Evidences for Young Earth Creationism

[jzyehoshua]

The following is just a concise summary of my more detailed points at my apologetics website, Bereawiki.

1. Human Population Growth:

Annual population growth rates exceed 1% in most of the world's countries, and at a 1% growth rate one goes from 8 people to 7 billion in just 2,071 years. Even if assuming population grew just half as fast as it does today, at a 0.50% growth rate, human civilization would still be only 4,130 years old. And if dropping down to rates just 1/5th the rates seen today, at a 0.20% growth rate, 8 individuals still grow to 7 billion in just 6,849 years.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2002rank.html

For an Evolutionist to argue that human population has been around millions of years they must argue that growth has been at a standstill all that time, and that human population did not begin growing substantially until the past 10,000 years. This is a strong evidence the world is younger.

2. Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Multiple instances have now been documented of dinosaur soft tissue including flexible blood vessels and preserved dinosaur skin. Even large numbers of dinosaur eggs with the soft eggshells preserved by massive amounts of sediment after being flooded out of their nests were discovered. While iron has been shown to be capable of preserving soft tissue for 2 years, it does not explain how the organic material could have been preserved for tens of millions, contrary to all predictions of evolution.

Examples:

A) 2005 discovery of T-Rex soft tissue.

B) 2009 discovery of hadrosaur soft tissue.

C) 2013 discovery of hadrosaur soft tissue.

D) 2013 lufengosaurus egg soft tissue.

3. Transitional Forms

Darwin's falsifiable prediction that the fossil record would produce the required transitions between core types of life has been utterly proven false. Thus his original model of phyletic gradualism was largely abandoned after 1972 when Gould and Eldredge created a new theory, Punctuated Equilibrium, proposing evolution just sped up too fast for the transitions to appear in the fossil record - a convenient way of denying the fossil record's evidence to move the goalposts.

Evolution: Library: Punctuated Equilibrium
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j11_3/j11_3_292-298.pdf

Transitions listed today in Wikipedia's list of transitional forms are the same types of life seen today, ancient snails and nautiloids (e.g. Ammonoidea, Nautiloidea) which are similar to snails and nautiloids seen today. Ancient octopi (e.g. Palaeoctopus, Proteroctopus, Vampyronassa) which are strikingly similar to octopi seen today. There are ancient cockroaches (Aphthoroblattina), butterflies (Archaeolepis), spiders (Attercopus, Eoplectreurys), bees (Melittosphex), ants (Sphecomyrma), and leaf insects (Eophyllium), similar to insects today. There are ancient pangolins (Eomanis). There are ancient deer (Heteroprox), camels (Protylopus), and antelope (Eotragus). Etc. However, what is generally lacking are the transitions between these core types of life. Microevolution is compatible with the Genesis 1 account where species were told to speciate after their kinds, and does not infer a common ancestor.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A number of bipedal fossils have been discovered in recent years, and the oldest hominids in humanity's family tree are all now recognized to have walked upright and had unusual complexity similar to modern man, such as advanced faces. Orrorin tugenensis walked upright and was in an advanced stage of evolution. Sahelanthropus tchadensis discovered walked upright and had the face of a hominid half its age. Ardipithecus ramidus walked upright and was so advanced it disproved the popular apes to humans theory. Footprints discovered in 2009 showed Erectus walked upright. And Lucy, aka Afarensis, walked upright per a new study in 2011.

* Ardipithecus:

Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found

* Orrorin:

BBC News | SCI/TECH | 'Oldest' ape-man fossils unearthed

* Sahelanthropus:

Palaeoanthropology: Hominid revelations from Chad : Article : Nature
Facelift seals standing of oldest hominid : Nature News

Oldest member of human family found : Nature News

* Erectus:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/science/27foot.html

* Afarensis:

"Lucy" Was No Swinger, Walked Like Us, Fossil Suggests

On top of this a large number of alleged missing links have been discovered to have coexisted so that their evolving from one another as had been claimed is highly unlikedly. Most notably Afarensis and Ramidus coexisted, Neanderthals and Humans coexisted, and Habilis and Erectus coexisted.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Finds test human origins theory
A New Discovery in Human Evolution - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

Skull May Alter Experts' View Of Human Descent's Branches - NYTimes.com
Fossils paint messy picture of human origins - Technology & science - Science | NBC News

Oldest <i>Homo Sapiens</i> Fossils Found, Experts Say

4. Microevolutionary Rates

Microevolutionary rates today are consistent with a young earth, rather than millions or billions of years.

Rapid Evolution

Examples include Australia's cane toads which evolved longer legs and heat tolerance within a few decades, Italian wall lizards which evolved larger heads and new gut structures within a few decades, flowering plants, and rodents. That they can adapt so quickly suggests Earth is far younger, and that a common ancestor is false or we should be able to see the transitions between core types of life occur.

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
PLOS Biology: Rapid Evolution of Enormous, Multichromosomal Genomes in Flowering Plant Mitochondria with Exceptionally High Mutation Rates
PLOS ONE: Recent and Widespread Rapid Morphological Change in Rodents

 

[lasthero]

For an Evolutionist to argue that human population has been around millions of years they must argue that growth has been at a standstill all that time, and that human population did not begin growing substantially until the past 10,000 years.

There's a lot of stuff in your PRATT dump, and I don't have time to address it all - on my way to work. But I would like to call attention to this.

Our growth has been relatively slow, as we've been limited by carry capacity. It only started spiking with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Conditions improved, technology improved, and the population rose with it.

Carrying capacity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CabVet]

These are not "evidences"; they are lies, plain and simple.

 

[StormanNorman]

The following is just a concise summary of my more detailed points at my apologetics website, Bereawiki.

1. Human Population Growth:

Annual population growth rates exceed 1% in most of the world's countries, and at a 1% growth rate one goes from 8 people to 7 billion in just 2,071 years. Even if assuming population grew just half as fast as it does today, at a 0.50% growth rate, human civilization would still be only 4,130 years old. And if dropping down to rates just 1/5th the rates seen today, at a 0.20% growth rate, 8 individuals still grow to 7 billion in just 6,849 years.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2002rank.html

For an Evolutionist to argue that human population has been around millions of years they must argue that growth has been at a standstill all that time, and that human population did not begin growing substantially until the past 10,000 years. This is a strong evidence the world is younger.

Agriculture was invented about 10 to 12 thousand years ago. Prior to that, humans were believed to be hunter-gatherers where they relied primarily on the herds for their food. Just like today's predators, this can place stringent bounds on the population. So, in essence, it's very likely that the human population was stagnant until about 10,000 year ago. And, once they began controlling their environment and their food source, then the population began to grow (although not at a constant rate)

 

[poikilotherm]

Even I can refute this;

"1. Human Population Growth:

Annual population growth rates exceed 1% in most of the world's countries, and at a 1% growth rate one goes from 8 people to 7 billion in just 2,071 years. Even if assuming population grew just half as fast as it does today, at a 0.50% growth rate, human civilization would still be only 4,130 years old. And if dropping down to rates just 1/5th the rates seen today, at a 0.20% growth rate, 8 individuals still grow to 7 billion in just 6,849 years"

Some bacteria divide every 30 minutes, and you say that life is 6000 years old. Without doing the maths, I would estimate that using your logic, after 6000 years, the total number of bacteria would far exceed the number of atoms in the universe.

The reason that there are not more bacteria than atoms in the universe is because populations do not always increase exponentially, rather they fluctuate due to environmental factors. The human population would have been roughly static for millennia before the agricultural revolution, and has increased as agriculture and technology advance. Moreover, the population will not continue to increase as it is now for ever, because within a few centuries they would be standing shoulder to shoulder on all the dry land.

 

[juvenissun]

There's a lot of stuff in your PRATT dump, and I don't have time to address it all - on my way to work. But I would like to call attention to this.

Our growth has been relatively slow, as we've been limited by carry capacity. It only started spiking with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Conditions improved, technology improved, and the population rose with it.

Carrying capacity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How was the world population estimated during the historical time?
For example, how do we know the world population at A.D. 1000 is about 0.3 billion?

 

[Split Rock]

4. Microevolutionary Rates

Microevolutionary rates today are consistent with a young earth, rather than millions or billions of years.

Rapid Evolution

Examples include Australia's cane toads which evolved longer legs and heat tolerance within a few decades, Italian wall lizards which evolved larger heads and new gut structures within a few decades, flowering plants, and rodents. That they can adapt so quickly suggests Earth is far younger, and that a common ancestor is false or we should be able to see the transitions between core types of life occur.

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
PLOS Biology: Rapid Evolution of Enormous, Multichromosomal Genomes in Flowering Plant Mitochondria with Exceptionally High Mutation Rates
PLOS ONE: Recent and Widespread Rapid Morphological Change in Rodents

Hmmm.... I thought evolution is very limited, according to you guys (within a "kind"). Thanks for showing that evolution is capable of producing all life on earth within a couple of billion years.

 

[Loudmouth]

The following is just a concise summary of my more detailed points at my apologetics website, Bereawiki.

1. Human Population Growth:

Why didn't you use bacterial population growth?

Bacteria can double in number in as quick as 20 minutes. This means that the Earth can't be older than a few days since if it was older than a few days we would be swimming in hundreds of feet of bacteria all across the globe.

 

[jzyehoshua]

There's a lot of stuff in your PRATT dump, and I don't have time to address it all - on my way to work. But I would like to call attention to this.

Our growth has been relatively slow, as we've been limited by carry capacity. It only started spiking with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Conditions improved, technology improved, and the population rose with it.

Carrying capacity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To claim humans have been around millions of years it couldn't just be slow, it would have to be non-existent. Even at a .20% population growth rate, less than 1/5th the rates seen today, human population would still be under 7,000 years old. Furthermore, the countries with the worst technology today have the highest population growth rates, e.g. those in Africa. That doesn't fit your claim that technology is driving faster population growth. If so, why do countries with worse technology have more population growth?

 

[Loudmouth]

To claim humans have been around millions of years it couldn't just be slow, it would have to be non-existent. Even at a .20% population growth rate, less than 1/5th the rates seen today, human population would still be under 7,000 years old.

Yoohoo, bacteria talking over here . . .

Bacteria can divide once every 20 minutes. Why aren't we swimming in hundreds of feet of bacteria?

 

[jzyehoshua]

Why didn't you use bacterial population growth?

Bacteria can double in number in as quick as 20 minutes. This means that the Earth can't be older than a few days since if it was older than a few days we would be swimming in hundreds of feet of bacteria all across the globe.

Maximal growth isn't the same as growth rate, which you seem to be confusing. That said, some do point to the rapid microevolution of bacteria as evidence.

"They also like to point at bacterial mutation as evidence of evolution, but I have an issue with that, too. We’ve been watching those little guys since the invention of the microscope over 300 years ago, and while they’ve changed genetically and adapted as bacteria, they’ve never evolved into a new, higher form of life. Think about this: if a bacterial generation is 20 minutes, and a human generation is 20 years, then they should be evolving 525,000 times faster than we are. And if it took 3.2 million years for Lucy, the alleged missing link to become modern man, we should expect to see similar evolutionary advancements in bacteria in a period of just six years. Wow. And I’m talking about real evolution. Not just slight alterations to DNA, or building up immunities to this or that, but transforming, actually evolving into something more complex – a brand new form of life. A higher form of life."

What You Ought To Know : Darwin&#8217;s Intelligent Design

 

[46AND2]

To claim humans have been around millions of years it couldn't just be slow, it would have to be non-existent. Even at a .20% population growth rate, less than 1/5th the rates seen today, human population would still be under 7,000 years old. Furthermore, the countries with the worst technology today have the highest population growth rates, e.g. those in Africa. That doesn't fit your claim that technology is driving faster population growth. If so, why do countries with worse technology have more population growth?

What demands a positive growth rate? There are thousands of examples, even today, of species' populations declining.

This argument is so ridiculous, I couldn't fathom why it was used even when I was a YEC.

What mechanisms demand a positive, consistent, growth rate in humans, but no other species?

 

[jzyehoshua]

What demands a positive growth rate? There are thousands of examples, even today, of species' populations declining.

This argument is so ridiculous, I couldn't fathom why it was used even when I was a YEC.

What mechanisms demand a positive, consistent, growth rate in humans, but no other species?

Evolutionists extrapolate rates of radiometric decay into the distant past to derive the vast ages they do, using the principle that the "present is the key to the past." Are you saying population growth rates are an exception to that rule of constancy? If so, on what basis?

 

[46AND2]

Evolutionists extrapolate rates of radiometric decay into the distant past to derive the vast ages they do, using the principle that the "present is the key to the past." Are you saying population growth rates are an exception to that rule of constancy? If so, on what basis?

Um, yes... The basis has been given to you...changes in environment.

No environmental changes significantly affect radioactive decay.

 

[46AND2]

Evolutionists extrapolate rates of radiometric decay into the distant past to derive the vast ages they do, using the principle that the "present is the key to the past." Are you saying population growth rates are an exception to that rule of constancy? If so, on what basis?

So I'll ask again...what reason do we have to suppose that human population growth rate has always been constant, yet other species' fluctuate?

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's see . . .

The mass of a single bacterium is about 1 pg, or 1E-12 grams.

A generation time of 20 minutes is 3 divisions per hour, and 72 divisions in one day. So we have (2^72)*1E-12 for 4.7E9 g in the first day, so only 4,700,000 kg the first day, about as many as a fleet of semi trucks so far.

However, things get a little dicey the next day. By the end of the next day we have 144 divisions, so (2^144)*1E-12 gives us 2.2E31 grams. The mass of the Earth is 6E27 grams.

Therefore, the age of the Earth can't be much more than one day old because if the Earth were 2 days old then the mass of bacteria would be 10,000 times more than the mass of the Earth itself.

Creationist logic at work.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maximal growth isn't the same as growth rate, which you seem to be confusing.

No, that is what you are getting confused. You are looking at modern maximal growth rates for humans and assuming that is what the human growth rate has always been.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolutionists extrapolate rates of radiometric decay into the distant past to derive the vast ages they do, using the principle that the "present is the key to the past." Are you saying population growth rates are an exception to that rule of constancy? If so, on what basis?

Why on Earth would population growth rates have to be constant if isotope decay rates are constant?

That makes zero sense.

 

[jzyehoshua]

Um, yes... The basis has been given to you...changes in environment.

No environmental changes significantly affect radioactive decay.

Actually environmental changes such as volcanic carbon dioxide, upwelling of deep ocean water, and dissolved limestone carbonate significantly alter radioactive decay but that's a different subject. Why do you think the environment altered population growth rates in the past to the point of complete instability though?

 

[HitchSlap]

Why on Earth would population growth rates have to be constant if isotope decay rates are constant?

That makes zero sense.

Because it takes apples and oranges to make a straw man.