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
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
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
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
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.
No honest scientist has found substantial evidence to support
creationism. Data provided is mostly from the research of creation
scientists who have a religious commitment to casting doubt on the
age of the earth and universe.
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