What scientific evidence do young earth creation scientists use to support their argument that the world and universe is young?
The following are some of the scientific arguments used by young earth creationists. Sometimes the arguments do not explicitly point to the Biblical age used by creationists of 6000-10,000.
1. Rapid Disintegration of Comets: means they cannot be 5 billion years old or they wouldn't exist. Around 100,000 years is postulated as a maximum.
2. Insufficient sea-floor sediment: At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found could accumulate in 12 million years. The oceans are alleged to have existed for 3 billion years.
3. Insufficent Sodium Chloride in the sea: Evolutionary estimates for the age of the earth's oceans are 3 billion years. With current rates of deposition, the salt in the sea could have accumulated in 42-62 million years at todays rate and of course much faster in the Noahic flood.
4. Decay of the magnetic field of the Earth: This is occurring too rapidly to fit the long-age evolutionary paradigm - the total energy stored having decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years. Creationists have a model explaining this based on sound physics.
5. Tightly bent strata: These stata, thousands of feet thick are tightly bent without cracking. Yet they are meant to have solidified over millions of years and then bent. The creationist explanation is that they formed while still plastic as the entire formation had to be soft when formed to avoid cracking. This would point to the folding having occurred thousands of years and not millions after formation.
6. Fossil Radioactivity: Radiohaloes which have shown evidence of having been squashed indicate that the Jurassic, Triassic and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were formed in a short time-frame - over months, not hundreds of millions of years. This is so since the rings formed by the haloes, which only exist for a short time before they decay were squashed, indicating rapid formation. If the rocks had formed over a long time span the haloes would not have been there.
7. Misplaced Helium: Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this Helium into the atmosphere can be measured. If this has been occurring for 5 billion years there should be much more Helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there when compared to the relevant time scale.
8. Insufficient stone-age skeletons: The 100,000 year stone-age of evolutionary anthropologists should have produced many more skeletons - around 4 billion, many more of which should still be around compared to the few thousand found.
9. Recent Agriculture: The archeological evidence shows the stone age people to be as intelligent as modern man and yet it is claimed they existed for 100,000 years before discovering that plants grow from seeds. Creationists would think that it is more likely that man was without agriculture for a much shorter period immediately after the flood.
10.History too short: Stone-age people built huge monuments, did beautiful cave paintings and kept records of lunar phases. It seems unreasonable that they should wait nearly 100,000 years before beginning to make written historical records around 4-5000 BC. A much shorter Biblical time-scale seems to better fit this evidence.
Source: These points are condensed from an article by creationist Dr. Russel Humphreys, in Creation Ex Nihilo 13(3):28-31, June -August 1991.
The footnotes to this article contain the relevant scientific data relating to the points made. This will be posted as a link for those wishing to check the data or inquire further.
There is scant scientific evidence to supports the position of creationism, most of which is either misinterpreted or contradicted by more consistent data. Creationist claims and evidence tend to be misunderstood or misinterpreted facts, which when coupled with misapplied laws of science create a distorted worldview.
For example, above is a large list of "proofs", none of which make sense when properly explained and considered in the context of other scientific fields. In addition to these are others which are as easily rebuffed, leaving little to support creationism of any form, much less to cast significant doubt on evolution. For a rebuttal of each of the points above please refer to the discussion page.
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.
Here are some arguments for Creation or against Evolution. These point to Divine Creation: The staggering complexity of every organ and every cell in the human body. The vastness of our minds and emotions. The fact that the universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism)… Read More
Nearly all qualified scientists believe the earth to be billions of years old and that life as we know it evolved from simpler forms. Scientists are unlikely to discuss the biblical creation stories, but those who do hold religious beliefs are likely to regard the stories as allegories.
Both. Each group makes an effort to demonstrate its belief and also to falsify the belief of the other camp. See also: Is there evidence for Creation? Can you show that God exists? Seeing God's wisdom
Scientists use to organize questions and reach conclusions that are backed by scientific evidence and research?
the Scientific Method
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?
It's not that scientists are actually seeking to prove that divine creation did not really happen, but each new scientific advance shows divine involvement in the creation of life to be unnecessary.
There is no scientific evidence that unicorns exist so scientists can not properly categorize an unicorn and give it a scientific name.
new evidence contradicts it
to provide evidence that supports conclusions.
They relied more on evidence.
There is no evidence whatever that can be found to support the argument that astrology is anything other than a belief system. There is no scientific evidence that supports astrology.
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.
Both Creationist scientists and evolutionary scientists use the same evidence, but arrive at different conclusions to it based on opposing worldviews.
There are Creation-stories all over the world; tens of them if not hundreds. This is because the Creation was a tradition going all the way back and shared by all mankind. As time passed, most of these stories became infiltrated by idolatry, with a phantasmagoria of warring deities. It is the Torah, in Genesis, which preserves the original.See also: Is there evidence for Creation?
The Scientific Revolution was a conflict between authority and evidence. Authority came in the form of the Church, which did not want to accept new scientific ideas. Evidence came in the form of experiments and observations that scientists were coming up with that were proven true repeatedly.
Reasoning based on evidence in inductive reasoning, as opposed to reasoning based on logical argument, which is called deductive reasoning.
Scientific research provide factual evidence to questions that scientists have. The research can lead us closer to mysteries about the world and galaxies.
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.
scientific inquirry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on evidence they gather
Hypothesis Testing, Empirically based evidence
modify the theory or discard it altogether.
The work of 15 climate scientists is helping to educate the public about the overwhelming scientific evidence for human-caused global warming.
What is true about scientific debates A always resolve the problem B scientists work out different views C scientific evidence is not used D everyone must agree?
Scientific debates let scientists work out different views. Debates present differing ideas and views with that scientist's "scientific evidence", but scientists do not always agree and cannot always resolve the problem(s). Debates are like a think tank. They generate more ideas than declaring one solution or answer.
Forensic is "any evidence submittable in a court of law", not just scientific evidence but is now used as a general term for scientific evidence for a crime. The term "lets get forensics in" that is commonly used on T.V actually suggests planting evidence! To be P.C. they should say "lets get the Forensic Scientists in"
Some interpretations of a few religious texts don't allow for evolution, which leads to many people ignoring scientific evidence (since they cannot really disavow the evidence, which is a completely different argument, but honestly, i have never heard a logical argument that did not rely on fallacy to disavow evolution - and many learned men have tried) Whether you believe it or not is up to you, but to ignore scientific evidence in lieu of… Read More
Yes. Even though Darwin called the Origin " one long " argument " the book was well supported by the evidence of the day and gave ways to falsify the material in the book,. hypothesis for testing and predictions on what would be found that turned out to be quite accurate. So, scientific.
A lot of knowledge from philosophers and scientists during the renaissance era spurred the scientific revolution. The scientific method was endorsed as a means to gather evidence, and formed the foundation of modern science in the scientific revolution.
Most "Creation Scientists" are Old Earth Creationists, so they accept the mainstream scientific evidence that the Earth is immensely old, in fact probably around 4.5 billion years. This means they are not Bible literalists, who would believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. However, they seek a greater role for God than merely initiating the "Big Bang" and letting the rest happen. So, many seek to find some evidence of "Intelligent… Read More
No one 'wants' you to follow evolution. It is simply the scientific process by which humans and other living creatures developed over many millions of years. If you choose to believe a non-scientific alternative, that is fine, however scientists have irrefutable evidence that evolution really did happen. For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
The two factors that help maintain a scientists believability is evidence and logical support. These are the ones that are considered to be scientific credibility factors.
Like all accepted scientific theories, there is a general consensus amongst scientists across the world that there is enough evidence from observation and experimentation to support it.
Because non-scientists do not understand what a scientific theory actually means. It is not a random guess. Scientific theories are formed based on evidence and experimentation. The scientific community advocates evolution because all the evidence of life on our planet supports the theory.
Refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence they gather.
Scientist base their answers on things they already know, scientific evidence, and results that they get with doing experiments.
Scientists answer questions by using the scientific method (making observations, doing experiments, formulating, testing, and modifying hypotheses). In all experiments where this process has been used to test its validity, astrology has failed.
Scientists are not resistant to change, they are always ready to look at new evidence for scientific theories. But science develops by looking at new ideas and rejecting the ones that can be proved wrong, so this is why scientists always have to look at new ideas when they come along and try to disprove them. The scientific theories that last are the ones that could never be disproved.
I will let the early Church Father, Origen, answer this, from On First Principles, 3.1.1: "Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day if we may so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner… Read More
There is quite conclusive, direct evidence for evolution, as explained by the Theory of Evolution. This is found in the extensive fossil evidence we now have, including transitional species, and even in the DNA. There is no direct evidence for Divine Creation, either as portrayed in the Book of Genesis or held by Creationists (yes, they are different). In the absence of evidence, proponents of this hypothesis give us emotive explanations, such as complexity and… Read More
During the Scientific Revolution, scientists standardized the way of proving their ideas through empirical evidence and inductive reasoning. This became the modern scientific method.
The sequence of scientific investigation in psychology is observation, theory, hypothesis, and evidence. Scientific investigation is the way in which scientists and researchers use a systematic approach to answer questions about the world around us.
What is the process that refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence they gather?
It provided scientists with evidence that many traditional beliefs were incorrect.
Scientists providing evidence that genetically modified foods
What scientific evidence do young earth creation scientists use to oppose the argument that the world and the universe are not young?
If 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… Read More
Creation Evidence Museum was created in 1984.
Yes there is. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_some_proofs_offered_by_Creationists http://judaism.answers.com/jewish-philosophy/can-you-prove-that-god-exists http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_26.htm Concerning evolution, things are not as rosy as some might think. Belief in Evolution is fraught with difficulties and it remains in fact a theory, open to dispute by people who choose to avoid ignoring its problems. It can neither be proven nor demonstrated in the lab (in its broader sense of giving rise to new organs or species). This is what evolutionists themselves have to say:We accept… Read More
Inductive reasoning is " reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.". This is the reasoning behind most for scientific and mathematical studies.
They do the experiment again, double check all their calculations, then they come up with a new theory if it's necessary. That's why there's no such thing as a scientific fact, only scientific theories.
Evidence to support the argument is needed for a sound argument.
Scientists who contend that the biblical story of creation is false, may simply be convinced that Evolution (without Divine help) is accurate. Some of them may be predisposed against religious scripture for whatever reason. See also: Is there evidence against Evolution God's wisdom seen in His creations More about God's wisdom