Homework Help

Any proof for a young earth?I have always thought evolution as a mindless process...

user profile pic

samjazael123 | Student, College Freshman | Salutatorian

Posted December 26, 2011 at 9:42 AM via web

dislike 0 like
Any proof for a young earth?

I have always thought evolution as a mindless process because it has changed over so many years from ideology to mere unproven fact. People tend to say Evolution is far more acceptable process than creationism I believe the earth is at least from 50,000 years to at least 10,000 years old, but is there any contradictions to evolution and tell me so I can prove my theories with straightforward facts. I have always believed in faith before evolution. I want to prove people that there is evidence of a young earth over a old earth. Thank you for your replies. I know only so little beyond the combines of Science I am more of a religious historian than a man of science.

18 Answers | Add Yours

user profile pic

Michelle Ossa | College Teacher | (Level 3) Educator Emeritus

Posted December 26, 2011 at 8:32 PM (Answer #2)

dislike 0 like

My first suggestion to you is to move away from the purely faith-based paradigms and move onto the practice of the scientific method/process. This is why:

1. No researcher can possibly find an answer to a question without exploring EVERY available resource, whether it is fact or faith. Even policemen use psychics to investigate, yet, they do not rely on them entirely.

2. Faith has NO evidence to support itself. Research does.

3. Evidence of evolution can be found in plenty of living organisms. Take a look at FROGS. Do they evolve? Yes. Are they created magically? NO.

4. Scientific research is not an emotional journey. It is a responsible and continuous search for facts. Facts are not found in faith.

Try this and let us know if it works for you.

user profile pic

larrygates | College Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted December 27, 2011 at 12:00 AM (Answer #3)

dislike 0 like

I believe your problem is that you consider evolution and faith to be mutually exclusive, which they are not necessarily. Albert Einstein once famously commented faith without science is blind; science without faith is lame. Each explains a portion of the puzzle of existence which the other cannot. I would suggest you look for ways in which the two ideas complement rather than contradict each other. I am also a person of faith; yet I have nad no problem seeing the two as complementary to each other. Don't blind yourself to a single interpretation.

user profile pic

samjazael123 | Student, College Freshman | Salutatorian

Posted December 27, 2011 at 3:08 AM (Answer #4)

dislike 0 like

I believe basically in intelligent design and even all religions of the world agree. Magic isn't about religion as we ask ourselves of biblical theology there are some accuracies within biblical theology as well. There was a great flood as almost every flood myth point to the same idea. Actually frogs are one of a kind animals and are animals that aren't plenty of. They are reptillian, yet even that isn't entirely proof of evolution. If you go further every living creature is symetrical as you question ourselves why so? Bible has great amount of evidence to prove itself as scientfic enquiry. Example the book tells in the book of Exodus tells of Moses claiming the earth as round. Even early Greek and Hebrew scholars knew the roundness of the earth. The bible knew sulphur was inside the earth by studying volcanoes. The bible knew the formation of snow and that each and every snow flake was different in the book of Job verse 38:22. Also tells of dinosaur like creatures in the book of Job as well called The Leviathon(a whale like creature) and a Behemoth(a land creature). There are many different references in the bible that are beyond faith not all is about religion in the bible. They tried there best to describe the Natural world.

user profile pic

literaturenerd | High School Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted December 27, 2011 at 5:46 AM (Answer #5)

dislike 0 like

Given that the world is constantly changing, one perspective that you could take is the the world is a new place every day. The same things do not happen as have before. While some could argue that on a global level things change so slowly that the world cannot be considered a new place with every new day, others could argue that each day is a new gift. While this answer does not prove to have an either religious or scientific basis, sometimes people simply need to trust in the abstract in order to find the truth they are searching for within themselves.

user profile pic

vangoghfan | College Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted December 28, 2011 at 2:19 PM (Answer #6)

dislike 0 like

I'm not aware of any convincing scientific evidence for the "young earth" hypothesis.  Or, to state the point differently, I'm not aware of any evidence that is taken seriously by scientists who are themselves taken seriously by most of their peers. I've posted two links below that dispute claims for a young earth. I would genuinely, sincerely be interested in reading your responses to these links.  Best wishes to you.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

 

user profile pic

samjazael123 | Student, College Freshman | Salutatorian

Posted December 29, 2011 at 2:38 AM (Answer #7)

dislike 0 like

Yes, there are many faulty theories about a 6,000 year span of earth History, but there are also questions scientists sholdn't take seriously this website is great because it shows facts supporting both Creationism & Science. I think that the idea that the sun is shrinking is a little off right, but the moon is moving farther a way disproving much of the billion year process. Scientists can't even answer this question: but there are also questions that support Science due to the grand canyon, but if you look at the grand canyon further it  was once flooded which Water pressure can actually make thinks erode at a fast rate even more than wind. I think that there are more questions on both side, but the main thing I question about science is the dating process because it is way to complex to be shown as accurate. Plus most things can't be accurately dated even priceless relics because of fear of destroying the relic. . Not saying Creationism is the true method of dating things, but the question among all is where did they get the billions of years from? If sediments from different parts of the earth are dated differently in so many different years. Even elements like metals have different dates accordingly.

user profile pic

samjazael123 | Student, College Freshman | Salutatorian

Posted December 29, 2011 at 2:40 AM (Answer #8)

dislike 0 like

All I see is questions more than answers on both sides of the railroad tracks, but I think that we need a more easier system that can easily be confirmed without such great complexity. We might as well bring back a dinosaur from the dead to find that out or possibly bring back a million year old human to find it out. I might add we will need a larger amount of science done to prove the origins of humanity because we are the only species to actually be able to develop the so many things that made us convinced that we where created therefore by something beyond ourselves. Thank you for reading and for your ideals' Thanks.

user profile pic

bigdreams1 | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted December 30, 2011 at 9:46 AM (Answer #9)

dislike 0 like

The following two abstracts have interesting arguments for intelligent design. It is always good to research both sides of an issue and then make an informed decision on what you believe after analyzing the facts.

http://www.emjc3.com/evolution.htm

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted January 1, 2012 at 10:39 PM (Answer #10)

dislike 0 like

"Any proofs for a young Earth?"

Basically... Nope. All the thousands of different techniques and evidence for estimating the Earth's age converge on the same answer... 4,540,000,000 years.

The most convincing and irrefutable method for dating the Earth is Radio Metric Dating. There really is no doubt. The Earth is full of of a wide range of atomic clocks and they all agree... 4.5 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

P.S. The claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old is literally as inaccurate as me claiming I am 1000 miles tall and weigh 300 million pounds. A young Earth claim is scientifically ludicrous and impossible.

user profile pic

bigdreams1 | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted January 1, 2012 at 11:20 PM (Answer #11)

dislike 0 like

With all due respect to Frizzyperm, Wikipedia is not a valid source of research. The site itself makes the following disclaimer as to the validity of the information contained within its articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

In fact, a former student of mine to prove how easy it is to insert inaccurate information into wikipedia articles, added her name to the list of distinguished alumni of her Alma mater and it was published.

As a writing instructor, I do not allow wikipedia to be used as a source for research papers because it is not academically valid.

I love a lively debate, however we as academics must seek to find evidence that is as accurate as possible to make the debate itself valid.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted January 2, 2012 at 5:18 AM (Answer #12)

dislike 0 like

In reply to #11:

We academics must seek to find evidence that is accurate, BigDreams, thank you for making sure I was clear on that. If you want to scrutinise sources, which is always wise, then... let's have a look at the two gems you offered in post nine.

Your first link is to an unpublished, amateur blog called, "EVOLUTION: The Evidence Says No." a self-confesed non-scientist with a graduate degree in Information Systems. His article is a standard regurgiation of all the usual creationist spin-stories. It is not an academic source. His totally unoriginal article slipped onto the net without a ripple and is unquoted by anyone.

Your second source, however, has a much higher profile. You cited William Dembski; a 'senior fellow' of the infamous and universally shunned 'Discovery Institute'; America's foremost creationist propaganda factory. The DI has been caught lying on so many occasions that a LITTLE academic research (ie one google of Dembski's name) would have told you that dismissing Wikipedia while simultaneously quoting the DI was... eclectic.

I tell you what, Big Dreams, seeing as you were kind enough to admonish me for using Wikipedia, I'll attempt to enlighten you to the totally corrupt nature of those anti-academic links you briefly mistook for worthwhile academic material...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

user profile pic

alltimechrissy | Student, Grade 9 | eNotes Newbie

Posted January 7, 2012 at 9:15 AM (Answer #13)

dislike 0 like

1.

in order for the right proteins for life to be created to just "appear" in the big bang, is 10 to the 65th power. That would be like finding the winning lottery ticket everyday on the street for a thousand years.

2.Order cannot be created out of disorder. Life couldn't have been created out of big bang. 

 

user profile pic

alltimechrissy | Student, Grade 9 | eNotes Newbie

Posted January 7, 2012 at 9:25 AM (Answer #14)

dislike 0 like

My first suggestion to you is to move away from the purely faith-based paradigms and move onto the practice of the scientific method/process. This is why:

1. No researcher can possibly find an answer to a question without exploring EVERY available resource, whether it is fact or faith. Even policemen use psychics to investigate, yet, they do not rely on them entirely.

2. Faith has NO evidence to support itself. Research does.

3. Evidence of evolution can be found in plenty of living organisms. Take a look at FROGS. Do they evolve? Yes. Are they created magically? NO.

4. Scientific research is not an emotional journey. It is a responsible and continuous search for facts. Facts are not found in faith.

Try this and let us know if it works for you.

I have some issues with this post.

here is proof that there is a God and Intellegent Design actually happened.

1. Micro-evolution happens all the time and is perfectly Biblical. Macro-evolution is what Darwin claimed, and it never happend. Toads stay toads, finches stay finches. Sure, some of them evolve by growing longer legs or rounder bellys, but they never actually changed species. There is no evidence for this

2. How come we don't see any fossils that prove macro-evolution. I.e half fish half bird or whatever.

3.

You may say “but it takes millions of years for those dogs to evolve into a cow”, but remember, it only takes one day for an animal to be born with new, additional genetic information and since that is required for Evolution to be true, and it supposedly has been happening throughout billions of years of evolution, we should today, still see that happening everyday, yet of all the millions upon millions of animals born worldwide, day after day, week after week, year after year, the percentage of current animals born with new, additional genetic information is 0.0%. It has never once, ever been observed.

i have tons more.

Please, show me ur "proof" for evolution

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted January 7, 2012 at 8:56 PM (Answer #16)

dislike 0 like

1.

in order for the right proteins for life to be created to just "appear" in the big bang, is 10 to the 65th power. That would be like finding the winning lottery ticket everyday on the street for a thousand years.

2.Order cannot be created out of disorder. Life couldn't have been created out of big bang. 

 

Sorry, Chrissy... but your answer is very messy.

Proteins were not created in the Big Bang. For you to claim they were suggests you do not have a basic understanding of the difference between the creation of the universe and the creation of life on Earth. Your answer confuses the two subjects in a very flawed way.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted January 7, 2012 at 9:06 PM (Answer #17)

dislike 0 like

My first suggestion to you is to move away from the purely faith-based paradigms and move onto the practice of the scientific method/process. This is why:

1. No researcher can possibly find an answer to a question without exploring EVERY available resource, whether it is fact or faith. Even policemen use psychics to investigate, yet, they do not rely on them entirely.

2. Faith has NO evidence to support itself. Research does.

3. Evidence of evolution can be found in plenty of living organisms. Take a look at FROGS. Do they evolve? Yes. Are they created magically? NO.

4. Scientific research is not an emotional journey. It is a responsible and continuous search for facts. Facts are not found in faith.

Try this and let us know if it works for you.

I have some issues with this post.

here is proof that there is a God and Intellegent Design actually happened.

1. Micro-evolution happens all the time and is perfectly Biblical. Macro-evolution is what Darwin claimed, and it never happend. Toads stay toads, finches stay finches. Sure, some of them evolve by growing longer legs or rounder bellys, but they never actually changed species. There is no evidence for this

2. How come we don't see any fossils that prove macro-evolution. I.e half fish half bird or whatever.

3.

You may say “but it takes millions of years for those dogs to evolve into a cow”, but remember, it only takes one day for an animal to be born with new, additional genetic information and since that is required for Evolution to be true, and it supposedly has been happening throughout billions of years of evolution, we should today, still see that happening everyday, yet of all the millions upon millions of animals born worldwide, day after day, week after week, year after year, the percentage of current animals born with new, additional genetic information is 0.0%. It has never once, ever been observed.

i have tons more.

Please, show me ur "proof" for evolution

Response to Point 1.

If there were a difference between micro and macro evolution then ring species would be impossible. You asked for 'proof' of evolution. Fine, no problem... here is a video on 'ring species' it completely and totally destroys the claim that there is micro but not macro evolution. Currently all popular creationists are totally ignoring this clear and fundamental breach of their claims, because they have no answer to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8

Response to point 2. The claim that there are no transitional fossils is such a deeply engrained belief that we hear this statement over and over and over again. I simply do not understand how such an obvious mistake manages to survive. There are thousands of transitional fossils in museums all over the world. To claim there are none is to proudly flaunt ignorance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg

Your third point is a total misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. I have no short answer to it.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | Valedictorian

Posted January 8, 2012 at 2:33 AM (Answer #18)

dislike 0 like

After watching my youtube links, please can you explain the difference between 'Micro' and 'Macro' evolution. Because I never heard any satisfactory explanation for this Creationist claim.

As far as science is concerned ''micro'' evolution is just a small amount of evolution and is exactly the same process as ''macro'' evolution. But Creationists say one is possible and one is impossible. But they are the same???

As far as I can see, Creationism retreating in stages. The evidence for evolution was so overwhelming that they were compelled to re-position themselves and concede that evolution takes place. Rather than accept the whole package, the Creationists have tried to split evolution in half by inventing 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. This split is bogus and it is only a matter of time before the Creationist argument will be forced to retreat further.

This is the 21st century. Biology is racing ahead discovering important new things every single day, and all of it is based on the fact that evolution is accurate. Creation Science, on the other hand has not produced a single useful discovery. Not one. Because it is wrong and it doesn't WORK. You are fighting a losing battle and dragging your religion through the mud with this denial of the obvious truth.

(P.S. Kelly, your answer was cut-and-pasted verbatim from Bob Dutko's 'Top Ten Proofs' website. That man's a very rich con-artist, I'd plagiarise someone else, if I were you.)

user profile pic

enotechris | College Teacher | (Level 2) Senior Educator

Posted January 10, 2012 at 3:42 AM (Answer #19)

dislike 0 like

It's critical to understand ancient texts within the culture and time they were written.  Anything that we would understand as "scientific" (meaning adhering to the scientific process) that could be found in the Bible, or any old or ancient text, must be viewed from within its own confines.  These texts were the observations, philosophies, and chronicles of the people in that time, and represented their best and honest ideas on the subjects. Back then, these were as true as they could be. But we know better now. The world is round, old, rotates, revolves, and evolves. To say it doesn't because the ancient texts say something else is to insist that the Earth be the center of the Universe, because we're comfortable only with the concept of the Great Chain of Being.

user profile pic

jillyfish | Student, Undergraduate | Valedictorian

Posted January 17, 2012 at 6:00 AM (Answer #22)

dislike 0 like
Any proof for a young earth?

I have always thought evolution as a mindless process because it has changed over so many years from ideology to mere unproven fact. People tend to say Evolution is far more acceptable process than creationism I believe the earth is at least from 50,000 years to at least 10,000 years old, but is there any contradictions to evolution and tell me so I can prove my theories with straightforward facts. I have always believed in faith before evolution. I want to prove people that there is evidence of a young earth over a old earth. Thank you for your replies. I know only so little beyond the combines of Science I am more of a religious historian than a man of science.

Hi Samjazael,

here is a very well-made and entertaining BBC documentary on how we know that the Earth is billions of years old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITfVdYXw9jI&feature=channel_video_title

If the 'Old Earth' model was faulty, how do the oil industry and the mining industries correctly locate all the underground resources? How do they know where to dig and drill?

No geological mining company is interested in prospecting for minerals using the 'Young Earth' model. Not one. They all spend their money based on the Old Earth model. Why do you think that is?

Join to answer this question

Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.

Join eNotes