• 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.

Evidence for a young world

T

theHORSEman

Guest
Hello all! I am doing some research on the creation-evolution debate(I am neither a creationist or a evolutionist mind you), and I stumbled unto this from AIG.com. I wa wondering what you have to say about this, and if this can be refuted.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1
Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.
For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’.1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51.2
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years.3
Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical ‘Oort cloud’ well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.4 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.
Lately, there has been much talk of the ‘Kuiper Belt’, a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. [For more information, see the detailed technical article Comets and the Age of the Solar System.]
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.5 This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e., mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters.6
The main way known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. 6 As far as anyone knows, the other 24 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.
Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged 3 billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.
4. Not enough sodium in the sea
Every year, river7 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.8,9 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates.9 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.9 Calculations10 for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean. [See also Salty seas: Evidence for a young Earth.]
5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
The total energy stored in the Earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years.11 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.
A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.12 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.13 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.14 [See also The Earth’s magnetic field: Evidence that the Earth is young.]
6. Many strata are too tightly bent
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.15
7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’
Strong geologic evidence16 exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone—formed an alleged 500 million years ago—of the Ute Pass fault west of Colorado Springs was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time scale.
8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.17 ‘Squashed’ Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.18 ‘Orphan’ Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.19,20
9. Helium in the wrong places
All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth’s atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in 5 billion years.21 This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.22 [See also Blowing Old-Earth Belief Away: Helium gives evidence that the Earth is young.]
10. Not enough stone age skeletons
Evolutionary anthropologists say that the stone age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts.23 By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies.24 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the stone age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.
11. Agriculture is too recent
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the stone age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.23 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the 4 billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the flood, if at all.24
12. History is too short
According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.25 Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.24

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
 

Battie

Veteran
Dec 6, 2004
1,531
158
39
Northern Virginia
Visit site
✟17,489.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I can begin to answer point 12. I have no Internet sources for you because I got this information from books:

Writing devoloped over a very long period of time. There is evidence that proto-writing arose as early as 30,000 years ago. This was not true writing, but more of a mnemonic system. Early "writers" scratched marks onto sticks and such to indicate numbers. Gradually more symbols were developed and real phonetic or pictorial systems evolved.

There is also a great deal of prehistoric art dating back to this time, a precursor to pictorial writing. I believe it is also said that spoken language began to form around 100,000 years ago. Given that humans needed time to develop language, figure out that they needed a means of recording information, and then assemble everything into meaningful, widely understood systems, it seems perfectly reasonable that they would have taken that long to do it.

In fact, as I was going through the material (I'm about to write a paper on this stuff), I was thinking that it would be extremely difficult to imagine a time frame of only 6,000-10,000 years for all of this to happen.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
theHORSEman said:
Hello all! I am doing some research on the creation-evolution debate(I am neither a creationist or a evolutionist mind you), and I stumbled unto this from AIG.com. I wa wondering what you have to say about this, and if this can be refuted.
Of course it can. And has been a million times.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years.
Evolutionary theory deals with the complexity of life. It has nothing to say about the age of comets. This should illustrate the level of drivel you are quoting.

11. Agriculture is too recent
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the stone age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.23 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the 4 billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds.
"I can't believe it!" is not an argument.

In order to understand why agriculture was developed when it was, one would need to understand what the motives of those who first developed it were. Why did they bother? If it was in order to brew beer, they first had to discover that beer could be brewed and was worth all the effort.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Battie said:
I can begin to answer point 12. I have no Internet sources for you because I got this information from books:

Writing devoloped over a very long period of time. There is evidence that proto-writing arose as early as 30,000 years ago. This was not true writing, but more of a mnemonic system. Early "writers" scratched marks onto sticks and such to indicate numbers. Gradually more symbols were developed and real phonetic or pictorial systems evolved.

There is also a great deal of prehistoric art dating back to this time, a precursor to pictorial writing. I believe it is also said that spoken language began to form around 100,000 years ago. Given that humans needed time to develop language, figure out that they needed a means of recording information, and then assemble everything into meaningful, widely understood systems, it seems perfectly reasonable that they would have taken that long to do it.

In fact, as I was going through the material (I'm about to write a paper on this stuff), I was thinking that it would be extremely difficult to imagine a time frame of only 6,000-10,000 years for all of this to happen.
Didn't the Incas manage to build a vast and relatively recent civilisation, still without any method of writting (except for numbers which they recorded with rope)?
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
nvxplorer said:
Most North American native people had no written language either.
Same here. What's unusual about the Incas is that they manage to create and successfully run a large empire like it.
 
Upvote 0

corvus_corax

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Jan 19, 2005
5,588
333
Oregon
✟22,411.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
theHORSEman said:
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
This entire argument is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.
And has NOTHING to do with Evolutionary Theory.
theHORSEman said:
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
According to evolutionary theory,
Stop right there
As already pointed out, the age of comets has NOTHING to do with the ToE. Unless, of course, one is making the general "age" argument, in which case one needs to evidence (as opposed to asserting) how the age of comets directly ties to the ToE.
theHORSEman said:
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
This argument is what we like to refer to as a PRATT (point refuted a thousand times)
It is specifically refuted HERE
theHORSEman said:
4. Not enough sodium in the sea
This is another PRATT, refuted HERE
theHORSEman said:
5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
Once again, nothing more than a PRATT
theHORSEman said:
6. Many strata are too tightly bent
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes.
Source?
And "too tightly bent" according to what criteria?


On and on and on and on and on and on.....
Do I need to even bother addressing the rest of the PRATT's?

Once and for all, AIG IS NOT (and never has been) A SOURCE OF ACCURATE SCIENCE (or even Science at all)
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
corvus_corax said:
This entire argument is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.
And has NOTHING to do with Evolutionary Theory.

Stop right there
As already pointed out, the age of comets has NOTHING to do with the ToE. Unless, of course, one is making the general "age" argument, in which case one needs to evidence (as opposed to asserting) how the age of comets directly ties to the ToE.

This argument is what we like to refer to as a PRATT (point refuted a thousand times)
It is specifically refuted HERE

This is another PRATT, refuted HERE

Once again, nothing more than a PRATT

Source?
And "too tightly bent" according to what criteria?


On and on and on and on and on and on.....
Do I need to even bother addressing the rest of the PRATT's?

Once and for all, AIG IS NOT (and never has been) A SOURCE OF ACCURATE SCIENCE (or even Science at all)

The age of the universe has nothing to do with the evolutionary theory?? The hypothesis of long periods of times has everything to do with the evolutionary theory. Without the presumed billions of years required for all of its mysterious jumps to have taken place the whole ridiculous idea falls apart. :)

------------------------------------
 
  • Like
Reactions: DieHappy
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Edmond said:
The age of the universe has nothing to do with the evolutionary theory?? The hypothesis of long periods of times has everything to do with the evolutionary theory. Without the presumed billions of years required for all of its mysterious jumps to have taken place the whole ridiculous idea falls apart. :)

------------------------------------
The age of comets is not part of the Theory of Evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Battie

Veteran
Dec 6, 2004
1,531
158
39
Northern Virginia
Visit site
✟17,489.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
On this issue of Incas and other civilizations without writing systems:

NVXplorer, Ebia, and Outlaw are all correct. The Incas did not have a writing system, as was and is the case with many other nations today. What makes the Incas remarkable, however, as Ebia said, is that they were what we would consider and "advanced" civilization, arguably as prosperous as the nation of the Conquistadores who destroyed them.

Still, the fact that so many peoples live today with no knowledge of writing should make point 12 moot anyway. Should we wonder why it's been six thousand years since the YECs' beginning of time and these people still haven't learned how to write? It's a very weak argument.

The wheel is an interesting side note: They had no use for the wheel because the rough terrain made carting stuff impractical. It wasn't because they didn't figure it out. There's no chance something will be invented if there's never a need to begin with.
 
Upvote 0

HairlessSimian

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2005
602
28
68
in the 21st century CE
✟875.00
Faith
Atheist
theHORSEman said:
9. Helium in the wrong places
All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth’s atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in 5 billion years.21 This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.22 [See also Blowing Old-Earth Belief Away: Helium gives evidence that the Earth is young.]

This presumes that all the helium emitted by radioactive decay is released to the atmosphere and that is simply not the case. The helium we use today is found in pockets, along with natural gas, underground! Save for the occasional out-vent and slow leakage (e.g. in volcanos and on ocean floors and through diffusion), there is little opportunity for helium to enter the atmosphere.

Never, ever rely on AnswersInGenesis for science. As much as Genesis is not a science book, AnswersInGenesis is not a source of scientific information. That site is dedicated to uphold the literal biblical view of universal and human history, no matter what, and actively seeks to contradict science, even if it means lying outright, distorting facts, omitting facts and otherwise not being forthright and up-front. Very un-christian site, altogether, masquerading as a christian one. It should be called LiesInGenesis. TalkOrigins is a site that serves no religious or political agenda and answers many of the falsehoods of AnswersInGenesis and like sites. All your reading should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
Upvote 0
L

LittleManBeingErased

Guest
*Sigh*. I wont try and refute the claims as has already been done, but simply say that in counter to science, religion over the ages has been seeking mystery after mystery using it to "prove" God's existence. And then science explains it. And then religion finds another unanswered problem. And then science explains it.
It happened with the eye, the origin of the universe, the sun, the stars, etc etc and it will continue to happen for as long as there is science to find out the answers to the questions that religion holds on to so dearly for proof.

Even if something cannot be immediately explained (although that does not apply here), do not jump to conclusions and think that there must be something else at fault here. That would be like corvus said, and argument from incredulity. An answer is always found...
 
Upvote 0