Skip to content

Young Earth

September 21, 2010

The Claims:

“Young Earth” is a position associated with an extreme form of Creationism. According to Young Earth Creationism, the Earth was created by a supernatural being less than 10,000 years ago, with living kinds including homo sapien, created much as they appear today. Young Earth Creationists thus reject the theory of evolution, along with the Big Bang hypothesis and much of modern geology. Their view is usually based on a highly literal reading of the biblical book of Genesis.

Young Earth Creationism is associated with Catastrophism – the view that geological features (such as the Grand Canyon) are to be explained in terms of catastrophic events such as floods and volcanic eruptions, rather than by gradual processes of erosion and deposition. Central to such accounts is a belief in a global deluge, as described in the biblical tale of Noah. Fossils, on this view, are remnants of the animals perished in the flood – a view which implies that humans and dinosaurs were coexistent.

The Evidence:

The primary evidence offered in favour of Young Earth Creationism is the Genesis creation story itself.  Christian fundamentalists hold that the Bible is divinely guaranteed to be strictly and literally true. The incoherence of this position is demonstrated by the fact that Genesis actually contains two, mutually inconsistent, creation stories.  The first is Genesis 1:1-2:3, which describes the famous 7 days of creation.  The second is Genesis 2:4-25, where the order of creation is quite different, and the Adam and Eve story is included.

Most Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups reject Young Earth Creationism. The most commonly cited physical evidence for Young Earth Creationists is the discovery of fossil footprints apparently showing humans and dinosaurs crossing paths, thus “proving” coexistence. However, the supposedly human footprints have been shown to be either non-human or outright fakes.

The evidence against the Young Earth hypothesis is overwhelming, and comes from a wide variety of scientific disciplines – not just evolutionary biology, geology and cosmology, but also archaeology, genomics, climatology, basic physics and chemistry, and a host of others. Many methods of dating rock formations, fossils, genetic trees, and cosmic events are available, with a very high degree of consilience between results derived from different branches of science. Futhermore, the geological and archaeological evidence is completely inconsistent with the hypothesis of a global flood (not to mention the physical impossibility of such a flood, given the amount of available water).

Conclusion:

Some Young Earth Creationists have recognized that the scientific evidence is strongly against their theory, leading them to adopt the so-called “Omphalos hypothesis”, according to which the universe was created recently, but made to appear as if it had a long history. The attempt to make Young Earth Creationism totally unfalsifiable shows how much it is at odds with actual scientific methodology.

Links:

Wikipedia Page on Young Earth Creationism

The Skeptic’s Dictionary on Young Earth Creationists

13 Comments leave one →
  1. Troy permalink
    July 7, 2011 9:02 AM

    The reason why it’s so easy to ‘fit things into the bible’ is because if you believe in a God, how can you put a limit on what God can do? God could’ve created the earth on July 8 just like it is now, but there would still be scientists ‘proving’ that the earth is much older than 1 day. How old would scientists say Adam was a day after God formed him from the dust into a man? Why is it never considered that God can put a certain carbon ratio in everything He created? Or a certain number of rings in a tree? Or the Grand Canyon like it is? WHAT HE CAN DO NOBODY CAN IMAGINE! Besides, He raised his begotten son from the dead; hard to ‘prove’ false all the records and evidence for that one. Thanks be to God for this beautiful, but dangerous, world we live in; oh, how awesome will the New Jerusalem be!

  2. Concerned Citizen permalink
    April 22, 2011 7:37 PM

    Shake off all fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson

    just felt like sharing a quote from good ol TJ. the fathers of your county didnt seem as disillusioned as you..mind you he didnt have all our new scientific breakthroughs that allow people like you to dismiss the logical and rational…. wake the fuck up.

  3. Michael permalink
    December 8, 2010 1:58 PM

    Oh yes indeed, you are right and the others are wrong.
    How is it possible, not interpreting the Bible literally, when it is obvious that you have to and it’s clear everything in it is true..

  4. Foolish Atheist permalink
    December 8, 2010 1:13 PM

    >>>>Creationists have developed the ability to ignore or dismiss the most obvious facts and accept even the most ridiculous notions as truth

    If you wish to argue this, lay your claim on the table. Provide an example.

    >>>>You are perfectly free to keep wallowing in your delusions if that is what you desire, but you can’t expect everyone to be this gullible.

    Same to you, foolish man.

  5. Michael permalink
    December 8, 2010 1:09 PM

    Provide evidence? To what end? Creationists have developed the ability to ignore or dismiss the most obvious facts and accept even the most ridiculous notions as truth in order to maintain their faith; a necessary adaptation, or they wouldn’t have existed until this day.
    I was merely expressing my discontempt for AiG and the ignorant fools that blindly believe everything they say. You are perfectly free to keep wallowing in your delusions if that is what you desire, but you can’t expect everyone to be this gullible.

  6. Stupid Atheist permalink
    December 8, 2010 12:30 PM

    >>>>>Calling the lot from AiG scientists?? A rather daring assertion…

    Suggesting that they’re not scientists? A rather ignorant (and revealing, about yourself) assertion.

    The rest of your comment is nothing but bare assertion fallacies. I’ll wait for you to provide extraordinary evidence.

  7. Michael permalink
    December 8, 2010 10:42 AM

    // Methinks you missed the part about the helium being trapped in the zircons. Of course they’re not in the atmosphere. But I suspect your response is typical of someone who reads microwaved evolutionism from talkorigins instead of seeing what the scientists themselves have to say about the RATE study.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radioisotopes-earth //

    Calling the lot from AiG scientists?? A rather daring assertion…
    Since there isn’t a single bit of data in their papers, and since they operate under the false assumption that “anything that contradicts scripture can’t be right by default” I would treat anything they write with extreme caution.
    These are not scientific papers, this is jabbering from a bunch of intellectually dishonest sharks. Using the same routine they write papers with I can write a very passionate and convincing essay about how invisible pink unicorns exist all around us.

    It would lend them a little more credibility if they actually DID some research, but they seem to busy building theme parks and goading gullible idiots into their intricate web of lies. Kudos to them, they actually found a way to get rich and be praised at the same time by the people that are duped into donating money to them. Not surprising, since a lot of people are willing to pay large amounts of cash for a little false hope.

  8. December 6, 2010 3:11 PM

    >>>>Anyway – The radioactive decay of several elements produces helium, which migrates to the atmosphere. There is too little helium in the atmosphere to account for the amount that would have been produced in 4.5 billion years.

    Methinks you missed the part about the helium being trapped in the zircons. Of course they’re not in the atmosphere. But I suspect your response is typical of someone who reads microwaved evolutionism from talkorigins instead of seeing what the scientists themselves have to say about the RATE study.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radioisotopes-earth

    There’s enough information on there to keep you busy for 200 hours (including looking for criticisms and rebuttals of said criticisms)

  9. Brian Ritter permalink
    December 4, 2010 2:43 PM

    But 6 thousand yars ago, the earth wasn’t flat and couldn’t be covered by only 2 kilometers of water…. and what do you even mean by sayng 2 k of water. 2 k deep, why, 2 inches would be enough if everything’s surposed to be flat. 2 k wide… well, that would postulate a very tiny earth, byt hey, while we’re at “ad hoc-‘ing” it, why not. Lets throw in some dragons (sorry, firebreathing dinosaurs) and flush out the grand canyon, with it’s turns and bends…. ( http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html ) do you guys ever stop to think about all the **** you have to swallow to get things to fit the bible?

    anyway – About Valles Marines; the most agreed upon theory today is that Valles Marineris was formed by rift faults like the East African Rift Valley, later made bigger by erosion and collapsing of the rift walls.
    But anyway. let’s just say it was caused by water. Then look at Valles Marineris: it’s relatively straight. Water tends to go straight – specially floods. That’s why one of the older hypoteses’ cliamed that it couldm have been created by a flood.
    Look at the grand canyon – looks a bit different dosn’t it?
    http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/upload/GRCAmap2.pdf

    [if the earth is so old, why aren’t the oceans saltier?] – with all the fresh water running into the oceans all the time, rivers, rain, polar ice melting ect. why is the oceans still salty?
    http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/salty_ocean.htm

    Anyway – The radioactive decay of several elements produces helium, which migrates to the atmosphere. There is too little helium in the atmosphere to account for the amount that would have been produced in 4.5 billion years. Helium is a very light atom, and some of the helium in the upper atmosphere can reach escape velocity simply via its temperature. Thermal escape of helium alone is not enough to account for its scarcity in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere also gets ionized and follows the earth’s magnetic field lines. When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements (Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996).

    And please.. look shit up youself once in a while. Try getting you infomation from different sources than just the same old creation-crap. Same arguments and ignorant interpretations of science to fit their predispositions. All they do is pointing at lesser problems with scientific theories, and there’s plenty of problems, but they just can’t come up with anything better, that has even slightly the same utillity or explanatory power.
    This is getting pretty tiresomme.

    Pointing at flaws – well it’s like sayng that theres problems with Newtons theroy of gravity, and you would be rigt to claim so, but then going to say, that because there’s a problem with the theory, you can discard it all together an you must therefor be able to fly. give it at try then…. 😉

    http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

    To quote the brilliant James Randy: Put up or shut up!

  10. December 3, 2010 8:48 PM

    Wow, you guys aren’t even trying. You’ve gotta be pretty strong to hurl those elephants, though.

  11. Yochi permalink
    December 3, 2010 12:34 AM

    Not enough water to flood the entire earth?! Are you kidding? If you flatten the entire earth smooth, it would be covered by 2 kilometers of water! Geological evidence actually supports a flood. Scientists claim that Valles Marineris (the grand canyon of mars) was created by a water catastrophe, yet our own grand canyon took millions of years to form?

    If the earth is so old, why do diamonds have carbon 14 in them? They are supposed to be so old that there would be no carbon 14 left in them. And they are too hard to have been contaminated by some outside source of c14.

    Also, if the earth is so old, why aren’t the oceans saltier? The salinity of the oceans rises every year. At the rate it is rising, all of the oceans of the earth would have had to have been fresh water up until 10,000 years ago.

    There is also too much helium in the atmosphere. It should have escaped long ago.

Trackbacks

  1. Creationism « Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
  2. Intelligent Design « Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: