although the design argument doesnt depend on the age of the earth, we still need to remember that the age of the earth is a belief rather then a fact. so here are 4 evidence for a young earth:
1) human population growth: according to evolution human population pass the 1 billion limit only in the last hundreds years (from the last 2-3 my years):
(image from Human overpopulation - Wikipedia)
so its should look like this:
is it a coincidence that the data fit well with a young earth prediction?
2) DNA from an old fossil. according to the scientific data DNA should not survive for more then about 10,000 years under an average temp (10-20c)(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291781657_Biomolecules_in_fossil_remains (table1). so according to the scientific data we can predict that we will not find an old fossil (20my old) with DNA. but surprisingly we actually found such a fossil:
DNA sequences from Miocene fossils: an ndhF sequence of Magnolia latahensis (Magnoliaceae) and an rbcL sequence of Persea pseudocarolinensis (Lauraceae)
so again, is it a coincidence that the data fit well with a young earth prediction?:
the main objection to this finding is the claim about contamination. but not in this specific case:
"The possibility of contamination is extremely low because no PCR products were detected in any negative controls, and the laboratory at Washington State University in which DNA of M. latahensis was extracted, amplified, and sequenced never possessed samples of the four extant species of Magnolia that share an ndhF sequence with M. latahensis."
3) stalactite length. the average stalactite growth rate is about 1 cm per 100 years. so if the earth is indeed so young we expect to find that most stalactites (dont be confuse with stalagmites) should be no more then 50-100cm long. this is indeed what we find in most stalactites caves:
(image from https://www.quora.com/Why-do-stalac...n-occur-in-pairs-Is-such-occurrence-important)
the main objection to this claim is that those stalactites may fall apart every several thousands years. but if it was true then the floor should be full of stalactites chunks (about 100 stalactites in the floor for every single stalactite above in a 1my old cave). and as you can see in the image, this isnt what we find.
4) radiometric dating can be wrong up to 100000% from the real age. for instance: a living snail was date to about 27,000 years by c14:
Major carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern nevada springs. - PubMed - NCBI
rhenium-osmium dating can be wrong up to billion fold from the real age under some conditions and so on:
Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5190 (1996) - Observation of Bound-State ${\mathit{\ensuremath{\beta}}}^{\ensuremath{-}}$ Decay of Fully Ionized ${}^{187}$Re: ${}^{187}$Re${\ensuremath{-}}^{187}$Os Cosmochronometry
the main objection is that usually those methods agree with each other. but how do we know they are correct if their error range is so huge? can we consider a method that can be wrong up to 1 billion fold to be a scientific method?
1) human population growth: according to evolution human population pass the 1 billion limit only in the last hundreds years (from the last 2-3 my years):
(image from Human overpopulation - Wikipedia)
so its should look like this:
is it a coincidence that the data fit well with a young earth prediction?
2) DNA from an old fossil. according to the scientific data DNA should not survive for more then about 10,000 years under an average temp (10-20c)(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291781657_Biomolecules_in_fossil_remains (table1). so according to the scientific data we can predict that we will not find an old fossil (20my old) with DNA. but surprisingly we actually found such a fossil:
DNA sequences from Miocene fossils: an ndhF sequence of Magnolia latahensis (Magnoliaceae) and an rbcL sequence of Persea pseudocarolinensis (Lauraceae)
so again, is it a coincidence that the data fit well with a young earth prediction?:
the main objection to this finding is the claim about contamination. but not in this specific case:
"The possibility of contamination is extremely low because no PCR products were detected in any negative controls, and the laboratory at Washington State University in which DNA of M. latahensis was extracted, amplified, and sequenced never possessed samples of the four extant species of Magnolia that share an ndhF sequence with M. latahensis."
3) stalactite length. the average stalactite growth rate is about 1 cm per 100 years. so if the earth is indeed so young we expect to find that most stalactites (dont be confuse with stalagmites) should be no more then 50-100cm long. this is indeed what we find in most stalactites caves:
(image from https://www.quora.com/Why-do-stalac...n-occur-in-pairs-Is-such-occurrence-important)
the main objection to this claim is that those stalactites may fall apart every several thousands years. but if it was true then the floor should be full of stalactites chunks (about 100 stalactites in the floor for every single stalactite above in a 1my old cave). and as you can see in the image, this isnt what we find.
4) radiometric dating can be wrong up to 100000% from the real age. for instance: a living snail was date to about 27,000 years by c14:
Major carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern nevada springs. - PubMed - NCBI
rhenium-osmium dating can be wrong up to billion fold from the real age under some conditions and so on:
Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5190 (1996) - Observation of Bound-State ${\mathit{\ensuremath{\beta}}}^{\ensuremath{-}}$ Decay of Fully Ionized ${}^{187}$Re: ${}^{187}$Re${\ensuremath{-}}^{187}$Os Cosmochronometry
the main objection is that usually those methods agree with each other. but how do we know they are correct if their error range is so huge? can we consider a method that can be wrong up to 1 billion fold to be a scientific method?
Last edited:
