Young Earth Creation Science Argument Index

Outlook Other Abstract U-Pb radioisotope dating is now the absolute dating method of first choice among geochronologists, especially using the mineral zircon. A variety of analytical instruments have also now been developed using different micro-sampling techniques coupled with mass spectrometers, thus enabling wide usage of U-Pb radioisotope dating. However, problems remain in the interpretation of the measured Pb isotopic ratios to transform them into ages. Among them is the presence of non-radiogenic Pb of unknown composition, often referred to as common or initial Pb. There is also primordial Pb that the earth acquired when it formed, its isotopic composition determined as that of troilite in the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. Subsequently new crustal rocks formed via partial melts from the mantle. So the Pb isotope ratios measured in these rocks today must be interpreted before their U-Pb ages can be calculated. Various methods have been devised to determine this initial or common Pb, but all involve making unprovable assumptions. Zircon does incorporate initial Pb when it crystallizes. The amount of Pb cannot be measured independently and accurately.

Age of the earth

Several Christian ministries promote the idea that the earth is less than 10, years old, which they say comes from the Bible. In reality, the Bible makes no claim as to the age of the earth, although it does establish a minimum age. This page examines some of the history of the controversy—what the Bible actually says and does not say—and the scientific evidence surrounding the age of the earth. Age of the earth according to the Bible The following is a summary of the biblical evidence presented on this website regarding the age of the earth.

Meteorites have also been dated by the Sm-Nd isochron method. Jacobsen and Wasserburg (), for example, showed that 10 chondrites and the achondrite Juvinas all fall on an isochron of billion results of radiometric dating on meteorites clearly indicate that these objects formed about billion years ago.

Important We believe any unbiased reader will realize that we were fair with our treatment of the two models in the table above. Yet, although the theory of evolution matches the facts in some cases, evolution is still an unproven theory. By now, you may believe it should be your first choice also. Unlike many others that preceded us, we attempted to find a clear defense of evolution for two reasons: To keep from being accused of bias. To keep from making claims that someone could refute later.

Even though there are a great number of claims in books and on the Internet, we could find no scientific, testable facts that support the theory of evolution. The best site we could find was at The University of California at Berkeley. If you are interested, click here to examine the scientific evidence recorded at UC Berkeley yourself.

Quotations about Evolution

Young Earth Creation Science Argument Index The purpose of this index is to list all the claims of young earth creationists, and provide rebuttals to those claims. Although the idea for this index came from the TalkOrigins. Many arguments will have additional arguments against the young earth claims which do not appear on the Talk Origins site.

애리조나 북부의 그랜드 캐년에서의 고무보트 타기는 정말 짜릿하고 즐거운 경험이다. 협곡의 깊은 바닥에는 결정질 기반암이 험한 콜로라도 강 위로 찌를듯이 솟아있다.

References Generic Radiometric Dating The simplest form of isotopic age computation involves substituting three measurements into an equation of four variables, and solving for the fourth. The equation is the one which describes radioactive decay: The variables in the equation are: Pnow – The quantity of the parent isotope that remains now. This is measured directly. Porig – The quantity of the parent isotope that was originally present.

This is computed from the current quantity of parent isotope plus the accumulated quantity of daughter isotope.

How Old is the Earth

At the time that Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published, the earth was “scientifically” determined to be million years old. By , it was found to be 1. In , science firmly established that the earth was 3.

The Age of the Earth Strengths and weaknesses of radiometric and other dating methods. See also the discussions on Dating a Young Earth and Biblical Earth Dating.

Stansfield Macmillan, , pp. All quotations are consecutive, except where noted. The quotations are presented here in the order in which they appear in the book; since Patton quotes them out of order, I have inserted notes to help keep track of them. Geologists now assume that most of the water in the oceans was produced by volcanic outgassings. There are now approximately active volcanoes and about 10, dormant ones. Six hundred volcanoes comparable to Paricutin could account for the present oceans in approximately 0.

Since volcanic activity presumably was much greater during early earth history than at present, creationists argue that the age of the oceans would appear to be considerably less than 0. How much water vapor was lost to space during the early warmer stages of geological history is also a big unknown. Of course, half a billion years is still too long to help young-earth creationists.

In this next quotation, Patton ignores inconvenient weaknesses:

Isochron Dating

The Radiometric Dating Game Radiometric dating methods estimate the age of rocks using calculations based on the decay rates of radioactive elements such as uranium, strontium, and potassium. On the surface, radiometric dating methods appear to give powerful support to the statement that life has existed on the earth for hundreds of millions, even billions, of years.

We are told that these methods are accurate to a few percent, and that there are many different methods. We are told that of all the radiometric dates that are measured, only a few percent are anomalous. This gives us the impression that all but a small percentage of the dates computed by radiometric methods agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found, and that all of these various methods almost always give ages that agree with each other to within a few percentage points.

Since there doesn’t seem to be any systematic error that could cause so many methods to agree with each other so often, it seems that there is no other rational conclusion than to accept these dates as accurate.

Articles home page Creation vs. Evolution 0. Introduction and table of contents The following is an organized presentation on the creation vs. evolution controversy.

The sun, moon, and stars 2. The fish and the birds 3. The fertile earth 6. The land animals and humans 7. Rest and satisfaction In light of these correspondences, Kline interprets days one and four as different perspectives on the same event, and likewise days two and five, and three and six. He concludes that while the creation account is historical, historicity and narrative sequence are not the same thing, so the account need not—indeed, should not—be read as chronological at all.

And, of course, this nicely addresses Origen’s observation that days one, two and three could not be literal days before the sun, moon and stars existed to mark them and it also obviates the anachronistic modern question, relevant to all six days if they are literal, of the time zone by which God measured his evenings and mornings Garden of Eden Standard Time? Of course, Kline’s interpretation can be disputed.

Biblical Young Earth Creationism

Slowly and painstakingly, geologists have assembled this record into the generalized geologic time scale shown in Figure 1. This was done by observing the relative age sequence of rock units in a given area and determining, from stratigraphic relations, which rock units are younger, which are older, and what assemblages of fossils are contained in each unit. Using fossils to correlate from area to area, geologists have been able to work out a relative worldwide order of rock formations and to divide the rock record and geologic time into the eras, periods, and epochs shown in Figure 1.

The last modification to the geologic time scale of Figure 1 was in the s, before radiometric dating was fully developed, when the Oligocene Epoch was inserted between the Eocene and the Miocene.

The following, inevitably incomplete, introductory glossary of terms and concepts links to other topics discussed elsewhere on this site, as well as including general topics of interest such as well-known prehistoric animals.

Inteendeel, meeste sillabusse in skole en universiteite aanvaar die konsep van evolusie as die wetenskaplike basis vir die verstaan van die fisiese kosmos soos ons dit vandag ken. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development. The process of developing. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

Problems with the U-Pb Radioisotope Dating Methods—1. Common Pb

And that the Bible clearly teaches a young Earth. Specifically, that the time from the beginning of the universe to the creation of humans was the six days recorded in Genesis 1 , and that the time from the creation of man to the birth of Abraham was approximately years, as recorded in the Biblical genealogies. Given Biblical and other data for calculating a date for Abraham , we can calculate that the universe and the Earth were created approximately years ago.

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. Days of Creation The Bible states in Genesis 1 that the earth with all its inhabitants was created by God in 6 days.

Inhoud. Inleiding. Wetenskapsfilosofie. Beperkinge van dateringsmetodes. Die probleem van ekstrapolasie. Probleme met huidige geologiese teorieë. Wetenskaplike getuienis vir ‘n vloed-gebeure.

Can science prove the age of the earth? No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed. There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old.

However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now. And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all see below. No scientific method can prove the age of the earth or the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here.


How radiometric dating works in general: Radioactive elements decay gradually into other elements. The original element is called the parent, and the result of the decay process is .