Help Me Understand!

[TheBear]

I want all the scientific evidence that points to a young earth.


I do not want to discuss the theory of evolution here.


Let this topic stand or fall on it's own merits, from a scientific standpoint only. IOW, scripture shall not enter into this discussion.


Logically, the scientific case for a young earth should be presented first.



Let's begin.

 

[Ark Guy]

Polonium Halos

 

[TheBear]

Polonium Halos

Explain for the rest, just what that is.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Polonium Halos? LOL! PRATT

 

[Vance]

Polonium Halos

I started a response to this, but this article simply says it better than I can. And it has photographs. We know how important photographs are to some.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

 

[Vance]

Listen, it is an unreasonable request. YEC's are constantly saying "but the evidence actually supports a young earth, not an old" or "but there is evidence going both ways", etc. We already know all the Biblical interpretation arguments, but we never seem to get around to all this scientific evidence that supports a young earth. When we press, we get insulted and told we are not trusting in the Bible, etc.

If there is no scientific evidence supporting a young earth, and it is solely based on the genealogies and a six 24 hour period creation week, then fine. But this constant reference to scientific evidence for a young earth which is never produced gets a bit frustrating.

We need to hear it so that we can analyze it and see if it holds up.

 

[Mr.Cheese]

I don't believe I've ever seen any evidence for a young earth.
But I must admit the topic is one I've never explored.
No time!

 

[dctalkexp]

Hello,

Here is an interesting page regarding Young Earth evidence:

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

Also, I recommend you browse through the following page as well:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

God bless,

Robert

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Easy isn't it - post a list of evidences from another web page. You realise that a full discussion of that entire page would take many, many pages and be beyond the scope of a single thread?

Nevertheless, I suggest you pick the one you think is strongest and post it. When we've exhausted that one, we can move on. A tip - don't pick comets or the magnetic field unless you enjoy pain.

 

[Ark Guy]

http://www.halos.com/

 

[Ark Guy]

Comets

http://www.halos.com/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0221oort_cloud.asp

 

[Ark Guy]

magnetic field

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3317.asp

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Usual laughable posts.

The magentic field argument is especially stupid.

There is pretty good evidence that Barne's falsified his research.

Also the measured Earth's field used to be weaker than now. How did it get stronger if it's been decaying?

One problem is that we traditionally measure the dipole component to the field. THIS ISN'T THE WHOLE FIELD!!! You cannot make statements of the whole field based upon one component.

Also the latest computer models of the dynamo process exhibit rapid reversals after a (variable) long period of time.

This argument of a decaying field is bogus, completely bogus.

I agree the Oort cloud is unobserved, but has a statistical basis.

No long period comet with an orbit showing it came from outside the solar system has ever been observed. The calculated orbits exhibit an aphelion distance for 10,000 to 100,000 astronomical units from the Sun. They are observed to enter the Sun from all angles, hence the hypothesised spherical distribution.

Hence the source for these comets has:

a) common orbital parameters (aphelia distance)
b) no preferred direction implies spherical distribution

This leads to the Oort cloud hypothesis.

 

[Sinai]

Thank you, Bear, for presenting a thread that should allow a good discussion of these issues. Unfortunately, thus far the "discussions" have consisted of little more than posting links to either Answers In Genesis or Talk Origins. Still, thoughtful discussion would be nice....

 

[lucaspa]

I want all the scientific evidence that points to a young earth.


I do not want to discuss the theory of evolution here.


Let this topic stand or fall on it's own merits, from a scientific standpoint only. IOW, scripture shall not enter into this discussion.


Logically, the scientific case for a young earth should be presented first.

Let's begin.

There is one fallacy here: "evidence that points to a young earth"

From Karl Popper's description of how science works:

"1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory -- if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions.
3. Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it.
5. Confirming evidence should not count *except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory:* and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory." [emphasis Popper's]

What this means is that there is evidence, taken in isolation, that will "verify" or "confirm" a young earth. But such evidence exists for every theory, including geocentrism, flat earth, and phlogiston.

What you are asking for is evidence that can only be explained by a young earth and not any other explanation -- faulty technique, fabrication, alternative hypotheses that would indicate an old earth, etc. What this means is that you have to falsify all the alternative hypotheses.

Now, for the young earthers, what you are going to see is the evidence criticized severely. Do not be alarmed. Do not be insulted. This happens for all scientific evidence. This is how science works. You bring your evidence to the table and everyone around the table does his best to show:
1. That the evidence suffers from faulty technique.
2. The evidence can be explained by alternative hypotheses.

If the evidence survives all that, then it is accepted as genuine. If the evidence can't survive this type of scrutiny, then it is not taken as evidence for your hypothesis.

 

[lucaspa]

Polonium Halos

The Polonium halos suffer from all 3 of the problems I pointed out.

1. Fabrication. Gentry (the guy who discovered them) confessed under oath at the 1982 Arkansas trial that he fabricated some of the data.

2. Faulty technique. The minerals Gentry was studying were not what he thought they were.

3. Alternative hypotheses. The halos can form by mechanisms other than Polonium decay.

 

[lucaspa]

Comets

http://www.halos.com/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0221oort_cloud.asp

This is not an argument for a 10,000 year old earth so much as an attempt to falsify a 4.5 billion year old solar system.

This is the first of two papers by Faulkner at AiG.

Now, the Stern and Weissman Nature paper that Faulkner cites has this for an abstract:

"The Oort cloud of comets was formed by the ejection of icy planetesimals from the region of giant planets--Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune--during their formation. Dynamical simulations have previously shown that comets reach the Oort cloud only after being perturbed into eccentric orbits that result in close encounters with the giant planets, which then eject them to distant orbits about 10(4) to 10(5) AU from the Sun (1 AU is the average Earth-Sun distance). All of the Oort cloud models constructed until now simulate its formation using only gravitational effects; these include the influence of the Sun, the planets and external perturbers such as passing stars and Galactic tides. Here we show that physical collisions between comets and small debris play a fundamental and hitherto unexplored role throughout most of the ejection process. For standard models of the protosolar nebula (starting with a minimum-mass nebula) we find that collisional evolution of comets is so severe that their erosional lifetimes are much shorter than the timescale for dynamical ejection. It therefore appears that collisions will prevent most comets escaping from most locations in the region of the giant planets until the disk mass there declines sufficiently that the dynamical ejection timescale is shorter than the collisional lifetime. One consequence is that the total mass of comets in the Oort cloud may be less than currently believed."

So, the Abstract does not conclude what Faulkner does. This is dangerous when you are an outsider like Faulkner. Faulkner has not studied the field himself, but is gleaning from people who have. Yet Faulkner comes to oppositte conclusions these guys have about the age of the solar system. Anyone else see something wrong in this?

The current theory is that the Oort Cloud originated from the Kuiper belt of shorter comets. Gravitational interaction sent them out. These guys hypothesize that direct collisions also provided the means for ejecting comets from the region of the gas giants to further orbits. If the hypothesis is correct, then the mass of the Oort cloud may be less than thought.

However, Faulkner takes the hypothesis to be fact without observation. Exactly what he accuses astronomers of doing for the Oort Cloud!

"Of course, if the solar system is much younger than most astronomers think, then there is no need for the Oort comet cloud. Since it cannot be detected, the Oort cloud is not a scientific concept. This is not bad science, but non-science masquerading as science. "

Since the collisions were never detected, the paper falls under the heading of "non-science" for Faulkner and can't be used! Therefore his argument for a young solar system is also not detected and is not a scientific concept!

Hoisted by his own petard.

Now, if we look thru PubMed some more, we find a later article that disputes Faulkner and is based on detection. So is science whereas Faulkner is not (by his criteria).

However, is Faulkner correct?

Science. 2002 Jun 21;296(5576):2212-5.
The mass disruption of Oort cloud comets. Levison HF, Morbidelli A, Dones L, Jedicke R, Wiegert PA, Bottke WF Jr.

"This structure, which is now known as the Oort cloud, is currently feeding comets into the inner solar system (with perihelion distances, q, of less than 3 AU) at a rate of about 12 comets per year with an active comet absolute magnitude, H10, <10.9 (2, 3). These comets as a whole are known as nearly isotropic comets (NICs) (4)."

Notice the references. To observations! Faulkner left these papers out of his site. Not good.

"One unsolved problem is that models of the orbital evolution of new NICs into returning NICs consistently predict many times more returning comets than are observed (2, 6). This so-called "fading problem" cannot be due to previously unmodeled dynamical effects (2) and thus must be due to the physical evolution of the comets' activity (7). An important issue, therefore, is to determine the fate of the missing comets; either they become extinct or dormant (8), or they disintegrate entirely (9, 10). Here, we try to distinguish between these two possible outcomes by comparing model results to observations of dormant comets."

Now, dormant comets are an interesting item."

AiG is assuming that a comet that no longer has a tail has completely evaporated. But we now know, by observation that this is not true. They simply become dormant and no longer show a tail. That means they can be, and have been, around a long time -- first to lose the material to make a tail and become dormant -- and then to remain in orbit. The existence of dormant comets just destroyed Faulkner's arguments that comets mean a young earth. There are lots of old comets out there that wouldn't be there under Faulkner's young earth.

 

[DRIVEN]

next

 

[DRIVEN]

Interesting article (sorry Bear its scriptural)
Creation: ‘Where’s the proof?’
by Ken Ham
First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):39–42,
December 1999 – February 2000

Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:

‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’

Briefly, my response is as follows.

Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.

Debate terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:

‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see box below.

Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).

Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!

Ultimately, God’s Word convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’

Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’

Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.

Practical application
When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’

One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence and death.

Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:

‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’

In arguing this way, a Christian is:

Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.

Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1

Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).

Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).

Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.

Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.

Naturalism, Logic and Reality
Find answers to the 20 most-asked questions about Creation, Evolution, and the book of Genesis!
The Answers Book - Revised & Expanded
Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, Ed. Don Batten

This book addresses the most common questions that Christians and non-Christians alike ask regarding creation/evolution and Genesis. Answers twenty of the most-asked questions, such as: 'Where did Cain get his Wife?' and 'What about continental drift?'

MORE INFO / PURCHASE ONLINE

Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the “big bang”, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

This young man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

Ed. Note: for more information on formal logic and the Christian faith, see Loving God With All Your Mind: Logic and Creation.

Notes
In fact, science could avoid becoming still-born only in a Christian framework. Even secular philosophers of science are virtually unanimous on this. It required biblical presuppositions such as a real, objective universe, created by one Divine Lawgiver, who was neither fickle nor deceptive — and who also created the mind of man in a way that was in principle capable of understanding the universe. [Ed. note: Refuting Evolution, Ch. 1, discusses this in more detail] Return to text.

This assumption is even defended, as a ‘practical necessity’ in discussing scientific things including origins, by some professing Christians who are evolutionists. Return to text.


Its understood we are all Christians here. My point is how creationists and evolutionists interpret facts.

 

[ej]

I want all the scientific evidence that points to a young earth.


I do not want to discuss the theory of evolution here.


Let this topic stand or fall on it's own merits, from a scientific standpoint only. IOW, scripture shall not enter into this discussion.


Logically, the scientific case for a young earth should be presented first.



Let's begin.

I'm not sure whether this'll work

From my experience of discussion with YECs, they have more faith in literal interpretation of Scripture, than they have faith in science.

I had a real-life discussion yesterday with a YEC who believes that the Bible is God's truth, and God must therefore have created the Earth WITH its 'scientific evidence'. He believes that using 'scientific proof' is putting yourself above God...

And heck, I don't agree with him, but I see his POV, and I realise now why such discussions are often futile