Young Earth Evidence

See Also
How Old is the Earth?

Young Earth Challenge

Is the Earth less than 10,000 years old?

At the core of the creation versus evolution debate is the age of the Earth.  Is it millions of years old as required by Darwinian evolution, or just a few thousand years old as many believe the Bible states?

Old Earth Creationists
Remember the old saying, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

In much the same way the Church once taught the Earth-centered universe, some Christian groups are drawing a similar line in the sand: Either you believe that the Earth is very young as told in the Genesis account, or you don't believe the Bible.  With this firmly ingrained in their minds, how many will be driven away from the Bible as the evidence overwhelmingly mounts that the Earth is very old?  How many more generations are going to be willing to ignore the evidence and believe in a young Earth.  Just as Galileo's time marked the end of belief in the Earth-centered universe, the days of believing in a young Earth are numbered.  Do you really want to tell people that the message of the Bible is tied to this tenuous belief?

When Galileo was being persecuted by the Church for his heretical belief that the Earth rotated around the Sun, he quoted Cardinal Baronius’ statement that the purpose of the Bible was to "teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

Young Earth Creationism is refuted by many fields of science, such as geology, paleontology, molecular biology, dendrochronology, genomics, physical anthropology, astronomy, physics, and archaeology, just to name a few.  Here's a list of some historical events that were happening on the Earth about 6,000 years ago.

Epic's Young Earth Challenge

What is the evidence that dates the Earth's creation to 6000 years ago?
Note, this is not the same as evidence showing it's not billions of
years old.

I'm looking for something that when you run the data, the age comes out to approximately 6,000 years old.

What's the evidence supporting a 6,000-year-old Earth?
After all, it is creation science, and not just creation faith.

Let's say that people didn't interpret the Bible to say the Earth was 6,000 years old.

Question: What physical evidence could a scientist provide to give a
date of 6,000 years for the age of Earth?

Surely, with as many people out there who believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth, someone out there has the answer to this.

Read the Results

Popular Young Earth Claims and their rebuttals

Young Earth proponents claim that there is evidence that the Earth is young.  Can any of these claims stand up to scrutiny?

Radioisotope Dating of Recent Lava Flows Give Really Old Dates
Scientists use radioisotope dating to "prove" that the Earth is old.  But if it can't even date lava whose age we know, how can we trust to date really old lava and rocks? More >>

Earth's Magnetic Field
If we use the current rate of decline and extrapolate back even a million years ago, the field would have been impossible strong.  Therefore, the Earth must be fairly young. More >>

Mt. St. Helens
Does the evidence from the recent eruption of Mt. St. Helens provide evidence for a young earth?

Population Count
Using current population trends to mathematically predict when there were only a few humans shows that the Earth is only a few thousand years. More >>

Helium in the Atmosphere
The current amount of  helium present would have been produced in only a few thousand years, therefore the Earth cannot be over 10,000 years. More >>

Radioactive Decay Rates have changed
The rate of radioactive decay is not constant and was faster when the Earth was young, therefore giving a false indication of old age. More >>

Recession of the Moon
The Moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1½ inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past.  Even if the moon had started in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. More >>

Helium Diffusion
Biotite and Zircon crystals include thorium and uranium.  These create helium as they decay.  The helium then slowly leaks out.  After billions of years the helium should have all leaked out.  Samples taken from the Fenton Hill site dated to 1.5 billion years old, yet it is still there. More >>

Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Moon

• Creation Ministries International: Moon dust and the age of the solar system
• Talk Origins:  Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Moon

Accumulation of metals into the oceans

• http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#ocean

Carbon-14 found in Coal

• http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
• http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

• http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

Other Opinions

Sites supporting a Young Earth

• http://yecs.org
• http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html
• Biblical Genealogies Show a Young Earth
• Evidence for a Young World
• Support for a literal 6-day creation

Sites refuting a Young Earth

• The History of Young Earth Creationism
• Christian Geology
• Why I Believe Genesis is Historically Accurate
• How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments
• A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments
• http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html
• http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/genesis.asp

Miscellaneous

• List of dates of Creation given by various Young Earth groups
• http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs117.html
• http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm
• http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creadate
• http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/matson-v.htm
• http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm
• http://www.crystalinks.com/creationism.html
• http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/youngearth.shtml

Viewer Feedback

2005-11-21 Steve Lansing wrote
Interesting, Factual, Fair and Balanced

Clearly you flat-out reject the idea that the earth is young. In my opinion, you cannot honestly view the evidence and do anything else.

It is not possible for you to build a site that presents some sort of debate between YE and OE believers, because debates require evidence, logic, etc. There is nothing even slightly reasonable about believing the universe is only 6,000 years old. People who believe that can choose to believe that the universe was magically created so that it would appear to be billions of years old, and science certainly cannot contradict them. But they do not want to do that. They want to insist that science somehow supports their conclusions. My favorite is that there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark. Hilarious.

I really like this website. I no longer argue with YECs. I simply direct them here. Why type out and re-phrase the things that are already available here and hundreds of other places?

Why these people can't look this stuff up on their own I do not know. Especially the ones who claim to be scientists.

I apologize. It is not my intention to sick these people on you. I do not recommend getting into debates with them. They will continue to chant the same points about the problems with radiometric dating, etc., no matter what you show them.

2005-11-30 Travis Erickson (FreeThinking Evolutionist (any label of atheist, agnostic, deist, secular humanist, etc. can apply... the question of God is irrelevent to me)) wrote
Interesting, Factual, Fair and Balanced

YEC should be put on the same level as people of the Flat Earth Society. The fact that CNN and other mainstream news sources actually give YECs the time of day and act like this issue is "controversal" is absurd. If they were presenting the idea of whether or not the Earth is flat as a controversial topic they would be viewed as insane, yet they get away with normalizing YEC. I suppose its about political correctness. There is too much political correctness given towards religious quacks. Whenever there is some sort of forum on faith or faith in America, or the state of the church or Christianity or whatever... they always have people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Billy Graham, and other people of their kind as representing a certain point of view. If they were having a discussion on race relations in America and they invited David Duke and Matt Hale to sit on the panel... Jesse Jackson's head would explode. And rightly so.

The article is very accurate, though redundant. As I said, debating YECs is like debating the flat Earth people. But then again, we do need to win this battle. If we don't stand up truth, knowledge, and progress, we might end up back in the Dark Ages.

2005-12-21 Anonymous, Theistic Evolutionist, wrote
So So, I'm not sure of the accuracy

2006-01-06 Gaines R. Johnson, Old Earth Creationist, wrote
Interesting
I just wanted to thank you for including a link to the Christian Geology Ministry website in your sites that refute Young Earth Creationism. Not only is Young Earth Creationism refuted by the scientific data, it is also refuted by the Holy Bible, when rightly-divided. On my website (http://www.christiangeology.com) we examine both the scientific and the Biblical issues and provide some thought provoking insights. I hope you will study some of the other pages.
Thanks

2006-02-12 Anonymous, Atheistic Evolutionist, wrote
Interesting, Factual, Fair and Balanced

2006-02-14 Anonymous, Old Earth Creationist, wrote
Interesting, Factual, Fair and Balanced
Research & Reason
http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/

Introduction to the Creation-Date Debate (Why YECism is Not Biblical)
http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/cr3.html

2006-06-20 Mark Nucera, seeking answers, wrote
Interesting, I'm not sure of the accuracy, Fair and Balanced
 

2006-07-01 Atheistic Evolutionist wrote
So So, Biased to Creation/ID

2006-09-13 Atheistic Evolutionist
How funny. The note at the top says "Intelligent Design - It's Just Evolution in Disquise". I always thought just the opposite. I don't want children being taught Intelligent Design in the public schools because it's the very same thing as creationism. You people who think the world is just 6,000 to 10,000 years old are deluded.

epicidiot reply: Again, that's why I wrote that article.  It amazes me how few ID advocates actually realize that ID is much closer to evolution than it is to Creation.  If they did, they might change their views.  You may want to read the actual article.

2006-11-11 22:36:30 Sarah wearing socks, Atheistic Evolutionist, wrote
So So

2006-11-20 Other Scientist (Physics and Math) wrote
Interesting, Biased to Evolution
Anyone who accepts to be defined as a Young Earth Creationist or an Evolutionist, is clearly biased. The information presented does not clearly show the evidence for a young earth and there is ample evidence. However there is also evidence for an older Earth. The problem is not with either theory, the problem is with man's arrogance and unwillingness to admit that he does not know. Anyone claiming there is no evidene for a young Earth is ignorant, but the same can be said for anyone who claims there is no evidence for an old Earth. Atheists have clearly shown they are zealots of a different kind.

epicidiot reply: While I agree with you there is plenty of "evidence" for a young Earth, I have found none that stands up to scrutiny.  If you know of any, please present.  You may even want to take the Young Earth Challenge.  Simply claiming that such evidence exists is not very convincing and not very scientific for a scientist.  You are obviously an educated person, and as such I would love to discuss with you any Young Earth claims that you think are valid.
 

Add your Comments
Submit a Rebuttal
Submit an Article on another topic