Young-earth theories

That list is many years old. It has been shot full of holes over and over. A tiny bit of research will find all that.That is why some people get bored with it.

Is the EarthAnswer to magfield assertionCheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

I think this strict interpretation is necessary when debating very literal minded creationists who would simply argue that even though organisms A & B don't reproduce in nature, the still COULD reproduce and thus aren't really seperate species.

---

I will very politely disagree. What needs to be conveyed to creationists is that speciation is a matter of genetics. If two new populations do not mingle DNA, then different mutations will accrue in each population. Over time, this will lead to greater morphological differences and eventually to a physical barrier that prevents interbreeding. Evolution requires that, for biodiversity to appear, there has to be a process that separates genomes. Speciation is that method.

Actually, they base it off of unsupported assertions such as ...; not posting the actual reasoning or a reference to the reasoning should always be a red flag.TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy is always a good place to start researching, especially An Index to Creationist Claims, for many reasons; for example, the articles are mostly well-researched and well-written, they give references, and they give links to the creationist's side of the story (which the creationist websites seldom reciprocate).Many creationist arguments, in fact all of the ones listed here, depend on ignoring some of the relevant processes.Note especially how long ago these "arguments" were shown to be false.Continental erosion and sea floor sediments: See Claim CD220 and Claim CD220.1. Also, from "How Old is the Earth: A Response to “Scientific” Creationism", G. Brent Dalrymple, 1984, in Evolutionists Confront Creationists, Awbrey, F. and Thwaites, W. (eds.). Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, AAAS 1, Part 3, California, AAAS. pp. 66-131 (which I hope to make available on the Web one of these days) (ABE 9/7/06: it is now available on the web and is linked above):

quote:

---

These ages are based on some calculations by the creation scientist Nevins (99), who used the following basic data:

quote:

---

1) Present influx of sediment to the ocean = 27.5 x 10⁹ tons/yr
2) Present mass of sediment in the ocean = 820 x 10¹⁵ tons
3) Present mass of the continents above sea level = 383 x 10¹⁵ tons

---

Dividing (2) by (1), Nevins (99) calculates that all the sediment now in the worlds oceans could have accumulated in 30 million years; dividing (3) by (1), he finds that the present continents could be leveled in 14 million years. From these results, Nevins (99) concludes:

quote:

---

After careful analysis of the erosion of continents and associated sedimentation in the world ocean, we must ask two urgent questions. Where is all the sediment if, as the evolutionist assumes, the ocean is over 1 billion years old? {which no evolutionist assumes or believes - JonF} Who has the better model for the ocean the evolutionist or the creationist? We feel confident that the true answers concerning the origin of the ocean are presented in Scripture. The sea is His and He made it (Psalm 95:5). (99, p. iv)

---

Both the basic assumptions and logic of Nevins (99) arguments are wrong. First, he has confused the length of time over which the ocean has existed on the Earth with the ages of the present ocean floors. The existence of abundant Precambrian marine sediment, some more than 3.5 billion years old, clearly demonstrates that the early Earth had an ocean. Some of this earliest sediment contains structures that indicate the presence of algae, and there are undisputed microfossils in sedimentary rocks more than 2 billion years old (26). The Earth, however, is a dynamic body, and the ocean basins are among its youngest features. The floors of the worlds ocean range in age from recent at the crests of midoceanic ridges, where new oceanic crust is forming, to as old as Jurassic (Figure 1) in the parts farthest from the ridges. The sediment in the ocean is practically nonexistent at the ridges and thickens, away from the ridges as the age of the sea floor increases. At the trenches, the sea floors, sediment and all, are being forced down into the mantle where they are consumed to be recycled. Thus, the ocean floors are neither so old nor so passive as Nevins (99) calculations presume, and the age of 1 billion years attributed by him to evolutionists is of his own invention.

​

Second, Nevins (99) has assumed constant rates for erosion and sedimentation, processes whose rates have, in fact, varied constantly throughout geologic time.

​

Finally, Nevins (99) has neglected the fact that the continents are also dynamic and have grown appreciably over time, both by accretion of material at the margins and by addition of material from the mantle below. Uplift, primarily by buoyant and compressional forces, is also a significant factor that tends to offset the leveling effect of erosion.

​

Thus, the deposition of sediment in the ocean basins and the erosion of continents are parts of a larger, dynamic, and cyclic process that is continually changing the face of the Earth. The mass of sediment in the ocean is not unexpectedly low, nor is the mass of the continents above sea level unexpectedly high. Nevins (99) calculations provide no useful information about the age of either the Earth or its ocean.

​

26. Cloud, P. 1976. Beginnings of biospheric evolution and their biogeochemical consequences. Paleobiology 2: 351-387.
99. Nevins, S. E. 1973. Evolution: The ocean says no! Inst. Creation Res., Impact Set., no. 8, pp. i-iv.

---

Salinity of the oceans: There are several versions of this. See Claim CD221.1 and Claim CD221. Again from Dalrymple:

quote:

---

In addition to uranium, discussed above, Morris and Parker (97) list 31 other ages of the Earth based on the influx of various elements and compounds to the ocean via rivers. These ages range from 100 years (aluminum) to 260 million years (sodium) and are cited as evidence for a young Earth:

quote:

---

Similar calculations can be made for all the other dissolved chemicals in the ocean. All will yield relatively small ages (at least in comparison to usual evolutionary estimates of the age of the ocean) but all will, of course, yield different ages. Again, however, even allowing for all realistically possible sinks, sedimentation, recycling, etc., none will yield an age anywhere close to the billion-year ages required for evolution.

---

Attempts to date the Earth using the dissolved chemicals in the ocean were common in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Probably the best known example is the calculation by Joly (71) that the Earths age is 89 million years, based on the amount of sodium in the ocean. It has been known for many decades, however, that such calculations are wrong because the ocean is in approximate chemical balance, as clearly recognized by Cook:

quote:

---

The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans. (28, p. 73)

---

The primary documentation referenced for ages 42 through 68 (Table 10) is the book edited by Riley and Skirrow (108). Neither Morris (92, 95) nor Morris and Parker (97) discuss the calculations that led to these 27 ages, perhaps because there are no such calculations. The values given by these authors are copied directly from a chapter by Goldberg (55) that appears in Riley and Skirrow (108). Goldbergs (55) Table I is a list of the abundances and residence times of the elements in sea water; it is these residence times that Morris (92, 95) and Morris and Parker (97) give as indicated ages of the Earth. The residence time of an element, however is the average time that any small amount of an element remains in seawater before it is removed, not, as stated by Morris (92), the time to accumulate in ocean from river inflow, and has nothing to do with the ages of either the Earth or the ocean. Morris (92, 93, 95) and Morris and Parker (97) have totally misrepresented the data listed in Goldbergs (55) table. Morris and Parker (97) also reference a paper by the creationist Camping (22), who also confuses residence times with times to accumulate and fails to realize that the chemicals in the ocean are basically in a state of dynamic balance.

​

The documentation cited by Morris and Parker (97) for carbonate, sulfate, chlorine, and calcium (Nos. 15-18, Table 10) is a book by the creationist author Whitney (132), whose calculations also are meaningless because they suffer from the same inadequacies discussed above.

​

As I pointed out above, the influx of chemicals into the ocean cannot be used to calculate the age of the Earth because the ocean is in approximate, if not exact, chemical equilibrium. For example, virtually the entire worlds supply of chlorine (Table 10, no. 17) is in the ocean, and nearly all the chlorine carried by rivers is of cyclic origin (55). Chlorine simply evaporates from the ocean, and falls in rainwater either directly back into the ocean or runs into rivers, where it is returned to the sea. Aluminum enters the sea primarily as particulate matter from the weathering and erosion of rocks. It quickly either settles out as sediment or reacts with other elements to form new minerals, and thus has a residence time in ocean water of only about 100 years.

​

The influx of chemicals to the ocean is an invalid and worthless method of determining the age of the Earth. Morris (92, 95) and Morris and Parker (97) have misrepresented fundamental geochemical data and ignored virtually everything that is known about the geochemistry of seawater.

​

22. Camping, H. 1974. Let the oceans speak. Creation Res. Soc. Quart. 11: 39-45.
28. Cook, M. A. 1966. Prehistory and earth models. Max Parrish & Co., Ltd., London. 353 pp.
55. Goldberg, E. D. 1965. Minor elements in sea water. Chap. 5 in J. P. Riley & G. Skirrow, eds. Chemical Oceanography, v. 1. Academic Press, New York. 712 pp.
71. Joly, J. 1899. An estimate of the geological age of the earth. Pages 247-188 in Ann. Rept. Smithsonian Institution for 1899.
92. Morris, H. M. 1974a. Scientific creationism (Public School Edition). Creation-Life Publ., San Diego, Calif. 217 pp.
93. Morris, H. M. 1974b. The young earth. Inst. Creation Res., Impact Ser., no. 17, pp. i-iv.
95. Morris, H. M. 1977. The scientific case for creation. Creation-Life Publ., San Diego. 87pp.
97. Morris, H. M. & G. E. Parker. 1982. What is creation science? Creation-Life Publ., San Diego, Calif. 306 pp.
108. Riley, J. P. & G. Skirrow, eds. 1965. Chemical oceanography, vol. 1. Academic Press, New York. 712 pp.
132. Whitney, D. J. 1955. The face of the deep. Vantage Press, Inc., New York. 102 pp.

---

Helium: Again they've ignored removal processes. See Claim CE001. Dalrymple again:

quote:

---

This age is referenced to a report by Cook (27), but the calculation was done by Morris (92), using data from Cooks paper:

quote:

---

Consequently the maximum age of the atmosphere, assuming no original helium in the atmosphere, would be (3.5*10¹⁵/10²⁰)*5*10⁹ = 1.75*10⁵ years.

​

As a matter of fact, Henry Faul (Faul, 1954) has cited evidence that the rate of efflux of helium into the atmosphere is about 100 times greater than the value used by Cook. This in turn would reduce the age of the atmosphere down to several thousand years! (92, p. 151)

---

The values in this calculation are the content of ⁴He in the present atmosphere (3.5 x 10¹⁵ g) and the estimated total efflux (10²⁰ g) from the Earths crust and mantle throughout geologic time (5 x 10⁹ years). Morris (92) calculation is based on the assumption that all the helium released into the atmosphere would be retained, an assumption known to be false.

​

The helium balance in the atmosphere has been a subject of much study (76). Calculations show that at the present rates of production¹³, the entire atmospheric content of ⁴He and ³He could be supplied in about 2.3 million and 0.7 million years, respectively. Various mechanisms are known, however, by which helium escapes from the atmosphere into outer space.
At normal temperatures, the velocity of the average helium atom is less than the velocity required for escape from the Earths gravitational field. The elevated temperature in the exosphere, however, increases the kinetic energy of the helium atoms, so that some do escape. Calculations show that this mechanism could account for the escape of about half the ³He produced. Because ⁴He is about a third heavier than ³He, however, thermal escape is probably insufficient by a factor of about 40 to account for the loss of ⁴He. The apparent inadequacy of thermal escape is the basis for Cooks (27) report and Morris (92) calculation, but these authors have overlooked other mechanisms.

​

The most probable mechanism for helium loss is photoionization of helium by the polar wind and its escape along open lines of the Earths magnetic field. Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 10⁶ ions/cm².sec of ⁴He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 1.5) x 10⁶ atoms/cm².sec. Calculations for ³He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss.

​

Calculations involving the helium balance in the atmosphere are complex because they are sensitive to solar activity, geomagnetic-field fluctuations, the rate of helium production from the Earth, and other factors. Although the helium-balance problem is not yet completely solved, it is clear that helium can and does escape from the atmosphere in amounts sufficient to balance production. The main problem is that the exact roles of the several known mechanisms are unknown. The helium balance of the atmosphere certainly is not a basis for calculating any reasonable estimate of the Earths age. Any attempt to do so (92) requires an unjustified oversimplification of a complex problem.

​

^{Footnote 13 4}He comes from the decay of uranium and thorium in rocks, whereas ³He is primordial. Both are produced by escaping from the crust and mantle into the atmosphere.

​

12. Banks, P. M. & T. E. Holzer. 1969. High-latitude plasma transport: the polar wind. Geophys. Res. J. 74: 6317-6332.
27. Cook, M. A. 1957. Where is the earths radiogenic helium? Nature 179: 213.
76. Kockarts, G. 1973. Helium in the terrestrial atmosphere. Space Sci. Rev. 14: 723-757.
92. Morris, H. M. 1974a. Scientific creationism (Public School Edition). Creation-Life Publ., San Diego, Calif. 217 pp.
112. Sheldon, W. R. & J. W. Kern. 1972. Atmospheric helium and geomagnetic field reversals. Geophys. Res. J. 77: 6194-6201.

---

Carbon-14 in the atmosphere: This is just too vague a claim to allow a response; you could write a book. Books have been written. However, they might be referring to the claim that since the amount of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere may not be constant (that is, in equilibrium), therefore the Earth is young. The amount of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere varies over time for many reasons, and is not an indicator of the age of the Earth. From A talk.origins Age of the Earth Debate:

quote:

---

The [14]C/[12]C ratio depends on a number of factors including:

• Its rate of production, influenced by both the strength of the earth's magnetic field, and the cosmic-ray proton flux generated by the Sun.
• The amount of carbon in "reservoirs" in the Earth, which is strongly influenced by climatic conditions.

All of these factors vary; it is unjustified to assume that a non- uniform level means non-equilibrium. The concentration of [14]C in the atmosphere is calculated by performing [14]C dating on an object of known age (and calculating the difference between the dating age and the real age). The evidence indicates that it has been as high as 10% above its current value, and as low as 10% below its current value at various times in the past. It does not look like a process just now reaching equilibrium.

​

The "recent creation model" (with [14]C starting near but not at equilibrium) does not account for samples which give [14]C dates older than 10,000 years. Samples give ages to 50k years, which favors the "equilibrium, varying [14]C/[12]C ratio" model.

---

Magnetic field: Joe's given you a good reference already.{fixed a few typos}This message has been edited by JonF, 02-28-2005 12:22 AMEdited by JonF, : Add link to Dalrymple's paperEdited by JonF, : Fix link to Dalrymple

quote:

---

I will very politely disagree. What needs to be conveyed to creationists is that speciation is a matter of genetics. If two new populations do not mingle DNA, then different mutations will accrue in each population. Over time, this will lead to greater morphological differences and eventually to a physical barrier that prevents interbreeding. Evolution requires that, for biodiversity to appear, there has to be a process that separates genomes. Speciation is that method.

---

JM: Physical separation is a very powerful way to isolate populations (Madagascar, Australia, opening of the Atlantic ocean etc).CheersJoe Meert

He's actually making a point, which you and maybe others have missed ... he's giving the same amount of detail in the answers as was given in the original presentation, and the obvious inadequacy of his answers point out what should be the obvious inadequacy of the original presentation of the claims. TC's perfectly capable of writing a long message and/or posting links and references on those subjects.

Wow the sources from which you quote are WRONG on so many levels that it is hard to begin!In reading the selected quotes, I can only come to the conclusion that these people are ignoramuses attempting to pass as learned scientists! Anyone who paid ANY attention in high school would know that what they are asking/stating is pure gibberish and ignorant gibberish at best. No wonder some of these people don't like public education...they sure haven't benefitted from it!The author of that site writes:"According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (Presumably, a lightning bolt and a deformed assistant were involved.)"Does this sound like the words of a scientist to you, even if we ignore the fact that abiogenesis is a completely different discipline than the theory of evolution?In a word, NO!As for the rest of the quotes, I think yo8've done a GREAT job of answering them. The main problem with these idividuals is that they want simplistic answers to complicated problems...so we just throw Genesis at the problem and come up with muddled questions and even more muddled answers to back it up.Edited by Lights, : No reason given.Edited by Lights, : No reason given.

This stuff is to be ignored. I come across religious people all the time and they often lie about Natural Selection to make it seem impossible.N.S.( natural selection) is the real speed bump in mondern christianity.
the fall of man could not be possible if it took millions of years for humans to arrive from this process.

Well duh. Literal creationits lie about science in general to suit their needs. We are still hearing that abiogenesis = evolution.Still, you have to remember that there are millions of metaphorical chistians and jews who see the bible as a story of morals and values. How else would you explain the creation of the world to ignorant, nomadic jews? Explain astronomy, geology and biology to people who don't make a distinction between frogs and turtles?

While the ICR was paying for Steve Austin's doctorate program, he wrote several articles for them under that pseudonym of "Stuart Nevins." See No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5676_a_visit_to_the_institute_for_c_12_30_1899.asp (that revelation is towards the end).I read one of "Nevins'" articles several years ago. He was claiming that strata so many feet thick spanning millions of years had to have been deposited at a constant completely uniform rate for all of those millions of years, whatever minute fraction of an inch per year, every single year.Amazing how he could have been doing post-graduate study and research of geology and still have no clue about the subject matter.When the ICR graduate school science program was being investigated for accredidation, the visitation committee observed a biology class in progress. They were using a standard textbook used in secular universities' post-graduate biology classes. The instructor was sitting in from of the class reading through the book's text, telling the class which parts they believed and which parts they didn't.

hi all. Cosmic ray - Wikipedia may be not so wrong.It seems that the sun would have a major contribution to the amount of cosmic radiation the earth receives.

I think you will find on both sides of the argument many rates are asumed and estimted and unprovable if they've taken place in the past.
Let us see how many asumptions we can find below in claim CD220. Radiometric dating is base on three unprovable assumptions.
Sorry, got go. in any origins science there is a degree of faith involved.

But you haven't told us what they are, Frog! You highlighted some alternative dating methods that give answers consistent with those from radiometric dating. What "unprovables" do you have in mind?

If you even check the discussion on Wikipedia, that's far from clear. A quick search with google found nothing on the solar origins of cosmic rays, but plenty on supernovae and supernova remnants as sources.

Noting in science is provable. Radiometric dating is based on one premise (I don't like the word "assumption", which implies "untested"; the underlying premise has been tested six ways from Sunday) which has been established as true beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt.The "three assumptions" line, alas, marks you as ignorant of how radiometric dating works; you're parroting some creationist tract. When you can describe which two of your "assumptions" are not assumptions, and why, you may then know enough to be able to discuss the subject. Start with Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.