Lifetime of meteor showers,
Peat bog growth,
Poly-strata fossils,
Hardening of rocks,
Decay of Saturn’s rings,
Potassium in the sea,
Titan’s methane loss,
Internal heat of Io,
Leaching of chlorine,
Radiogenic lead,
Niagara Falls erosion,
Seafloor calcareous ooze,
Uranium decay,
Squashed radio halos,
rotating spiral galaxies that cannot last billions of years; they would be twisted up beyond recognition,
multitudes of hot blue stars which cannot last billions of years,
decaying magnetic fields,
disintegrating comets,
the horizon problem.
// Continental drift under the current YEC models, you cook all life on earth again due to the heat generated.//
Maybe it has not yet been figured out. That doesn't mean it cannot be. As an example; when the basalt next to the mid Atlantic ridge was drilled through, there was no consistency to magnetic pattern in the underlying rock. That is expected with rapid formation of the basalt from Noah's flood; not with long ages of continental drift.
I gave some examples above of many bits of evidence that the old earther has to overcome. Both the old earther and the young earther need rescuing devices for many bits of evidence. Neither philosophy can be proven with evidence. THAT is a fact.
The bottom line is that evidence will never convince anyone. The evidence is ALWAYS peered at through the philosophical worldview lens one espouses. The real difference between people like me and those like you is that many biblical creationists are both willing and able to see the evidence through your lens. That is the only way I can see the shortcomings of your claims.
I have yet to meet a God denier who is capable of viewing evidence through the lens of biblical creation. The best they do is like you are right now: They ALWAYS seek just enough information to fulfill their need for confirmation bias and ignore all the problems with their own philosophical worldview.
This is an interesting stance coming from someone who has no explanations at all for any origins. The naturalist doesn't even bother to try to find the original uncaused cause that brought the universe into existence. The origin of life is another the God denier won't touch. The only thing they say is exactly what I said about the heat problem. The God denier appeals to the "I don't know" answer for all things origin related.
Since there are so many things that point to a young earth and universe; and since all the dating methods are based on unknowable assumptions such as the beginning mother daughter ratio and the uniformity of exchange rates through time, the God denier has nothing on which to base his beliefs except guesswork.”

32Evidence that the earth is Young  - Page 2 Empty Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:57 pm


DNA in ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author in Creation30(4):45–47,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.
The data for ‘mitochondrial Eve’ are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
Many fossil bones ‘dated’ at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really? Tubes of marine worms, ‘dated’ at 550 million years old, that are soft and flexible and apparently composed of the original organic compounds hold the record (original paper).
Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen, histones) and DNA are not consistent with their supposed more than 65-million-year age, but make more sense if the remains are thousands of years old (at most).
Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils ‘dated’ at millions of years old, whereas complete racemization would occur in thousands of years.
Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.
Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. Coelacanth, Wollemi pine and various ‘index’ fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example? See The ‘Lazarus effect’: rodent ‘resurrection’!
The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum