What scientific evidence do young earth creation scientists use to support their argument that the world and universe is young?

The following are some of the scientific arguments used by young earth creationists. Sometimes the arguments do not explicitly point to the Biblical age used by creationists of 6000-10,000 years but they are also much younger than evolutionary ages allow and are a much bigger problem for the theory of evolution than creation.

1. Rapid Disintegration of Comets: means they cannot be 5 billion years old or they wouldn't exist. Around 100,000 years is postulated as a maximum.

2. Insufficient sea-floor sediment: At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found could accumulate in 12 million years. The oceans are alleged to have existed for 3 billion years.

Creationists contend these sediments could have accumulated rapidly at the flood of Noah c. 5000 years ago.

3. Insufficent Sodium Chloride in the sea:
Evolutionary estimates for the age of the earth's oceans are 3 billion years. With current rates of deposition, the salt in the sea could have accumulated in 42-62 million years at todays rate and of course much faster in the Noahic flood.

Note: Calculations done for many other elements produce even younger ages.

4. Decay of the magnetic field of the Earth:
This is occurring too rapidly to fit the long-age evolutionary paradigm - the total energy stored having decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years. Creationists have a model explaining this based on sound physics.

5. Tightly bent strata:
These stata, thousands of feet thick are tightly bent without cracking. Yet they are meant to have solidified over millions of years and then bent. The creationist explanation is that they formed while still plastic as the entire formation had to be soft when formed to avoid cracking. This would point to the folding having occurred thousands of years and not millions after formation.

6. Fossil Radioactivity:
Radiohaloes which have shown evidence of having been squashed indicate that the Jurassic, Triassic and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were formed in a short time-frame - over months, not hundreds of millions of years. This is so since the rings formed by the haloes, which only exist for a short time before they decay were squashed, indicating rapid formation. If the rocks had formed over a long time span the haloes would not have been there.

7. Misplaced Helium:
Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this Helium into the atmosphere can be measured. If this has been occurring for 5 billion years there should be much more Helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there when compared to the relevant time scale.

8. Insufficient stone-age skeletons:
The 100,000 year stone-age of evolutionary anthropologists should have produced many more skeletons - around 4 billion, many more of which should still be around compared to the few thousand found.

9. Recent Agriculture:
The archeological evidence shows the stone age people to be as intelligent as modern man and yet it is claimed they existed for 100,000 years before discovering that plants grow from seeds. Creationists would think that it is more likely that man was without agriculture for a much shorter period immediately after the flood.

10.History too short:
Stone-age people built huge monuments, did beautiful cave paintings and kept records of lunar phases. It seems unreasonable that they should wait nearly 100,000 years before beginning to make written historical records around 4-5000 BC. A much shorter Biblical time-scale seems to better fit this evidence.

Source: These points are condensed from an article by creationist Dr. Russel Humphreys, in Creation Ex Nihilo 13(3):28-31, June -August 1991.

The footnotes to this article contain the relevant scientific data relating to the points made. This will be posted as a link for those wishing to check the data or inquire further.

These are not the only arguments used by creationists, but are a sample of some.

Other arguments include:

11. Saturn's Rings are aged much less than claimed by evolutionary theory:

This is based on relatively recent observations which show a decay rate of the rings which would mean that they would not still exist if the universe were as old as claimed by evolutionary theory.

12. Processes thought to take a long period of time can take a short time given the right conditions:

Among the list of such processes includes the following:

Coal and Oil formation.

Opal formation.

Stalactites and Stalagmites in Limestone and other caves.

Diamonds

General Geologic processes are not always slow and gradual but sometimes catastrophic in nature


Some Examples of Rapid Geologic Processes.

The long accepted dogma taught by Charles Lyell that geologic processes always take vast amounts of time is being challenged by recent discoveries in science.


The following are now accepted as having formed catastrophically in a relatively short period of time:

- a major portion of Washington State

- the Snake River Plain of Idaho

- the Altai region of Southern Siberia

- the Black Sea basin

- the upper Mississippi River Valley

- the Hudson River Valley including New York City

- Wyoming's Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone

- Owen's River Gorge in California

- the Great Lakes/S. Lawrence River drainage basin

- the English Channel and Dover Straits (the most recently discovered addition to this list)

Scientists who are not creationists of any kind are now openly talking about catastrophism of a major kind in shaping some of these vast areas.

Diamonds, Coal and Opals

These have all been demonstrated as not requiring millions of years to form. They can all be formed quite quickly under the right conditions.

Improve Answer Discuss the question "What scientific evidence do young earth creation scientists use to support their argument that the world and universe is young?" Watch Question

First answer by PeteNco. Last edit by PeteNco. Contributor trust: 177 [recommend contributor]. Question popularity: 0 [recommend question]


Research your answer:

Answers.com > Wiki Answers > Categories > Religion and Spirituality > Creation > What scientific evidence do young earth creation scientists use to support their argument that the world and universe is young?

Our contributors said this page should be displayed for the questions below. (Where do these come from)
If any of these are not a genuine rephrasing of the question, please help out and edit these alternates.
When the world was young?  What scientific evidence do creation scientists use to support their argument that the world and universe is young?