What scientific evidence do young earth creation scientists use to support their argument that the world and universe is young?

User Avatar
Wiki User
2011-02-22 02:54:02

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


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.

"Answer" id="Answer">Answer

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


Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.