Open Challenge: Evidence of a Young Earth

I'd like to throw this open to creationists and evolutionists alike.As most of us know, it is a good debating exercise to imagine that you are debating from the opposition's point of view. This is particularly good for informing yourself about certain arguments that you may not have been aware of before.Anyway, after posting a reply to Parasomnium informing him that I had indeed tried to take a young earth stance, as an educational exercise of course, quite a few times. I honestly cannot find a single thing that would support a 6000 year old Earth.The challenge is then, what would your BEST argument be for supporting a 6000 year old Earth?Remember, it is supporting a young earth, saying something like 'carbon dating is flawed' does not support your position, it may undermine the opposition, but the question is specifically asking for evidence that proves a young earth.Brian.

Are we talking about "evidence" that actually exists, or hypothetical evidence that would allow us to suggest a 6000-year-old Earth?

Perhaps I can list just a few pieces of evidence that may suggest that a young earth is a realistic possibility.
1. There is no record of human civilization that goes back before 6000 years. Civilization suddenly appears around 6000 years ago on the historical record.
2. Oil fields are under too much pressure to be too old. Scientific estimates say that the longest maximum time a rock layer could keep pressure is 100, 000 years. And using this time-table the oil we have right now suggest that it is less than 10 000 years old, not millions.
3. One more for now. The world population is approximately 2% per year. Practical application of the growth rate throughout human history would be about half that; 1%. Research shows that wars, famine, disease, have wiped out about 1/3 of the population about every 83 years. Starting with eight people, while applying the growth rates since Noah flood ( approx 4500 years ago) would give a total human population of about 6 billion people.
But to apply the same technique to the evolutionary time scale just comes up with an impossible number. Starting with one couple 41,000 years ago, gives us a total population of 2x10^89. Interesting isnt it?
There are other indicators too. Many others.
By the way carbon dating is a joke, but like you said that does not necessarily point to a young earth.
Good day.
The General

I don't know about the oil pressure but both your other arguments rely on ignoring well known facts (in the first case the archaeological record showing that humans existed for a long time prior to the great civilisations - in the second case the fact that populations only grow exponentially given unlimited resources - as well as historical population data).To use those arguments ass then assert that a well-established method - carbon dating - is a joke - well, you really ought to learn some facts befre join a thread like this which asks for the BEST arguments for a young Earth.

Perhaps you would come off as a tad more convincing if you did not tell me that you have no knowledge of the oil pressure fields, and then have the courage to tell me to learn a thing or two.
Carbon dating despite what you said is not a well established dating method. I could give you countless pieces of evidence to show major inaccuracies in their experiments. If you would like me to, let me know. Perhaps you could learn something about carbon dating from the article I wrote on it several months ago. Maybe I will post it here in the near future.

I'm not here to convince by pretending to have knowledge that I do not. And that doesn't change the fact that both your other arguments are obviously wrong to anyone with any knowledge of the subject - therefore it is entirely appropriate for me to point out that you should learn what you are talking about. Your claims about carbon dating, are equally uninformed. I suggest you go away and study the real facts instead of making assertions in ignorance of reality.I also notice that you have apparently started two threads with what appears to be material cut and pasted from another source without attribution - which would be less than entirely honest unless you were the original author - and is against the forum rules.

Hi,What I would like is tangible evidence. Something that you could show someone and say 'Here it is, proof that the world cannot be older than 6000 years'.I dont want 'ifs' and buts'. Gimme hard evidence!Brian

Hey I wonder why mike the wiz isn't here I've been trying to put myself in the shoes of a YEC but it's just not working - I think my brain might get fried if I keep it up.But anyway, evidence of a young Earth...Er... I think one line of evidence is the depth of the lunar soil. Apparently it should be a lot deeper if the Earth is millions of years old - and the current thinkness suggests only 6000 years.(I can't believe I just typed that...)The Rock Hound

Longtime denizens here are well aware of my proclivity for emphasizing evidence, and so I'm being consistent when I express my favorable view of this thread and my desire that it stay tightly focused on evidence *for* a young earth while avoiding challenges to evidence for an ancient earth. There are already a number of threads addressing ancient earth evidence in which discussion may be resumed (they seem to be in a pause at present), or a new thread may be opened to challenge this evidence.As Brian has requested, please use this thread to focus on positive evidence supporting a young earth. To assist discussion, here is my assessment of the direction each of the four points raised by The General needs to take:

• Evidence of human civilization only goes back 6000 years.
  ​
  Unless you're keying on the word "civilization", the fields of archeology and paleoarcheology already possess a wealth of evidence for human civilization, or at least habitation, going back tens of thousands of years. Since this thread is not about challenging ancient earth evidence, this doesn't seem like a category where positive evidence could be offered. Indeed, even if there *were* no evidence of humanity before 6000 years ago, we would have to haul out the tired but nonetheless devastatingly true saw that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So I think this point has to be abandoned for this thread - it would certainly be fair grist for the mill in another thread.
  ​
• Oil fields under too much pressure.
  ​
  Though this point has been raised here before, it never received any attention. A quick perusal of the web on this topic did not bring to light any supporting details, like the figures for pressure versus depth, the pososity of rock versus pressure, the particulate size of oil compared to rock pososity, etc. As stated it is merely a bald assertion, so it needs the supporting evidence.
  ​
• World population.
  ​
  I think almost all serious Creationists concede the extreme naiveté of this argument. As per my rubic that stupid debate pushes out good debate, I'd like this point dropped. Please email any objections along with reasons why this point should be addressed to EvC Forum Administrator.
  ​
• Carbon dating is unreliable.
  ​
  Since this is a challenge to evidence for an ancient earth rather than positive evidence for a young earth, it should be addressed in a different thread.

That's all I have to say - have at it!------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

[Fixed signature. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 07-31-2003]

Ah, Irish but you did type it!!"Apparently it should be a lot deeper if the Earth is millions of years old - "Should be? How is this determined? Is there a know rate of formation? What processes from the "soil" and are there any other processes that would depress this? If you think the formation rate is constant what other processes that could supress it have you considered and why are they rejected?If you're going to post things, Irish, then you should have all this back up, right? Sorry, LOL.

But I do. I've worked in the oil field industry for 25 years now, and I would very much like to see the data on permeability of caprocks that indicates that reservoir pressure could bleed off in only a few thousand years. General?

I think this is a foolish question, in effect setting up a strawman. YEC don't, and can't, believe in a young earth because of scientific evidence. The evidence for a young earth is very simple:The biblical geneologies can be calculated to a date of about 4000BC to 5000BC (anyone claiming an exact date is lying, assumptions have to be made) for Adam's 'birth'. The bible is quite clear that they were created at the same time as the earth, therfore the earth is young.The bible is true because God/Jesus/Holy Spirit (or Ghost if you prefer) exists, and they know this because of personal revelation.

Mr Jack,You forgot: "End of discussion."

Well at least I'm true to form for a YEC! Seriously though, pretending that the Earth is only 6000 years old is giving me a major headache.Ok, what to do here... Missing Link | Answers in Genesis (v7n1)/moondust.aspThis is from Answers in Genesis, written by a Dr. Snelling and a Mr. Rush. Very long and head-wrecking, but has a few interesting points - this is from the abstract...

quote:

---

It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense meteorite and meteoritic dust bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system.

---

Also this:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199711/0025.htmlIt mentions Snelling's and Rush's paper. Apparently the YEC's have given up on this particular line of evidence. Can anyone come up with anything better?On a different note...

quote:

---

I think this is a foolish question, in effect setting up a strawman. YEC don't, and can't, believe in a young earth because of scientific evidence. The evidence for a young earth is very simple:
The biblical geneologies can be calculated to a date of about 4000BC to 5000BC (anyone claiming an exact date is lying, assumptions have to be made) for Adam's 'birth'. The bible is quite clear that they were created at the same time as the earth, therfore the earth is young.

​

The bible is true because God/Jesus/Holy Spirit (or Ghost if you prefer) exists, and they know this because of personal revelation.

---

The problem is that YEC's insist on using science to refute the old Earth model, so obviously they have to provide evidence for a young Earth model. They can't have it both ways.The Rock Hound

quote:

---

YEC don't, and can't, believe in a young earth because of scientific evidence.

---

This despite the fact that many YEC's do claim to believe because of the scientific evidence? Look in the geology threads on this site. You'll find many such claims.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com