Scientific & Logical Argument for a Young Earth
By RoseAnn Salanitri
Before we begin the scientific argument for a young earth, we believe it is necessary
to define the arguments for an old earth. The first and most obvious argument for an old
earth is the Theory of Evolution, which needs millions and even billions of years to
seem plausible. Without these long ages, the theory collapses. Old Age Creationists
(OAC’s), who believe that the earth is much older than the 6,000 years Young Earth
Creationists (YEC’s) support, raise the second argument for an old earth. The Old Age
belief system employs evolution’s long ages as the basis of its argument. From our
perspective, it attempts to squeeze the evolutionary claims of long ages into a biblical
framework.
In this work, we will take a moment to more specifically define each argument along
with critical questions that should be asked. We will move on to a more detailed criticism
and, finally, conclude with evidence that supports a young earth argument.
Darwinian evolution has held to the belief that through natural selection and mutation
processes each phyla (kind or family, as distinguished from species) goes through a
transitional process that allows each kind to adapt to its environment, thereby
“evolving” into a better kind than it originally was. To explain this concept, Darwin
promoted what has become known as “Darwin’s Tree of Life”. This tree illustrates how
every phylum started from one cell and began to transition into different phyla. The
points of transition are where the branches on the tree would exist. Beyond each
branch, a new phylum with advanced traits would emerge. After the emergence of many
branches over the course of time, the resulting kinds would be dramatically different
from their ancestors. In other words, hominids (humans) would certainly appear
different from apes – both of which supposedly evolved from a less developed kind.
However, what modern day supporters of this theory fail to point out is that we should
not be looking to similar creatures as evidence for evolution, but we should be looking
for all the transitional branches in this tree from the single cell up to humans. Charles
Darwin recognized this when he made the statements in Origins of Species, 6th edition,
in chapters 6, 10, and 15:
“If my theory be true, numberless varieties, linking closely together all the
species of the same group, must assuredly have existed…”
“The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and
extinct species, must have been inconceivably great…”
“An interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed…”
In a species rich world like ours, it is laughable to claim that an extinct species
somehow proves transition. One species, if it did exist, certainly is not adequate proof
that man evolved from a single cell. There should be an inordinate amount of
transitions all along the way. Logically, we should be considering, how many
transitions do you think there should be from a single cell to a human being? Next
question, where are they?
Both OAC’s and YEC’s claim to be “creationists.” OEC’s will adamantly argue that
their belief in God’s Word is NOT hindered by the long ages of evolution. There are
various levels of this belief system, but on average most OACs argue that there is room
in the Genesis account for long ages on Days 1 through 3. It is commonly believed by
this group that the 24-hour day was created on Day 4, when God created the celestial
bodies – including the sun. In order to accommodate the long ages that they believe the
fossil index supports, they also claim that dinosaurs and other creatures became extinct
before man was created. If you believe in the fossil index as a record laid down over
time, you have to believe in death and destruction prior to the well-evolved man the
Bible calls “Adam”. This point of their argument also requires that they do not believe
that Noah’s Flood was worldwide, but local. They might use the word “universal” to
describe Noah’s Flood, but this term is somewhat deceiving because to many
“universal” means worldwide. That is not the case here. “Universal” to an OAC means
the area universally known to the civilized world at that time. In other words, a universal
flood in Noah’s time would encompass a geographical area known to civilized man – as
opposed to the entire world. This becomes important because they will not
acknowledge that the Flood laid down the strata or the fossil index, since they believe
that it was not a sudden occurrence but one that took ages to develop. This theology
requires a major reinterpretation of verses that are clearly stated in the Bible that refer to
a worldwide flood in no uncertain terms.
The logical contradictions (including the ones discussed in the Theological
Argument) that this presents are many. The first being literary interpretation of the
Bible. In order to believe in long ages while still calling yourself a creationist, somehow
you have to assign different meanings to the day that is mentioned in Genesis. While
OEC’s may seem skillful in doing just that, on closer examination one finds that these
interpretations are an assault on literary rules of interpretation. In other words, there isn’
t any justifiable literary clue that the days mentioned in Genesis are something other
than a 24-hour period. You can read more about the literary rules of interpreting the
Bible and the interpretations of the word “day” in our Theological Argument.
Another logical contradiction involves Day 3 – which obviously comes before Day 4
chronologically. In the Genesis account, plants are created on Day 3. If OEC’s are
correct, and this day was a long age rather than a 24-hour period, this begs another
question: How did the plants created on Day 3 survive for this supposed long age
when the sun wasn’t created until Day 4? Remember, according to their argument, Day
4 occurred quite a long time after Day 3. If you remember your elementary school
science, you will recall that plants convert their food using the energy from the sun in a
process called photosynthesis. This would process would not be possible if the light
from the sun wasn’t created for long ages after the plants were created. Therefore, in
their belief system, the plants that were created on Day 3 would die quite sometime
before the sun began to shine.
Regarding Day 4, which they acknowledge to be a 24-hour period of time along with
Days 5, 6, and 7, one should consider that the land and sea animals were created on
Days 5 and 6. Again, this presents a logical contradiction that exists in their argument.
Remember, one of the highlights of Old Age Creationism is that the strata and fossil
index were laid down over long ages. Also remember that animals were created on
Days 5 and 6, which they believe were 24-hour days. Taking it to the next level, if Days 5
and 6 were days as we know them to be, how can you account for the long ages it
supposedly took for the dinosaurs to become extinct before man walked the earth?
Again, remember that man was also created on Day 6; therefore, only a 24-hour period
passed between Days 5 and 6 – certainly not enough time for the fossil record to be laid
down as OAC’s claim.
Other interesting logical arguments center around Noah’s Flood. OAC’s argue that
this was a local flood (read more about this below in the section entitled “Thousands
not Billions”). According to the Bible Noah took well over 100 years to build the ark.
One has to ask, if the Flood was local, why did God have Noah build such an enormous
ark – couldn’t he simply have walked to the next continent faster? And…God certainly
could have brought the animals to a safe location other than where the ark was.
The Flood also presents another noteworthy issue – the rainbow. We are told that
God gave us the rainbow as a reminder of His pledge to man that He would not destroy
the earth by water again. According to the biblical account, before this time the earth
was watered by a mist that arose from the ground. After the Flood, the canopy (our sky)
changed dramatically allowing for a watering system that relies on rain from clouds
instead of water from the ground. If you think this through, there is a significant
scientific element behind this promise as well as the straightforward spiritual one. You
see, rainbows require atmospheric water – not ground water. Neither Noah nor Moses
who is credited with writing Genesis could have known this. It is a 20th century
discovery. Rainbows require that light shine through atmospheric water, which bends
the light in the same way a prism does to create the colors we see in rainbows. Before
the atmosphere contained water, this simply would not have been possible.
Another logical argument begs the question of why God, who gave us the creation
account in great detail, specifically mentioning the days on which He created what, left
out billions of years? In other words, God tells us what He did on Days 1-7 in specific
terms, but left out billions of years. While that might be possible, it certainly seems
illogical. On a personal basis, I would not have a problem with God taking billions of
years to create the universe; however, that is NOT how He said He did it.
It seems you really can’t have it both ways. Either you don’t believe the biblical
account of Genesis, or you do. Trying to manipulate it to fit evolutionary teachings runs
into many difficulties and contradictions – some of which we have explained here and in
the Theological Argument – and it is intellectually dishonest.
All this having been said, we will now move on to the scientific argument. Our
summer 2007 newsletter reported on the RATE project, which was conducted by well-
known YEC’s on behalf of the Creation Research Society. It has been included below in
its entirety for your convenience. While this project was both informative and
supportive, it doesn’t represent the only evidence for a young earth. It is NOT a
comprehensive argument.
Thousands or Billions?
By
RoseAnn Salanitri
Anyone engaged in the creation/evolution debate understands how crucial
the issue of long ages is to the theory of evolution – given enough time, even
the impossible seems possible. On the other hand, a literal interpretation of
creation in Genesis states that God created everything in six days
approximately 6,000 years ago.
Evolutionists assume that fossils in the lower geologic layers must be older
than those in the upper based on their belief that the layers took long ages
to develop. They use this “assumption” to designate the age of the fossils
found in these layers. Then they proceed to assign ages to the layers the
fossils were found in by citing the age of the fossils that were found in those
layers. Confused? You should be. Creationists have always objected to
the circular reasoning employed in these assumptions. Empirical evidence
to refute the evolutionists’ assumptions that the layers took long ages to
develop surfaced after the Mt. St. Helen’s eruption, when these
same geologic layers were laid down in a 24-hour period – hardly a long
age by anyone’s interpretation. However, evolutionary-believing geologists
largely ignored this observable fact.
Eight-years ago the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation
Research Society (both creation science think tanks that consist of
hundreds of PhDs in a myriad of scientific fields) decided to address the
conflict by joining forces and putting together a scientific study regarding
the age of the earth and radioisotope dating. The project was named RATE,
an acronym for Radioisotope Age of The Earth, and was conducted by some
of the most accomplished scientists in these two organizations. Dr.
Larry Vardiman, professor of Atmospheric Science and Project
Manager, summarized the main findings: “1. A large amount of radioisotope
decay has occurred. 2. Conventional radioisotope dates differ radically.
3. Nuclear processes were accelerated during certain periods of earth’s
history; and 4. Helium diffusion and carbon-14 dating in diamonds is
strong evidence for a young earth.” One of the contributing physicists,
Dr. Russ Humphreys, stated that the amount of helium that exists in
zircons indicates that a lot of radioactive decay has happened quickly in
the recent past or the helium would have time to escape. A
contributing geophysicist, Dr. John Baumgardner, stated that the
carbon-14 (which is found in most fossil material) is a short-lived radioisotope
that cannot survive for millions of years. This carbon in coal and
diamonds indicates that they are only thousands of years old.
For more information on the RATE project, you can read the book
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth Volume II, (technical) by Dr. Don
DeYoung, or Thousands…Not Billions (non-technical). An informative
article by Dr. Jason Lisle of AiG-USA entitled “RATE research reveals
remarkable results – a fatal blow to billions of years” can be read online at
the Answers in Genesis website:
www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp.
Perhaps there are those who will always support long ages, but one must
ask why.
The following arguments (1-8) are from Jonathan Sarfati’s Book “Refuting
Compromise.” This is an excellent work and we advise anyone who is interested in this
particular argument to read the revised edition.
1. The Earth’s Magnetic Field Decay – The earth’s magnetic field has
been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years
old. Rapid reversals during the Flood year, and fluctuations shortly after,
just caused the field energy to drop even faster. (p 333)
In the more detailed explanation for the above statement, Sarfati references many
works that support this conclusion, including his own work “The Earth’s Magnetic
Field: Evidence That the Earth is Young,” Creation 20(2):15-19 (March-May 1998); <www.
answersingenesis.org/magfield>.
2. Helium in the Rocks – Evolutionists assume that helium comes from
alpha-decay of certain radioactive elements in the rocks. Helium atoms
are very small and chemically unreactive so can quickly diffuse from rocks.
Yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to
escape – certainly not billions of years. This is strong evidence that nuclear
decay rates were much faster at some time in the past. (p 341)
In support of the above argument, Sarfati references R. Humphreys, “The Earth’s
Magnetic Field I Still Losing Energy,” CRSQ 39(1)1-11 (March 2002) www.
creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm. Since Sarfati’s book has been
written, The RATE project has been completed, which further supports these claims.
3. Salt in the Sea – Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping.
The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions
of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas
could not be more than 62 million years old – far younger than the billions
of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not
the actual age. (p 344)
The references Sarfati uses in the above quote to support his argument is J. Sarfati,
“Salty Seas: Evidence for a Young Earth,” Creation 21(1):16-17 (December 1998-
February 1999);www.answersingenesis.org/salty. There are several additional
references throughout the argument.
4. Missing “Old” Supernova Remnants – A supernova is an explosion of a
massive star – the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of
the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for
hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet
there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately
old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies,
the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies
had not existed long enough for wide SNR expansion. (p 346)
Sarfati references his own work in the above quote: J. Sarfati, “Exploding Stars Point
to a Young Universe: Where Are All the Supernova Remnants?” Creation 19(3):46-48
(June-August 1997); www.answersingenesis.org/SNR. Sarfati further explains this
reference and cites many others in his detailed argument in support of the above quote.
5. Comets – Comets lose so much mass every time they pass near the sun
in their orbit that they should have evaporated after billions of years.
Instead, evolutionists have proposed ad hoc sources to replenish the
comet supply. But observations of the region of the proposed Kuiper Belt
fail to confirm it as a cometary source. And there is a total absence of
observational evidence for the Oort Cloud, among other scientific difficulties
for both notions. Ross’s published explanation that comets have an
interstellar origin was discredited by secular astronomers long ago.
In the above point, Sarfati references his work, “Comets: Portents of Doom or
Indicators of Youth?” Creation 25(3):36-40 (June-August 2003).
6. Lunar Recession – The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 4 cm
(11/2 inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past.
But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the
earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance.
This gives a maximum possible age of the moon – not the actual age. This is
far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric
“dates” assigned to moon rocks).
In the above argument, Sarfati references: D. DeYoung, “The Earth-Moon System,” in
R.E. Walsh and C.L. Brooks, editors, Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Creationism 2:79-84 (September-November 1998); www.
answersingenesis.org/moon.
7. Dinosaur Blood Cells and Hemoglobin – Red blood cells and hemoglobin
have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. This was shown by
the red globules under the microscope, and also by the chemical signatures
of hemoglobin. But these could not last more than a few thousand years –
certainly not for 65 million years, the “date” for the extinction of the last
dinosaur.
Sarfati included two references in the footnote for this argument. They are: C.
Wieland, “Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report!” Creation 19(4):42-43 (September-
November 1997); www.answersingenesis.org/dino_blood, based on research by M.
Schweitzer and T. Staedter, “The Real Jurassic Park,” Earth (June 1997): p.55-57.
8. Radiohalos – Polonium Radiohalos in granite rocks provide strong
evidence for their rapid formation, and mature uranium Radiohalos are
good evidence for accelerated radioactive decay. Dual spherical/elliptical
polonium halos in coalified wood are indicators that much wood
was catastrophically uprooted and compressed, and by the same
catastrophic flood, although the layers are “dated” at millions of years
apart. Also, uranium radiohalo centers in the same wood have so much
uranium that they undermine the “established” millions of years of the
layers they are in. (Hugh) Ross has tried to address only the rapid
formation argument, but merely cites an amateur geologist publishing in
a humanist journal, and by dogmatically proclaiming al alternative way
of formation that the original researchers admitted was speculative.
NOTE: The references for Sarfati’s arguments that are listed here as included as
footnotes for the material that is being quoted. His detailed explanations that follow this
quoted material have additional references. If you are interested in more than a basic
argument for a young earth, you will find Sarfati’s book very informative and a valuable
resource.
The RATE project is also a valuable source. For more information on the RATE
project, you can read the book Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth Volume II,
(technical) by Dr. Don DeYoung, or Thousands…Not Billions (non-technical). An
informative article by Dr. Jason Lisle of AiG-USA entitled “RATE research reveals
remarkable results – a fatal blow to billions of years” can be read online at the Answers
in Genesis website: www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp.
As stated before, while this is not intended to be a comprehensive argument
supporting CSA’s young earth position, it certainly represents some of the best
arguments that can be understood without degrees in specialized disciplines. The
evidence is constantly growing, and we encourage anyone who is interested in this
specific argument to go beyond this writing and research the matter for themselves.
Additionally, creationists had often objected to conclusions that use carbon-
14 dating as evidence for evolution. Carbon-14 dating (a form of radioisotope
dating) provides laboratory data regarding the age of organisms.. Creationists
argued that this “uniformity thinking” is unsupportable. “Uniformity thinking”
assumes that everything in the past behaved the same way we observe it to
behave in laboratory conditions today, i.e. the decay rate was always the
same as it is today; the parent/daughter amounts of carbon are known, etc.,
etc. Creationists also pointed out that the same specimen could yield different
results in different laboratories. Without empirical evidence to refute the
evolutionists’ theories, the arguments between the two factions remained
largely philosophical – until recently.