mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
_Is the Earth Young?_

This is a list of ten "evidences for a young earth". They were
originally found on a webpage hosted by the [1]Christian Apologetics
and Research Ministry (CARM), but the list has evidently been removed
from the CARM website. CARM continues to host a [2]collection of
discussion boards, which includes one on [3]creation vs evolution. The
arguments that I criticize here are not original to CARM, and can be
found in many creationist sources. So I will keep this page, as the
arguments and my responses remain representative of the creation -
evolution contest.

I have prepared a detailed response to each of these items. There is a
summary of my response after each item. Fully developed versions are
linked from the summaries, as needed. In each case, either the alleged
evidence is directly false, or it is weakly presented. And in the case
of item 10, the creationist evidence is indeed correct, but
irrelevant.

My responses are designed to emphasize the fact that, even though
creation scientists are convinced that the earth is no more than
10,000 years old, they repeatedly fail whenever they try to support
such claims with objective, empirical evidence.

There are far more young-earth arguments out there, than the 10 I
chose to criticize here. Most of them are equally flawed or worse. You
will find links to other resources on the age of the earth, and
suggested reading, at the [4]end of this list.
_________________________________________________________________

Evidence 1.
Atomic clocks, which have for the last 22 years measured the earth's
spin rate to the nearest billionth of a second, have consistently
found that the earth is slowing down at a rate of almost one second a
year. If the earth were billions of years old, its initial spin rate
would have been fantastically rapid--so rapid that major distortion in
the shape of the earth would have occurred. a) Arthur Fisher, "The
Riddle of the leap Second," Popular Science, Vol. 202, March, 1973,
pp. 110-113, 164-166. b) Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory,
Earth Motions and Their Effect on Air Force Systems, November 1975, p.
6. c) Jack Fincher, "And Now, Atomic Clocks," Readers' Digest, Vol.
III, November 1977, p. 34.

Response:
As explained on the [5]Leapsecond page of the [6]National Earth
Orientation Service, the true spindown rate of the earth is 1.5 to 2
milliseconds per day per century. That means that after 100 years, the
length of day has systematically increased (on average) 0.0015 to
0.002 seconds. This is also found, for instance, in Kurt Lambecks's
book "_The Earth's Variable Rotation_" ([7]Cambridge University Press,
1980; currently out of print), page 3. This is a long-term secular
variation. As Lambeck and numerous others point out, there are
variations on the length of day that range from daily to seasonal in
scale, so that the true length of day can vary greatly from day to
day, over multi-year time scales.

The author of this argument has failed to realize that one second as
defind by the rotation of the earth is slightly longer than one second
as defined by atomic clocks. So the earth-rotation time scale runs
about 2 milliseconds per day behind the atomic clock scale (because
the two use seconds that are _not the same length_). The leap second
is a convenient device for keeping the two timescales always within
0.9 seconds of each other. It is not a result of the earth slowing
down by one second per year.
_________________________________________________________________

Evidence 2.
Direct measurements of the earths magnetic field over the past 140
years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay
pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an
electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field.
If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current
would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have
survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not
be older than 25,000 years. a) Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of
the Earth's Magnetic Field (San Diego: Institute for Creation
Research, 1973).

Response:
The argument in general is very weak. The argument as made by Barnes
is directly false. I have already written an [8]extensive critique of
Barnes' work, which is found in the [9]talk.origins archive. Barnes'
argument is tightly circular and illogical, since it directly assumes
the truth of the proposition to be proved. Barnes makes the simplistic
mistake of extraplating an empirical fit to a 150 year data set over a
10,000 year range and claims the extrapolation is valid! Barnes
wrongly insists that dynamo action is forbidden by Cowling's theorem,
ignoring the fact that Cowling himself had already _proven_ that this
could not be true, 15 years before Barnes published his book! A very
poor argument.
_________________________________________________________________

Evidence 3.
The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on
just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium.
There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape
from the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young. a) Melvin A.
Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish, 1966), pp.
10-14.

Response:
Directly false. Current observation & measurement shows that the rate
of helium loss from the atmosphere balances the rate of production
through radioactive decay in the crust and mantle. Cook was unaware of
the loss of ionized helium along polar magnetic field lines, as are
more current champions of the same argument. [10]A detailed response
is available.
_________________________________________________________________

Evidence 4.
There have been no authenticated reports of the discovery of
meteorites in sedimentary material. If the sediments, which have an
average depth of 1½ miles, were laid down over hundreds of millions of
years, any of these steadily falling meteorites should have been
discovered. Therefore, the sediments appear to have been deposited
rapidly; furthermore, since there have been no reports of meteorites
beneath the sediments, they appear to have been deposited recently. a)
Peter A. Steveson, "Meteoric Evidence or a Young Earth," Creation
Research Quarterly, Vol. 12, June, 1975, pp. 23-25.

Response:
Directly false. Meteorites in fossilized sediments are rare, but they
do exist. And meteoritic dust and debris are quite common in
sediments. There are also a few hundred undeniable impact structures
(i.e. craters) on the earth. [11]A detailed response is available.
_________________________________________________________________

Evidence 5.
The rate at which meteoritic dust is accumulating on the earth is such
that after 5 billion years, the equivalent of 182 feet of this dust
should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, there
should be an exceedingly large amount of nickel in the crustal rocks
of the earth. No such concentration has been found--on land or in the
oceans. Consequently, the earth appears to be young. a) Henry M.
Morris, Scientific Creationism (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers,
1974), pp. 151-153. b) Steveson, pp. 23-25. c) Hans Peterson, "Cosmic
Spherules and Meteoritic Dust," Scientific American, Vol. 202,
February, 1960, p. 132.

Evidence 6.
If the moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated
extensive layers of space dust--possibly a mile in thickness. Before
instruments were placed on the moon, NASA was very concerned that our
astronauts would sink into a sea of dust. This did not happen; there
is very little space dust on the moon. Conclusion: the moon is young.

Response:
Since items 5 & 6 deal with essentially the same thing, that being the
accumulation rate of interplanetary dust, on either the earth or the
moon, I have taken them together. The short answer is that this
argument is diirectly false. The accumulation rate of meteorite dust
is now known by way of direct observation. That measured rate is
inconsistent with the young-earth argument. Add to this the fact that
the citation of Pettersson's work is not correct, and you get an
argument that was already weak when it was originally generated, but
now stands simply falsified. [12]A more detailed response is
available.
_________________________________________________________________

Evidence 7.
The sun acts as a giant vacuum cleaner which sweeps up about 100,000
tons of micrometeoriods per day. If the solar system were just 10,000
years old, no micrometeoriods should remain since there is no
significant source of replenishment. A large disk shaped cloud of
these particles is orbiting the sun. Conclusion: the solar system is
less than 10,000 years old. Paul M. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and
the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 60-61.

Response:
Directly false. While it is true that the dynamic lifetime of dust in
the solar system is short compared to the age of the solar system, the
statement that there is no significant source of replenishment is
known to be false. [13]A detailed response is available.
_________________________________________________________________

Evidence 8.
Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Royal Greenwich
Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual
measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a
rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore,
records of solar eclipses infer that this rapid shrinkage has been
going on for at least the past 400 yearsa. Several indirect techniques
also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred
collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much.b-c Using the most
conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed a
million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have
heated the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet,
evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present forms of
life were essentially as they are now, having completed their
evolution that began a thousand million years ago. a)"Analyses of
Historical Data Suggest Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, September,
1979, pp. 17-19. b) David W. Dunham, et. al., "Observations of a
Probable Change in the Solar Radius Between 1715 and 1979," Science,
Vol. 210, December 12, 1980, pp. 1243-1245. c) Irwin I. Shapiro, "Is
the Sun Shrinking?", Science, Vol. 208, April 4, 1980, pp. 51-53.

Response:
Directly false. The original proponents of this argument failed to
appreciate the fact that the study cited by Dunham was never
published. In fact, it was revoked by the authors prior to publication
when they realized that their own data were flawed. Current detailed
observations show that the sun is not shrinking in radius, but may
pulsate slowly over a solar cycle period of about 11 years. Theory
suggests that the sun is slowly expanding over time. [14]A detailed
response is available.
_________________________________________________________________

Evidence 9.
Short period comets "boil off" some of their mass each time they pass
the sun. Nothing should remain of these comets after about 10,000
years. There are no known sources for replenishing comets. If comets
came into existence at the same time as the solar system, the solar
system must be less than 10,000 years old.

Response:
Directly false. This argument suuffers from the same fatal flaw as the
dust arguments: the denial of a significant source of replenishment,
when there are strong data to show the opposite. The argument is even
more seriously damaged by the detection of the Kuiper belt. [15]A
detailed response is available.
_________________________________________________________________

Evidence 10.
Jupiter and Saturn are each radiating more than twice the energy they
receive from the sun. Calculations show that it is very unlikely that
this energy comes from radioactive decay or gravitational contraction.
The only other conceivable explanation is that these planets have not
existed long enough to cool off. a) H. H. Aumann and C. M. Gillespie,
Jr., "The Internal Powers and Effective Temperature of Jupiter and
Saturn,: The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 157, Jul, 1969, pp. 169-172.
b) "Close Encounter with Saturn," Time, November 10, 1980, p.78. c)
Steidl, pp. 51-52, 55.

Response:
True, although some of the details are slightly in error. All of the
giant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus & Neptune) radiate more
energy than they receive from the sun. The worst offender in that way
is Neptune. The reason given is also correct, the planets indeed have
not had time to cool off. However, the author of this argument naively
fails to appreciate that it takes several billion years for masses of
these sizes to cool off, and that there are significant sources of
internal heat other than heavy isotope radioactive decay (such as
internal viscous friction from helium settling out in the mostly
hydrogen mantles). So the creationists are right on this one, but it
still doesn't help. Is a more detailed response necessary?

Other Sources:

[16]How Good Are Those Young Earth Arguments?
An extensive collection by Dave Matson, who specializes in responding
to the myriad of arguments for a young earth raised by Kent Hovind.

[17]Age of the Earth FAQS
A series of 16 FAQ files from the talk.origins archive. Each deals
with a different aspect of the young-earth arguments.

"_The Age of the Earth_"
A book by G. Brent Dalrymple. [18]Stanford University Press, 1994.
Also [19]available through Amazon.Com. This is the definitive book on
the scientific determination of the age of the earth. Written for a
nontechnical audience, by one of the leading authorities in the field.
A must-read for anyone interested in how one goes about determining
the age of the earth, and why the methods work.

"_Science and Earth History - The Evolution/Creation Controversy_"
A book by Arthur Strahler. [20]Prometheus Books, 1987. Also
[21]available through Amazon.Com. Strahler is a geologist,and former
chairman of the geology department at Columbia University. This is an
excellently written treatise, intended for a nontechnical audience.
Strahler spends over 500 pages on careful descriptions of mainstream
geology, and detailed explanations of how young-earth arguments are
flawed. Still in print, and another must-read.

Back to [22]Tim Thompson's FAQ Page
Back to [23]Tim Thompson's Home Page

setstats 1

References

1. http://www.carm.org/index.html
2. http://www.carm.org/boards.htm
3. http://www2.carmforums.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID15&conf=DCConfID4
4. file://localhost/www/sat/files/tim_thompson/young-earth.html#refs
5. http://maia.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
6. http://maia.usno.navy.mil/index.html
7. http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/
8. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
9. http://www.talkorigins.org/
10. file://localhost/www/sat/files/tim_thompson/resp3.html
11. file://localhost/www/sat/files/tim_thompson/resp4.html
12. file://localhost/www/sat/files/tim_thompson/resp5.html
13. file://localhost/www/sat/files/tim_thompson/resp7.html
14. file://localhost/www/sat/files/tim_thompson/resp8.html
15. file://localhost/www/sat/files/tim_thompson/resp9.html
16. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/
17. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
18. http://www.sup.org/
19. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0804723311/qid=910311143/sr=1-1/002-6576804-7119844
20. http://www.hutch.demon.co.uk/prom/
21. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879754141/qid=910310884/sr=1-6/002-6576804-7119844
22. file://localhost/www/sat/files/tim_thompson/faqs.html
23. file://localhost/www/sat/files/tim_thompson/index.html