Evidence Indicates A Young Earth Rather Than Old

Science is limited in this area, because it deals with untestable historical data which means age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past.

The principle of uniformitarianism assumes the present is the same as the past without first hand scientific observation on the conditions of the past to verify it, only part of this particular evidence is used for publication in secular sources for determining the age of the earth, simply because much of it doesn’t agree with the old age hypothesis.

The only source that is reliable for an accurate account, one of which witness the very beginning is found in the Bible. Keep in mind, the scientific evidences presented here, are non-testable estimates which comes out differently than what is found in evolution.

Here are a few scientific examples for estimates on how old the Earth really is…

1) The decay we observe in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago.

2) The data discovered for “mitochondrial Eve” are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago. For example, the actual mtDNA mutation rate for modern humans is much faster than the rate used in 1987.

Instead of using evolutionary supposition, the actual rate shows the age for mtEve is less than 10,000 years old. Science can now measure the rate of mtDNA Eve to 99.9 percent (Carter 2007) which is much more accurate than what was used in 1987.

3) DNA found in bacteria that was estimated to be 425 million years old. The data doesn’t match up with the old age because DNA can only last thousands of years.

4) Many fossil bones “dated” at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all.

5) Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g.  Coelacanth, Wollemi pine and various “index” fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years?

6) Conducted experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces,  opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.

7) Evidence for rapid petrifaction of wood  speaks against the need for long periods of time and is consistent with an age of thousands of years.

8) The amount of salt found in the world’s oldest lake contradicts its supposed very old age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah’s Flood.

9) We Observed  the Providence Canyon in southwest Georgia,  Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington, and  Lower Loowit Canyon near Mount St Helens. The rapidity of the formation of these canyons, which look similar to other canyons that supposedly took many millions of years to form. A formation I might add, that nobody has seen.

10) Carbon-14 in coal  suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.

11) Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years.

12) Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age.

13) The presence of a significant magnetic field around Mercury is not consistent with its supposed age of billions of years. A planet so small should have cooled down enough so any liquid core would solidify, preventing the evolutionists’ “dynamo” mechanism.

14) Methane on Titan (Saturn’s largest moon)—methane would all be gone because of UV-induced breakdown to ethane in just 10,000 years. And large quantities of ethane are not there either.

15) Neptune should be long since “cold”, lacking strong wind movement if it were billions of years old, yet the Galileo probe in 1995 found it to be otherwise—it has the fastest winds in the entire solar system. This observation is consistent with a young age, not billions of years.

So as we can observe this is plenty of evidence which indicates a young earth and even a young Universe in general rather than an extremely old one!


17 thoughts on “Evidence Indicates A Young Earth Rather Than Old

  1. These are mostly old arguments, long debunked. I’ll restrict myself to the astronomical ones, as I am an astronomer:

    12) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
    (noting that I do not want to type all that here again)

    13) http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/29905
    Nice liquid core, indeed !

    14) if not managed to find this claim: could you reference this (like a proper scientist would do) ?

    15) why should there NOT be strong winds on Neptune ? What would be the argument for that ? Beats me …

    I’m afraid that this is another list of random bits and bobs found on the internet, which contrasts starkly to the enormous body of evidence pointing to a 4.5 Gyr old Earth, wihch you completely ignore.

    The age of the earth has nothing to do with the age of the universe, of course. Earth is just a small speck in the whole universe, remember ?

  2. BTW: still waiting for more explanation on your ‘causation’ argument, which I do find interesting.

  3. As a Creationist, I am not to big on the age of the earth. I think there are more important issues to be worried about. I really do not have a position on this point.

  4. My tuppence worth:

    2. Mitochondrial Eve lived 100000-150000 years ago in Africa, well outside the supposed age of the earth given by creationists. She wasn’t the first human female, nor the only living human female at the time. The data strongly suggests that all humans are descended from her.

    10. & 11. Is this serious? Carbon dating can only be used to date samples less than 50000 years old (again suggesting an age much older than 6000). That’s why it doesn’t suggest millions of years because it isn’t used to date things millions of years old. I learnt this in high school for goodness sake!

    For older samples potassium-argon and uranium-thorium dating is used, which gives us ages of hundreds of millions of years to play with :)

    If the earth is only 6000 years old why does it look a million times older than it is? It certainly raises questions about the God of creationism’s honesty.

  5. Michael,
    yet another very interesting article. Keep it up!

    I admire your resilience in the face of the Evolutionists commenting with their usual dismissive grand statements, straw man arguments and confusion of fact and theory. Don’t let them wear you down. There are those of us out here who see through all their posturing perfectly clearly.

    For example, rmbrowning’s statement about what is often called the African Eve theory that “Mitochondrial Eve lived 100000-150000 years ago in Africa.” This states as fact what is actually speculative hypothesis which itself is based on various further Evolutionistic assumptions.



    And Eelco’s “These are mostly old arguments, long debunked” is a convenient dismissal I have come across before, for which read – ‘Evolutionists have provided yet more condescending, selective speculation as fact in response to these points.’

    Another example is Eelco’s reference to “the enormous body of evidence pointing to a 4.5 Gyr old Earth” when speaking of what is actually the enormous body of Evolutionist speculation.

    And here is a useful response to the article Eelco links to concerning point 12 about the moon’s relation to the Earth –


    Yes, another very interesting article, Michael; offering very interesting points for further research. Keep it up!

    P.S. – found this interesting artcile: ‘How to interpret science news’ –


  6. Nice that you point to this AiG article, Dom, which ends with the infamous AiG ‘statement of faith’ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith ) , which says:
    “By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”

    Well, that stops any scientific discussion.

  7. Dear Detective Eelco,

    Yes, the Answers in Genesis statement of faith outlines what is known as the Biblical Creationist approach to science. And Biblical Creationism takes scripture as the absolute authority. Thus any apparent, perceived or claimed evidence which implies a contradiction of scripture must, according to this position, be, by definition, incorrect.

    Similar to Evolutionists who believe that anything which contradicts the axiom ‘Nature is all’ must therefore be invalid.

    And whilst Evolutionists evidently abhor anyone ascribing authority anywhere other than to their very, very, very great selves, nevertheless Biblical Creationists prefer to trust God over man.

    An approach which actually allows vivacious and fruitful scientific enquiry and discussion, free of the unscientific, anti-intellectual and illogical fables and prejudices of Naturalism.

    Wonderful stuff!

  8. Dom

    “”And here is a useful response to the article Eelco links to concerning point 12 about the moon’s relation to the Earth –”

    Don’t take this the wrong way because I agree with most of your postings here, but I have a problem with your link for this argument.

    It has to do with the fact that the author of that link is a geocentrist. It kind of makes me cringe.

  9. @Dom

    “…with their usual dismissive grand statements, straw man arguments and confusion of fact and theory…”

    I was not intending to be dismissive, I was merely correcting those points I knew to be incorrect. While I was incredulous at how misguided some of them were, it was not my intention to be derisive. If I was I apologise. I didn’t make any strawman arguments and I do not confuse fact and theory. In science a theory is more than personal conjecture, it is an explanation of natural phenomena that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed by evidence.

    “This states as fact what is actually speculative hypothesis which itself is based on various further Evolutionistic assumptions.

    No, it was a statement giving a good approximation based on repeated empirical findings that scientists have found to be accurate, not evolutionistic assumptions, whatever they are.

    You can find a critique of the arguments in your linkshere.

  10. Dom,

    Thanks for the positive comment. Eelco like everyone else has his own bias, while tries very hard to deny experiments show that produce conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years rather he agrees with the assumption that it takes millions of years to form, and there like you said, there is plenty of speculation in the evolutionary time frame including the formation of coal which he calls “evidence” trying once again denying actual experiments or observations. It’s one out of many examples which quite a number of defenders of evolution do as well.

  11. @Michael:
    I did not say anything about coal ? This is your point 6), right, on which I did not comment, because you did not provide any references to check this claim.

    I refuted your astronomical arguments, except for 14), as I could not find this anywhere, again because of a lack of references.

  12. Eelco,

    I assumed you believe coal formation takes a long time. As far as reference, Hayatsu R, et al., Artifical coalification study; preparation and characterization of synthetic macerals Organic Geochemistry 6:463-471

    No, you haven’t just like helium which is considered to be present earth in the earth’s atmosphere according to the evolutionary time frame. Helium as you know is produced by radioactive decay. It’s escaping the earth’s crust at 67 grams per second. Currently, there is 3.71 billion tons of helium. At those rates, the build up doesn’t add up to over 4 billion years old rather the build up can be created in 2 million years if those rates were the same today as in the past. That’s 2500 times off the 4.5 billion year estimate. I know how you would reply, “well that’s not 6000 years.” Your answer wouldn’t prove the rate is anywhere near 4.5 billion years old and the estimate indicates a young atmosphere not an old one.

  13. @Michael:
    As I said, I’ve not talked about coal before.

    But if you *can* produce coal on short timescales, it does not prove that coal can *only* be produced on short timescales. You would have to prove this to be necessary. Which I think is not at all the case. Your reference is on artifical coalification, not on coalification in general.

    “Helium as you know is produced by radioactive decay.”
    It is also produced by fusion (in our sun, all the time. The name of the element is a big hint). But you are right in saying that most of the helium in the earth’s atmosphere comes from decay processes. Coudl you show a reference to your calculation ?

    I’m also still waiting for a reference to your point 14, and an elaboration on your interesting causation argument (from another post).

  14. Wow….I am amazed at how people use “the bible” as the authoritive word of God. As far as I know God never wrote a book. Lastly, man choose which books were put in the bilble based on that all consuming desire to control other men.

    It astounds me at how little “men of God” truly think.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s