Best positive scientific evidence of a young earth?

[anochria]

To my young earth friends, I'd like to hear from your perspective what you believe to be the best positive scientific evidence of a young earth.

[mattrose]

I think the evidence of an ancient catastrophe is the best scientific evidence. Most Old Earth science is rooted in uniformitarian ideas, but I've actually read good chunks of the original uniformitarian arguments and thought they were fairly poorly argued. I think the evidence much better fits with catastrophism than uniformitarianism (evidence like polystrate fossils, the explosion of fossil evidence in one major supposed 'age', etc). In other words, if one considers catastrophism to be a better explanation for geology than uniformitarianism (and I do) then a giant chunk of old earth evidence is dismissed (especially since most of their biological dating is circularly argued with geology).

What do you think is the best evidence for an old earth?

[Jill]

.

[steve]

Jill,

I am afraid that you misunderstood the question, and a post like this is a diversion from the topic of the thread. The question is concerning scientific evidences for an earth whose age is measured in thousands, rather than billions, of years.

[Jill]

.

[anochria]

Mattrose,

I think the evidence of an ancient catastrophe is the best scientific evidence.

I haven't seen any good evidence for a world-wide single catastrophe that caused what we find in the fossil record.

I think the evidence much better fits with catastrophism than uniformitarianism

The term "uniformitarianism" is a term coined by someone from the Young Earth perspective and is a misleading term in that it seems to imply that mainstream geologists have no place in their theoretical models for catastrophic events. Those terms present a false dichotomy between catastrophic formation events and gradual ones. Polystrate fossils for instance, can be accounted for through limited "catastrophes" such as overflowing rivers, etc.. among those who still maintain an old earth.

the explosion of fossil evidence in one major supposed 'age

I don't really see how this is a positive evidence for a young earth. The fact that we don't find human fossils with dinosaurs or rabbits with archaeopteryx is, however, a positive evidence for an old earth.

If one considers catastrophism to be a better explanation for geology than uniformitarianism (and I do) then a giant chunk of old earth evidence is dismissed

It's not enough to start with the assumption that "catastrophism" sounds reasonable, or we can see how in some cases it might explain some features of the fossil record. The explanations need to be more thorough before all such evidence is summarily dismissed.

What do you think is the best evidence for an old earth?

I'd like to start another thread on that. I wanted to start this thread because I've often found YE arguments to be more negative (taking pot-shots at OE arguments) rather than building a positive, falsifiable case on their own right.

[mattrose]

I haven't seen any good evidence for a world-wide single catastrophe that caused what we find in the fossil record.

It's ALL evidence. It's a mistake to think of it as 2 groups trying to find their own pieces of evidence and that is why this thread is sort of strange to respond to in some ways. YEC's, OEC's & Naturalists all look and utilize the exact same evidence. Take geology, for instance, we all make the same observations. The difference is that OEC's & Naturalists explain the appearance of the earth by extremely long periods of time whereas YEC's explain the appearance of the earth by an extremely catastrophic flood. OEC's and Naturalists categorically reject a worldwide flood. They agree that IF there had been a worldwide flood, IT (and not long ages) would account for the majority of what we see today, but they reject it as 'biblical fiction' (despite the multi-cultural evidence of a worldwide flood).

The term "uniformitarianism" is a term coined by someone from the Young Earth perspective and is a misleading term in that it seems to imply that mainstream geologists have no place in their theoretical models for catastrophic events. Those terms present a false dichotomy between catastrophic formation events and gradual ones. Polystrate fossils for instance, can be accounted for through limited "catastrophes" such as overflowing rivers, etc.. among those who still maintain an old earth.

It's not really a misleading term at all. OEC's and naturalists believe that uniformitarianism is the PRIMARY explanation for modern geology. I never said they don't believe minor catastrophes have occurred as well. They certainly do. But they don't believe catastrophes have played THE major role in geological formation. I am simply stating that the evidence suggests otherwise (polystrate fossils, bent (not shifted) strata, fossils appearing in places they by no means belong, etc). In the same way, YEC's have a place for uniformitarianism, but it is a secondary explanation behind the global flood.

As I said, I read chunks of the foundational book on uniformitarian geology. I didn't find it convincing. It had a lot of philosophy masquerading as science.

I don't really see how this is a positive evidence for a young earth.

The evidence suggests that the vast majority of fossils were made in a short amount of time. This fits much better with a global catastrophe than millions of years. That is why naturalists found the Cambrian explosion to be so surprising.

It's not enough to start with the assumption that "catastrophism" sounds reasonable, or we can see how in some cases it might explain some features of the fossil record. The explanations need to be more thorough before all such evidence is summarily dismissed.

Both sides start with assumptions The naturalist starts with the assumption that present processes are the explanation for present appearance. The YEC starts with the assumption that flood described in the bible was an actual historical event. The former groups needs to present some reasons why they are dismissing the historical record of the flood that exists not only in the Bible but in various ancient cultures from around the world and has just as much, if not more, explanatory power than uniformitarianism.

I'd like to start another thread on that. I wanted to start this thread because I've often found YE arguments to be more negative (taking pot-shots at OE arguments) rather than building a positive, falsifiable case on their own right.

And, of course, the reverse is true. OECists and Naturalists often take pot shots at the YEC position, suggesting that YEC's don't believe in any form of evolution, or drawing crowded arks, etc.

[Homer]

I find it interesting that scientists claim that there is not enough water on earth to have caused a world wide flood while at the same time other scientists claim that the surface of Mars has been shaped by water, and then they struggle to find evidence of any water at all on Mars.

[AaronBDisney]

I find it interesting that scientists claim that there is not enough water on earth to have caused a world wide flood while at the same time other scientists claim that the surface of Mars has been shaped by water, and then they struggle to find evidence of any water at all on Mars.

Ain't that the truth?!

There's some sort of enormous canyon on Mars, if I remember correctly, that they say was formed quickly by much water rushing through that area. Yet, they look at the Grand Canyon and claim that it was formed over millions of years by the Colorado River. Fact is, that river would have had to flow uphill a few thousand feet to cut into the ridge on either side of the canyon.

The earth layers would have formed as a result of the flood. The different types of soil, clay, sand and such would have settled out into layers. Many animals and people would have been quickly buried which is helpful in fossilization. The animals that could find higher ground would not usually be so deeply buried, which is why you'd find more complex life forms in so called newer strata of rock.

This did not take millions of years, it only took a couple of years. The Grand Canyon likely washed out after the land hardened back up, but not completely, and then as Ice melted off the poles, water once again rose and spilled over natural dams making canyons (including Grand Canyon) in a big hurry.

I know that a lot of people look down on Kent Hovind - and it's true that his method of teaching is a little irritating at times. But if you've ever heard the "Hovind Theory" - I think it makes a lot of sense. It may not be true, but then again, it does seem to explain alot that would otherwise be a little hard to figure out.

http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars

[Jill]

.