• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

Tolkien R.R.J

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2018
1,054
307
41
Virginia
✟99,255.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
This is more boring to read than Appendix F to the Lord of the Rings.

How dare you degrade the Appendix of the great LOTR comparing it to this thread. Tolkien would slap you like a girl.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Was anything i posted based on "faith"?

All YECist arguments are. Read the faith statements of groups like ICR, AiG, Creation Ministries, etc.

And haven't you ever wondered why the only people arguing for a young Earth are Protestant Christians adhering to certain literalist doctrines?

besides as future threads will show it is the evolutionist who are anti science and faith based while creation matches observable science. If an argument holds for a long while, does not that add validity to it?

The arguments don't hold up; that's the point. You are recycling arguments that were debunked decades ago.
 
Upvote 0

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟125,524.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The thing is all of this has been responded to. Hence the term PRATT: Point Refuted A Thousand Times. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

It's just the same boilerplate YEC arguments that have been around for decades. That's why I was surprised they didn't mention moon dust. ;)
Oh thats what PRATT means. I saw you mention it but I had never heard that before.

The importance of a refutation is not really in it's existence, but in it's strength. There are so many refutations and counter refutations and counter counter refutations out there that I just get lost and more agnostic than I started. I also get lost in these discussions because of apologist sites like this, and their counter sites. It's so easy to grab from that basically every thread seems to just be a regurgitation that I can never sort out. I was really interested in what people would say about the erosion but I don't actually see it on this index. I bookmarked it so I would have the otherside.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
All YECist arguments are. Read the faith statements of groups like ICR, AiG, Creation Ministries, etc.

And haven't you ever wondered why the only people arguing for a young Earth are Protestant Christians adhering to certain literalist doctrines?



The arguments don't hold up; that's the point. You are recycling arguments that were debunked decades ago.

That's true, it takes no faith at all to believe that the universe happened randomly, when all the equations break down, so that there exists no equations to base any randomness on, or any laws of nature at all. Nah, takes no faith at all..... cough, cough.....
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
That's true, it takes no faith at all to believe that the universe happened randomly, when all the equations break down, so that there exists no equations to base any randomness on, or any laws of nature at all. Nah, takes no faith at all..... cough, cough.....

This isn't about atheism versus theism. This is about the claim that the universe is only 6000 years old. Don't confuse the two.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Sure it is:

It's only a theistic issue in the sense that the only reason creationists still argue about the age of the Earth is a perceived conflict with their religious beliefs. No one else has a problem with it.

In fact, most theists accept the contemporary scientific age of the Earth/universe. One does not need to be an atheist to accept the universe is billions of years old.

Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

The OP titled the thread poorly. The age of the Earth is a matter for geology/physics, not biology. Not that this is the first time creationists have conflated the two things and it won't be the last...
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
It's only a theistic issue in the sense that the only reason creationists still argue about the age of the Earth is a perceived conflict with their religious beliefs. No one else has a problem with it.
I'm a creationist, I see no problem with it, besides you ignoring relativity.

In fact, most theists accept the contemporary scientific age of the Earth/universe. One does not need to be an atheist to accept the universe is billions of years old.
I already agreed with you that theists and atheists as well ignore relativity.


The OP titled the thread poorly. The age of the Earth is a matter for geology/physics, not biology. Not that this is the first time creationists have conflated the two things and it won't be the last...
Why? geologists and physicists both ignore relativity when it comes to age.
 
Upvote 0

Tolkien R.R.J

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2018
1,054
307
41
Virginia
✟99,255.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
All YECist arguments are. Read the faith statements of groups like ICR, AiG, Creation Ministries, etc.

And haven't you ever wondered why the only people arguing for a young Earth are Protestant Christians adhering to certain literalist doctrines?



The arguments don't hold up; that's the point. You are recycling arguments that were debunked decades ago.


Well they would have nothing to argue with if it was "faith" based other than perhaps quote genesis. But lets talk about my op, you say these arguments have been debunked decades ago, you have also referred to talk origins as the place that debunks them. Lets do one at a time.


In future threads i will be showing how evolutionist arguments dont hold up, would you than question evolution? or be willing to defend it? I hope so.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,112
3,079
Hartford, Connecticut
✟348,052.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
He comes out of the gates with this argument that continents should be eroded away, and states that

" the average height reduction for all continents is 2.4 inches per thousand years."
http://www.extremescience.com/everest.htm
"the Himalayan Mountains are still growing higher, at a rate of about 2.4 in/6.1cm per year. "

But wait, the himilayas are currently rising, and this is measurable and is measured to rise by 2-3 inches every year.

So...which is it? Are the continents eroding away, or are they rising?

Well, the obvious answer is both. And anyone with a middle school level of science education is aware of plate tectonics and why mountains like the himilayas are rising rather than eroding away.

Now we know why continents havent all eroded away. The simple answer is that they keep getting pushed up like the himilayas over and over.

Most of north america out west used to be under water, it was uplifted. The appalachians were uplifted as well in addition to built up by compacted island arcs via continental drift.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,112
3,079
Hartford, Connecticut
✟348,052.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Another example of places that are actually building up, rather than eroding away. Hawaii. How is this possible? Magma comes out of the volcano and cools. Now the land is higher.

Another example, the Alps
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep28404

Theyre rising at 2-3 mm per year.

If the alps are 15000 feet high, imagine how long theyve been rising at that rate
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,532
God's Earth
✟270,786.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
And haven't you ever wondered why the only people arguing for a young Earth are Protestant Christians adhering to certain literalist doctrines?

There are Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, and even Jewish YECs actually.
 
Upvote 0

Tolkien R.R.J

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2018
1,054
307
41
Virginia
✟99,255.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
He comes out of the gates with this argument that continents should be eroded away, and states that

" the average height reduction for all continents is 2.4 inches per thousand years."
http://www.extremescience.com/everest.htm
"the Himalayan Mountains are still growing higher, at a rate of about 2.4 in/6.1cm per year. "

But wait, the himilayas are currently rising, and this is measurable and is measured to rise by 2-3 inches every year.

So...which is it? Are the continents eroding away, or are they rising?

Well, the obvious answer is both. And anyone with a middle school level of science education is aware of plate tectonics and why mountains like the himilayas are rising rather than eroding away.

Now we know why continents havent all eroded away. The simple answer is that they keep getting pushed up like the himilayas over and over.

Most of north america out west used to be under water, it was uplifted. The appalachians were uplifted as well in addition to built up by compacted island arcs via continental drift.

Himalayan erosion
the Himalayan system constitute the largest erosion system of the planet. It annually carries more than a billion tons of sediment and dissolved materials to the oceans, which corresponds to an erosion of of few millimeters per year

http://recherche.crpg.cnrs-nancy.fr/spip.php?article1150&lang=fr


Sorry for bold and large letters. Yes height can increase while total mass decreases, to a point. No one says plate tectonics dont add new material, just that erosion rates far exceed the input. If I am using up my gas in my car by 2 gallons a day, and putting in 1 gallon a day, i will eventually run out of gas. But even if we did add material at the same rate, the claimed old land masses by the evolutionist [especially not near fault lines/volcanoes] would have long ago eroded, and this is the problem for the believers in an old earth.

So even if the earth were millions and billions of years old, their would be small islands of land mass [assuming rates of input and plate tectonics] but no older layers as we have evolutionist claiming today.


I would say we know all earths surface has been under water.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,112
3,079
Hartford, Connecticut
✟348,052.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Himalayan erosion
the Himalayan system constitute the largest erosion system of the planet. It annually carries more than a billion tons of sediment and dissolved materials to the oceans, which corresponds to an erosion of of few millimeters per year

http://recherche.crpg.cnrs-nancy.fr/spip.php?article1150&lang=fr


Sorry for bold and large letters. Yes height can increase while total mass decreases, to a point. No one says plate tectonics dont add new material, just that erosion rates far exceed the input. If I am using up my gas in my car by 2 gallons a day, and putting in 1 gallon a day, i will eventually run out of gas. But even if we did add material at the same rate, the claimed old land masses by the evolutionist [especially not near fault lines/volcanoes] would have long ago eroded, and this is the problem for the believers in an old earth.

So even if the earth were millions and billions of years old, their would be small islands of land mass [assuming rates of input and plate tectonics] but no older layers as we have evolutionist claiming today.


I would say we know all earths surface has been under water.

Obviously the erosion does not outweight the input if the mountains are rising...

No tricks in this bag, just straight forward common sense.
 
Upvote 0

Tolkien R.R.J

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2018
1,054
307
41
Virginia
✟99,255.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Another example of places that are actually building up, rather than eroding away. Hawaii. How is this possible? Magma comes out of the volcano and cools. Now the land is higher.

Another example, the Alps
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep28404

Theyre rising at 2-3 mm per year.

If the alps are 15000 feet high, imagine how long theyve been rising at that rate

and where in hawaii do we have the land maases hundreds of million of years old to be exposed to erosion?


this is evolutionist old earth but

"about exactly the same amount of material is eroded from the slopes of the Alps as is regenerated from the deep Earth's crust."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091105121207.htm

know assume this process for hundreds of millions of years, we have no "old" layers as they are eroded and replaced by new layers. This is not what we see. the claimed old land masses by the evolutionist [especially not near fault lines/volcanoes] would have long ago eroded, and this is the problem for the believers in an old earth.



I do not accept your uniformitarnism assumptions to "imagine" they have steadily rose that long and the erosion of any older layers does not allow us to indulge in such fantasy. Evolution is fun to imagine, not so much vs observation.
 
Upvote 0

Tolkien R.R.J

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2018
1,054
307
41
Virginia
✟99,255.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Human Population Growth

It is relatively easy to calculate the growth rate needed to get today’s population from Noah’s three sons and their wives, after the Flood. With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth.That’s not very much. Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. Say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square meter per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square meters. If every one of those square meters were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.

http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people


Geneticists recently analyzed human gene differences
-Tennessen, J. et al. 2012. Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes. Science. 337 (6090): 64-69.

The research team investigated the amount of diversity among today’s human genes and how long it took to reach the current amount of diversity. They concluded that human genes diversified recently. The authors wrote, “The maximum likelihood time for accelerated growth was 5,115 years ago.”
Recent studies indicate that mutationns, most of which are nearly harmless, accumulate at a rate of at least 60 per human generation.
- Conrad, D. et al. 2011. Variation in genome-wide mutation rates within and between human families. Nature Genetics. 43 (7): 712-714. Genesis 9:19.

The rapid explosion of human genetic diversity over the last 5,100 or so years easily fits the biblical model
if the evolutionary timeline is true, then human population growth and genetic diversity were miraculously unchanged for a few million years before suddenly exploding in just the last few thousand years. What are the odds that every married couple would have had almost exactly two offspring—just enough to replace the parents—survive into the next generation for over two million years or 100,000 straight generations?


Dinosaur Blood Vessels

“Our findings challenged everything scientists thought they knew about the breakdown of cells and molecules. Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so; DNA had an even shorter life span.” "Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?"
-Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue. Scientific American. 303 (6): 62-69.



Hemoglobin and proteins decay rates from observable science proves they cannot be millions of years old. Some cannot last 2.7 million years frozen.

There are also many bacteria dna etc that have been found that also could not last that long
-Schweitzer, M.H. et al., Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94:6291–6296, June 1997. Return to text.
http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report
Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
Return to text.“Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Show that Molecules Preserve Over Time”, http://www.physorg.com/news160320581.html, accessed 3 May 2009

collagen found dated as 80ma , yet proven cannot last more than 2.7 ma frozen.

-Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,

http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf

It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist have passed since Schweitzer’s T. rex specimen was entombed.

-Nielsen-Marsch, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 12–14, June2002. Return to text.Doyle, S., The real ‘Jurassic Park’? Creation 30(3):12–15, 2008.


also dna and material that should have decayed away has been found in these supposed ancient ice cores

-Willerslev, E. et al. 2007. Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland. Science. 317 (5834): 111-114.
http://www.icr.org/article/bacteria-...from-greenland
Loveland-Curtze, J., V. I. Miteva and J. E. Brenchley. 2009. Herminiimonas glaciei sp. nov., a novel ultramicrobacterium from 3042 m deep Greenland glacial ice. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 59: 1272-1277.



half life of collagen at 7.5 Celsius last 130 thousand years. Optimal preservation conditions.

-Nielsen marsh c bimolecules in fossil remains multidisciplinary approach to endurance the biochemist pp 12-14 june 2002
also responds to claims of contamination.
Joc 27 [1] 2013


when you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded comepletley”
-Schweitzer m nova scince nov may 2009 cross/tv/21726



Polystrate fossils

attachment.php



Often trees are petrified connecting multiple layers of rock strata supposed separated by hundreds of millions of years proving 100% positive they were deposited around the same time not over millions of years.




Bent Rock Strata

attachment.php



all these layers at certain spots are bent showing they all formed while wet around the same time otherwise they would have harden and broke.


“In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition”
-Austin, S.A. and J.D. Morris, ‘Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences’, Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986) pp.3–15. Address in ref. 12



Flat Gaps

attachment.php



“Paraconformities, or flat gaps, pose a serious problem for the concept of long geologic ages. On the surface of our restless earth, during the period of the gap with the proposed millions of years of weathering, tectonic activity, and drifting of continents, you have either deposition or erosion of the sedimentary layers. If there is deposition there is no gap because the layers just keep building up. If there is erosion the contact surface (underlayer) should be highly irregular, and not flat. The flatness of the gaps indicates little time has occurred at the gaps.The flat gaps, with their incredibly widespread sedimentary layers just above and below, severely challenge the many millions of years proposed for the standard geologic time scale. The complete absence of the deep erosion expected at these gaps over their alleged long ages is very difficult to explain within the long-age uniformitarian paradigm.”
-‘Flat gaps’ in sedimentary rock layers challenge long geologic ages Ariel A. Roth



Measurable C-14 Within Ancient Samples

If the radioactive element carbon-14 breaks down quickly—within a few thousand years—why do we still find it in fossils and diamonds? It’s a dilemma for evolutionists, who believe the rocks are millions of years old.

“Even if every atom in the whole earth were carbon-14, they would decay so quickly that no carbon-14 would be left on earth after only 1 million years. Contrary to expectations, between 1984 and 1998 alone, the scientific literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record, supposedly spanning more than 500 million years. All contained radiocarbon “
-Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney

Paul Giem, “Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon,” Origins 51 (2001): 6–30.


It has even been found in diamonds.

-R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287
J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research InitiativeHYPERLINK "http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/carbon-14#fnMark_1_14_1", eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630. D. B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62.


Here are some quick links to hundreds of young earth dates

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answ...e-evidence
http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa
http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.p...inars&v=10
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...erse-video
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...universe-2
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...lar-system
http://creation.com/lunar-volcanoes-rock...-timeframe
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/af/af0907.pdf
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...blue-stars
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedi...s_ev_4.htm
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Sanoy
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,112
3,079
Hartford, Connecticut
✟348,052.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
and where in hawaii do we have the land maases hundreds of million of years old to be exposed to erosion?


this is evolutionist old earth but

"about exactly the same amount of material is eroded from the slopes of the Alps as is regenerated from the deep Earth's crust."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091105121207.htm

know assume this process for hundreds of millions of years, we have no "old" layers as they are eroded and replaced by new layers. This is not what we see. the claimed old land masses by the evolutionist [especially not near fault lines/volcanoes] would have long ago eroded, and this is the problem for the believers in an old earth.



I do not accept your uniformitarnism assumptions to "imagine" they have steadily rose that long and the erosion of any older layers does not allow us to indulge in such fantasy. Evolution is fun to imagine, not so much vs observation.

The hawaiin islands are tens of millions of years old.

Regarding the Alps, where does the article say that the alps are a billion years old? It doesn't.

It doesn't take a mathematical genius to understand this.
 
Upvote 0

Tolkien R.R.J

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2018
1,054
307
41
Virginia
✟99,255.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Obviously the erosion does not outweight the input if the mountains are rising...

No tricks in this bag, just straight forward common sense.

unless they are rising from pressure and yet losing mass from erosion. Its like a teenager [in this case a very old one] getting taller and losing weight, it does happen.
 
Upvote 0

Tolkien R.R.J

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2018
1,054
307
41
Virginia
✟99,255.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The hawaiin islands are tens of millions of years old.

Regarding the Alps, where does the article say that the alps are a billion years old? It doesn't.

It doesn't take a mathematical genius to understand this.

I never said tens of millions my good sir.

"In geological terms, in other words, there ought to be no land forms or land surfaces of an age greater than 30MYA and certainly no older than the Cenozoic...yet many features that are several tens of millions, or even a few hundreds of millions of years old, remain....since these land forms exists, they must be possible.””
-Twindale CR and Campbell EM Australian Land forms Understandings a low, flat, arid arid or a landscape Rosenberg publishing new south wales Australia 2005


Of course Hawaii can be a rare exception as new land mass if being added. Yet its oldest tiny uninhabited island is Kure Atoll 28 mya.
 
Upvote 0