0
What scientific evidence do young earth creation scientists use to oppose the argument that the world and the universe are not young?
Wiki User
∙ 8y ago
a) At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.
See: Problems in Evolutionary astronomy
And: More evidence of a young Earth
e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.
See also:
Wiki User
∙ 8y ago
Wiki User
∙ 8y agoIf Young-Earth creationists used scientific evidence, they would soon come to the inescapable conclusion that the world is billions of years old. Instead they choose not to become acquainted with the facts of science and provide pseudo-scientific reasons to 'prove' the earth is not as ancient as it really is. I need only deal here with one example of Young-Earth pseudo-science.
Samuel Haughton, an Irish geologist, calculated as far back as the nineteenth century that sediments were deposited on the ocean floor at the rate of "one foot in 8,616 years". He then calculated a minimum duration of around 2000 million years. Unwilling to accept such a long period, he scaled it back, by a factor of 10, to just 200 million years - still an enormously long time. Unaware of Haughton's work, Young-Earth creationists simply claim that at current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth. When Haughton calculated that sediments were deposited on the ocean floor at the rate of one foot in 8,616 years, there should be not much more than one foot of sediment on the ocean floor, even as an average, so Haughton's landmark estimates seriously undermine claims that the world is only around ten thousand years old.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What scientific evidence do young earth creationists use to oppose the argument that the world and universe is young?
None, since young earth creation scientists, by definition, believe the world and universe to be young, they do not oppose but promote the large body of evidence which supports this.
How did the scientific change the way scientists did their work?
they relied more on evidence
Scientists use to organize questions and reach conclusions that are backed by scientific evidence and research?
the Scientific Method
How did the scientific revolutions change the way scientists did their work?
They relied more on evidence.
How did the scientific revolution changed the way scientists did their work?
They relied more on evidence.
Why do scientists record details about scientific observations?
to provide evidence that supports conclusions.
How did the scientific revolution change the way scientists did their work?
They relied more on evidence.
Is the Evolutionists' sole purpose is to debunk the Creationists or is it the other way around?
Evolutionists believe that scientific evidence supports the Theory of Evolution. Creationists believe the Theory of Evolution contradicts the Biblical story of creation and, therefore, fight against its acceptance. Scientists, even those who accept the existence of God and the validity of the Bible, believe that a scientific theory must be supported by evidence. It's not a case of anyone debunking anyone. Scientists and Creationists alike start off with personal beliefs: scientists in science and creationists in the Biblical account of creation. Neither is without bias and both attempt to find evidence that supports their core beliefs.
As we see the boundaries of our scientific knowledge expand daily is scientific discovery pointing more toward a Divine Creation of life or away from it?
If it were pointing toward a divine creation, it would also be pointing to the complete irrelevance of faith. This would be a serious if not insurmountable problem for some faith-based systems. What is the need for faith when confronted with concrete evidence? On the other hand, no amount of science however widely expanded it is can ever disprove creation. So there isn't much evidence of a changing pointer. However, the expansion of discovery may be pointing away from the authoritative position of the accepted creation accounts in the scriptures of some faiths. The scientific discoveries themselves point neither toward nor away from divine creation. The interpretations that are placed on the discoveries by most scientists point away from God. For other scientists, the same discoveries either indicate an unspecified supernatural origin to life or specifically point to creation of life by God.
When are scientific ideas modified-?
Scientific ideas are modified when evidence is found that does not fit the predictions. The scientists determine why and revise the model to fit the new data.
If new evidence does not support a scientific theory scientists will most likely?
modify the theory or discard it altogether.
What is one theory scientists give about God's creation of the solar system?
Scientists have not developed any theories about God's creation. They investigate the natural world and its origins, but have found no evidence that would require involvement of God (or gods) in the origin of the world.
