4 scientific evidence for a young earth

[Jimmy D]

again: only if we assume a constant rate.

You've got no problem doing that with stactites. Do you know what 'double standards' means?


You have yet to show evidence for a young Earth.

You've attempted to show evidence for young caves, and to discredit radiometric dating methods....

And failed miserably at that.

 

[xianghua]

Where is that graph from?

what graph?

 

[xianghua]

No, I want to know how you know those caves have been around since the beginning to the earth.

i dont know. why do you think its relevant?

If not, it's just moot, because you're measuring the age of the stalactite, not the world.

how its make any different? according to geology those caves are about millions of years old. so try to prove the arent by their stalacltites length.

 

[DogmaHunter]

if it doesnt predict then why this population growth start only in the last few hundreds years ?(from the last 2-3 my years):

It doesn't.

Population sizes tend to stay relatively stable unless something impactfull happens.

And in human history, we see population growths explode just about every time something meaningfull happens. And the size of the "explosion" is in direct proportion to how impactfull the "event" in question is.

Like the rise of agriculture, the switch from nomadic life to settlements, advances in building / housing, advances in medicine, advances in other areas of science, etc.

This is why we went from less then a billion to some 7 billion in just 200 years - thanks to the rise of science and rapid advancement in technology. Because those advances meant that:
- people lived longer
- infant mortality got a lot lower
- death as a result of giving birth got lower
- more and more previously fatal deseases became curable
- famines became less of an issue
- ...

All this results in more people staying alive.

Your "creation" story has nothing to do with that, nore does it make any meaningfull predictions about population size trends either.

It's just a case of you force-fitting misrepresented data into a dogmatic belief system.

no. they actually use radiometric dating in this specific case. so this is true only if radiometric dating is true (this is the whole point in my thread). in the paper above they use the kinetics of DNA depurination. so we arent talking now about radiometric dating since its just begging the question.

In other words: "science papers are only accurate, if they support my dogmatic beliefs"

its true that we also have evidence for an old earth.

We ONLY have evidence of an old earth. The things you listed in your OP, are utter nonsense, as many people in this thread have been pointing out to you.

but again; my whole point in this thread is to show that its just a belief rather then a fact

It is a fact, not a belief, that ice cores exhibit hundreds of thousands of winter/summer cycles.

so we have evidence for both a young and an old earth.

No.

again: only if we assume a constant rate. but this is a belief rather then a fact.

LOL!!!!

Yes, yes.... I "assume" that in the past, a single winter didn't last for just 2 hours.

Good grief.......................................

 

[Jimmy D]

what graph?

This one.

 

[xianghua]

Which is wrong, they are clearly many metres long,

no they arent in general:

this is a batter image since your image perspective seems problematic (the people are far away and its make the close stalactites look bigger). you can see above that the stalactites in the ceiling are less then 1m long. (image from אז חזרנו לביקור במערה המחודשת – מערת הנטיפים (מערת אבשלום))

here is another one (image from :File:Stalactites in Wind Cave.jpg - Wikimedia Commons)

and don't make assumptions about their growth rate, measure it, and then get back to me.

its actually an empirical rate:

Stalactite - Wikipedia

"An average growth rate is 0.13 mm (0.0051 inches) a year. The quickest growing stalactites are those formed by a constant supply of slow dripping water rich in calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and carbon dioxide (CO2), which can grow at 3 mm (0.12 inches) per year.[6][7]"

If they were "young" (whatever that means) why does that makes the caves "young", do you know how those caverns were formed? Because it seems like you don't.

if those caves are indeed old, why their stalactites so young?

 

[xianghua]

This is a ridiculously crude and nearly meaningless metric. First off: do you have any actual data on the "average" stalactite length?

Also: are these values normalized to the age of the cave in which they exist? Another poster asked you if these caves have been around since the beginning of the earth (hint: no, no they have not).

Caves can only exist in rocks the pre-exist the cave (this is pretty obvious), so can you show me karst topography that is 4.5 billion years old on earth?

I'm sure this stalactite thing sounds really impressive to you, but trust me, it isn't. It isn't even really a thing that a real geologist would look at for the age of the earth. In my years studying geology the ONLY people I ever heard talk about stalactites and the age of the earth were....YEC.

This is not to say that understanding the rate of growth of stalactites isn't interesting and important to geologists...just that it isn't usually used to point to the age of the earth by anyone because...well for the reasons I mentioned above.



Young caves exist. They do. There are caves in Carboniferous Limestones all over the midwest here in the US. They are faaaaaaaaaar less than even 1 billion years old. FAAAAR less. Why would they have stalactites pointing to 4.5 billion years of age?

ok. see my response to jimmy d. we can check their real growth rate. its not a belief.

 

[Jimmy D]

no they arent in general:

this is a batter image since your image perspective seems problematic (the people are far away and its make the close stalactites look bigger). you can see above that the stalactites in the ceiling are less then 1m long. (image from אז חזרנו לביקור במערה המחודשת – מערת הנטיפים (מערת אבשלום))

here is another one (image from :File:Stalactites in Wind Cave.jpg - Wikimedia Commons)

its actually an empirical rate:

Stalactite - Wikipedia

"An average growth rate is 0.13 mm (0.0051 inches) a year. The quickest growing stalactites are those formed by a constant supply of slow dripping water rich in calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and carbon dioxide (CO2), which can grow at 3 mm (0.12 inches) per year.[6][7]"





if those caves are indeed old, why their stalactites so young?

LOL

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Jimmy D]

ok. see my response to jimmy d. we can check their real growth rate. its not a belief.

But you haven't checked the growth rate of these stalactites, you've checked an average rate on wikipedia.

If 0.13mm a year is the average rate, about 50% of stalactites must grow much slower right?

It's a meaningless metric.

 

[Obliquinaut]

ok. see my response to jimmy d. we can check their real growth rate. its not a belief.

I am 6' 2" tall. If I started off less than 1' tall 50 years ago then I 1 foot every 10 years. If the earth is 6000 years old by am I not 600 feet tall?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I am 6' 2" tall. If I started off less than 1' tall 50 years ago then I 1 foot every 10 years. If the earth is 6000 years old by am I not 600 feet tall?

Apparently xianghua thinks you will be 12 feet tall if you live to be 100.

 

[doubtingmerle]

but what is the chance that this event will happen just as creationism predict?:

Writing became common within a few millennia of the agricultural revolution. Naturally the earliest attempts at recording history might think history started in that same time frame, as opposed to thinking it began millions of years ago. So in the last 10,000 years something happened to cause population to rise rapidly, and to record history as though it just started happening.

 

[majj27]

i dont know. why do you think its relevant?

Because it sounds like you think that the age of stalactites in a cave somehow corresponds to the age of the entire planet.

how its make any different? according to geology those caves are about millions of years old. so try to prove the aren't by their stalacltites length.

I'm afraid I'm not following you. The age of stalactites in a cave gives you a minimum age of the cave itself, not a maximum. If I have a greenhouse, and a planet in there (which has been there from a seed) is five months old, it doesn't mean the greenhouse is five months old. It means the greenhouse is AT LEAST five months old.

Therefore, a 4,000 year old stalactite in a cave means the cave is at least 4,000 years old. That doesn't mean that the cave IS 4,000 years old.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If I have a greenhouse, and a planet in there (which has been there from a seed).

I thought the current theory was accretion?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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:
View attachment 213601
is it a coincidence that the data fit well with a young earth prediction?

Uh, no, the data do not fit well with a young earth position.

It is estimated there was something less than a quarter billion people in 0 AD, and 1 billion in 1800 AD. That gives us a doubling rate of about once every 1000 years. If population doubles every 1000 years, then it increases by 1000 every 10,000 years at that rate. OK, so then there were 1 billion people in 1800 AD, 1 million in 8200 BC, 1000 in 18,200 BC, and 1 in 28,200 BC. That does not fit well at all with Genesis as literal history, which sees the earth as around 6000 years old.

Looked at another way, suppose Adam and Eve were created in 10,000 BC. (It is a stretch to push a literal interpretation of Genesis back that far, but for the sake of argument lets do it.) OK, so we get 2 people in 10,000 BC, 4 in 9000 BC, 8 in 8000 BC, and increase to up to 512 in 2000 BC. Even if they all lived in Egypt, how did they build all those pyramids? Young earth creation has this inherent flaw, that it must postulate extraordinary growth rates to get all of ancient civilization built with a starting point of only 2 people not that long ago.

Populations growth rates vary. Sometime population even shrinks. In pre-agricultural times, it is no surprise that population did not grow much for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[majj27]

I thought the current theory was accretion?

Yikes! That should have been "plant". If you've got a greenhouse big enough to hold a planet, that just raises MORE issues!

 

[xianghua]

It doesn't.

Population sizes tend to stay relatively stable unless something impactfull happens.

And in human history, we see population growths explode just about every time something meaningfull happens. And the size of the "explosion" is in direct proportion to how impactfull the "event" in question is.

Like the rise of agriculture, the switch from nomadic life to settlements, advances in building / housing, advances in medicine, advances in other areas of science, etc.

yes. but what is the chance that agriculture will evolve at the same time as
language? by the way (just as a note) english isnt my native so i may not understand some of your words. and about the ice cores:

The lost squadron - creation.com

 

[xianghua]

Writing became common within a few millennia of the agricultural revolution. Naturally the earliest attempts at recording history might think history started in that same time frame, as opposed to thinking it began millions of years ago. So in the last 10,000 years something happened to cause population to rise rapidly, and to record history as though it just started happening.

so what is the chance that both writing and agriculture will evolve at the same time?

 

[xianghua]

Therefore, a 4,000 year old stalactite in a cave means the cave is at least 4,000 years old. That doesn't mean that the cave IS 4,000 years old.

sure. but since most of the stalactites are about that age, isnt this interesting?

 

[majj27]

sure. but since most of the stalactites are about that age, isnt this interesting?

Are they?

If they are, then you're established a possible lower limit for the age of the CAVE. Doesn't prove a thing about the age of the PLANET.