jump to navigation

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe by Don Batten, PhD April 21, 2010

Posted by Bill Belew in creation, science.
Tags: , ,
trackback

This list ought to keep the young earth creation bashers busy for awhile.

Kudos to Don Batten, PhD for putting together such a list – 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe.

Dr. Batten got his Ph.D. from the University of Sydney. He worked for 20 years as a research horticulturalist with the NSW Department of Agriculture.

Here are  five, one from each category…for the rest go here.

Biological evidence

DNA in “ancient” fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

Geological evidence

Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.

Evidence from radiometric dating

Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.

Astronomical evidence

Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth’s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old. See: Transient lunar phenomena: a permanent problem for evolutionary models of Moon formation and Walker, T., and Catchpoole, D., Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe, Creation 31(3):18, 2009.

Evidence supported by human history

Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today’s population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer?

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Kirk Bertsche - April 22, 2010

Most of these claims are “PRATTs” (points refuted a thousand times). Some of them were rebutted decades ago. Rebuttals to these can be found in many, many places. For example:
TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/)
Answers In Creation (http://www.answersincreation.org/youngministry.htm)
Reasons to Believe (http://www.reasons.org/age-earth/scientific-evidence-young-earth)
IBSS (http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/ageofearth.htm)

For RATE rebuttals, see the ASA (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm). (Note: don’t fall for the lie that my critique has been “effectively rebutted” by Baumgardner. Note the dates of his rebuttal and my critique, and the fact that my critique references and answers the claims in his rebuttal as well as in the original RATE report.)

It is disturbing to see YECs continue to repeat these old, falacious PRATTs, especially when they don’t believe the arguments themselves! (Batten notes that many of these are based on “uniformitarianism” [sic] which he rejects.) Why do they do this? Are they more concerned about defending their positions than about accuracy and truth? Are they unable to perform basic scientific reasoning? Are they intentionally trying to deceive the unscientific public? Are they all in the mold of Carl Baugh and Harry Rimmer?

I have never seen a scientific argument for a young earth which can withstand scrutiny. Not a single one. Most can be demolished by an intelligent high school student. To paraphrase Hugh Ross, the scientific evidence for a YOUNG earth is slightly weaker than the scientific evidence for a FLAT earth.


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: