EXAMINATION OF PROOFS OF A YOUNG EARTH SUBMITTED BY OUR READERS
Author: Unknown
Date: 0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

INDICATORS THAT THE EARTH IS YOUNG, WITH REBUTTALS

INDICATORS FROM EARTH OBSERVATIONS

Click Here to Visit our Sponsors.

&lt;SCRIPT&gt; document.writeln("&lt;script language='JavaScript1.1' SRC='http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/beliefnet.tolerance/;abr=!ie;pos=top;sz=468x60;tile=1;ord=" + ord + "?'&gt;&lt;\/script&gt;"); &lt;/script&gt; &lt;NOSCRIPT&gt; &lt;a HREF='http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/beliefnet.tolerance/;abr=!ie;pos=top;sz=468x60;tile=1;ord=7055475?'&gt;&lt;IMG SRC='http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/beliefnet.tolerance/;abr=!ie;pos=top;sz=468x60;tile=1;ord=7055475?' border=0 height='60' width='468'&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/NOSCRIPT&gt;

Thirteen indicators of a young earth included in this essay are:

| Second law of thermodynamics
| Mineral halos
| Radiometric dating I
| Radiometric dating II
| Radiometric dating III
| Radiometric dating IV
| Radiometric dating V
| Pressure on oil deposits
| Presence of oil
| Shape of the earth
| Sedimentary rock on Mt. St. Helens
| Earth's magnetic field
| Earth's rotational speed

Indicator 1: Second law of thermodynamics: Henry Morris wrote: "All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system. This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics." 1 Evolution teaches the opposite: that entropy decreases and complexity and order increases. Evolution is impossible because it violates the universally accepted second law of thermodynamics.

Rebuttal: Creation Scientists often do not quote the full text of the Second Law. In fact, Morris' conclusion is incorrect. All processes do not exhibit a tendency towards decay and disintegration. It is only the overall entropy of a closed system which decreases. "This means that some parts of a system may indeed become more orderly and complex so long as this increase in order is balanced by an equal or greater decrease in order elsewhere. This, of course, is exactly what living things do -- as they grow and evolve they use enormous amounts of energy (usually in the form of food), producing a thermodynamic balance in the system as a whole. The second law no more forbids evolution than it forbits a tiny seed from growing into a larger, more complex tree. Both processes require energy to proceed, and both are in perfect accordance with the laws of thermodynamics." 2 There are many examples on earth in which entropy decreases and order increases:

| The formation of snowflakes.
| Formation of salt crystals.
| Seeds becoming plants.
| Eggs becoming Chickens.

Evolution of species of life is one more example. Evolution on earth was/is made possible by the rise in entropy in the sun. Talk.Origins has a full treatment of this topic online. 3

Indicator 2: Mineral halos: Dr. Gentry discovered in the late 1970's countless halos found in biotite and flourite, which are minerals found within some granites. These "are beautiful microspheres of coloration produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium." 4 P0 214 has a half life of about of 3 minutes. The "Polonium Halos" web site explains these halos by analogy: "A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared with an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radioactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved." Geologists, who are not creation scientists, believe that these structures took millions of years to crystallize. The existence of the halos thus is convincing evidence that the granite rocks (and the rest of the world) were created instantaneously - a type of flash freezing.

Rebuttal: A number of alternate explanations have been suggested. All are consistent with an earth that cooled down over millions of years, and subjected to hundreds of millions of hears of weathering, - not created during the course of a Genesis day: Some have suggested: 5

| the halos were created by fluids that carried Polonium into the crystals
| the halos were created from Po ions in fluids released during the weathering of uranium-bearing minerals
| the halos were caused by diffusion of beta-emitting lead isotopes
| the halos were formed by uranium, not polonium.

All of these explanations have been met with counter arguments by Gentry. However, L.G. Collins noted that Po halos only occur in granite rock which contains myrmekite. This indicates that the granite did not form from the gradual cooling of magma. It formed by subsequent, long-term replacement of the solid rocks through cataclasis and recyrstallization. This provided openings for the introduction of uranium-bearing fluids. Radon associated with the uranium "nucleate in the rapidly growing biotite (and flourite) crystals whence they are positioned to produce the Po halos."

Indicator 3: Radiometric dating I: This technique gives meaningless results. Scientists who measure the age of rocks generally ask in advance what the age of the rocks is expected to be. They then tweak the measuring process to give the anticipated results. Measurements are not scientific; they are self-fulfilled prophecy.

Rebuttal: This is a misunderstanding of the process of radiometric dating. It is true that the scientist who measures the sample will often ask the probable age of the rock supplied. But this is done in order to maximize the accuracy of the measurement.  Some techniques give most accurate results for 2 million year old rocks; others give best accuracy for 3 billion year old rocks.

Indicator 4: Radiometric dating II: It is hopelessly inaccurate. During the worldwide flood of Noah, there were massive pressures on the earth's rocks which caused major changes to their isotope content. Since uranium-lead, potassium-Argon and similar radiometric dating methods rely on the content of isotopes in the rock samples, they will give totally erroneous results.

Rebuttal: Water pressure may cause unusual accumulation of an isotope or may cause some degree of leaching of an isotope away from the sample. This is why multiple samples are used in critical age determinations. But these are relatively small effects -- not something that would increase the apparent age of a rock from 10,000 years to 3.6 billion years as in the case of samples "from outcrops in southwestern Minnesota are believed to represent some of the oldest rocks in North America." 6 Incidentally, external pressure has no effect on the processes of radioactive decay.

Indicator 5: Radiometric dating III: Many creation scientists state that carbon dating and potassium argon dating methods are faulty. A sample of lava from Hawaii that was know to be less than 200 years of age tested between 160 million and 3 billion years of age.

Rebuttal: The testing was done properly. The readings were accurate measurements of inclusions of OLD rock in the NEW lava flows.

Indicator 6: Radiometric dating IV: "A slab of stone from the bottom of the Grand Canyon and one from the top were dated radiometricly. The one on the bottom was millions of years younger than the one on the top. This proves that radiometric dating is inaccurate and should not be relied upon."

Rebuttal: One wonders whether the "slab of stone" from the bottom of the canyon might have simply fallen from the top within the last few centuries? But let's assume that the rock was properly selected. Suppose that the bottom stone's age was determined to be 2,000 million years old and the top stone was 2,003 million years old. Results from any measurement contain a degree of error. Suppose that radiometric analysis of this type of stone is typically accurate within 2%. That means that the age of the bottom stone was probably between 1,960 and 2,040 million years, and that of the top stone was between 1963 and 2043 million. The bottom stone could in fact be almost 80 million years older than the top stone, and still give the results cited.

In this particular case, the radiometric measurement was made on whole rocks. No scientist would normally do this, because a whole rock will typically contain various crystals from different environments with different histories and ages. Thus, the data is almost meaningless.

Indicator 7:  Radiometric dating V: Radiometric dating of brand new rock from Mt. St. Helens revealed an age of billions of years. This also proves that radiometric dating cannot be relied upon.

Rebuttal: Before St. Helens blew its stack, the top of the mountain was solid rock, probably billions of years old. After the explosion, some of the top of the mountain became pumice; some became small rock particles, pebbles, rocks and boulders. The age of the rock did not change because of the explosion. Chopping a 2 billion year old piece of rock in two pieces produces two pieces of rock, both 2 billions of years old.

Indicator 8: Pressure of oil deposits: M.A. Cook claimed in his book "Prehistory and Earth Models" that if underground oil was as old as geologists claim that its pressure would have dissipated long ago. The fact that oil is found under pressure indicates that it is 10,000 years or less old. Presumably all of the natural gas would have escaped as well if the earth was old.

Rebuttal: Gas and oil accumulate gradually, as pressure and heat work on organic matter over long periods of time. If the rocks holding in the reservoirs of gas and oil were as leaky as creation scientists indicate, then this pressure never would have built up in the first place.

Indicator 9: Presence of oil: "They say it takes millions of year to make oil but scientists did it in a lab in 20 minutes."

Rebuttal: Under normal conditions (those found in nature) it does take a long time for oil to develop. But under ideal conditions (temperature, pressure, catalysts, etc.) it can be almost instantaneous.

It is useful to remember that oil is formed from plant life that is laid down in sedimentary layers. But by the time that it is found, it has typically migrated considerable distances through rock of varying porosities. Such migration typically takes millions of years to accomplish. So, the existence of underground oil is a good indicator of an old earth.

Indicator 10: Earth's shape: The increase of the earth's equatorial bulge would have flattened it out into a spinning pancake if it were really 5 billion years old.

Rebuttal: The shape of the earth (or of any planet or moon) is the result of two opposing factors:

Force of Gravity: The earth behaves as a highly viscous fluid. Over a long enough time period, "it will flow to relieve shear stresses and to bring normal stress to the hydrostatic state (the case where all normal stresses are equal). In this state, pressure is only a function of depth. Since pressure is the product of gravitational acceleration times the mass of overlaying material, this implies that the planet adopts a spherical shape...Thus, solely under the influence of gravity, we would expect any large planet to flow and eventually adopt a spherical figure." 7

Centrifugal effects: Since the earth rotates on its axis, the centrifugal effect pushes the equator outwards, and flattens the polar regions.

The gravitational force is enormously greater than the centrifugal force, so the earth's shape is almost a perfect sphere. The equatorial diameter is about 12,756 km (7,900 miles). The "polar diameter was calculated as about 26.5 miles shorter than the equatorial diameter." 8 The force of gravity is essentially constant. It is a function of the mass of the earth which is increasing only very slowly as a result of impacts of meteorites and space dust accretion. The centrifugal force is decreasing with time as the earth's rotation slows. Both effects will work towards a gradual decrease in the equatorial bulging with time. The earth is becoming closer to a perfect sphere.

Measurements of equatorial radius gave 6,378.140 km in 1976, 6,378.137 km in 1980 and 6,378.136 km in 1983. 9 This seems to indicate that the bulge is decreasing with time. However, the decrease is probably not statistically valid; it is probably due to random measuring errors.

Indicator 11: Mt. St. Helen's: Evolutionists say that it takes millions of years to form a thick layer of sedimentary rock. But when Mount St. Helen’s erupted in 1980, a few hundred feet of sediment was laid down in a few days. These layers are seen stratified into many layers, just as sedimentary rock appears. This does not prove that the earth is young. However, it does show that layers of rock can form in days rather than millions of years.

Rebuttal: It is true that the ash from St. Helen's did form a deposit within a few days that was a few hundred feet thick in places. But it was a deposit of fine ash, of pumice. Any geologist can differentiate between layers of pumice and actual sedimentary rock -- i.e. sandstone or limestone. Their textures and colors are entirely different.

Indicator 12: Earth's magnetic field: The earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate. 20,000 years ago, it would have bee impossibly high. Thus the earth is less than 20,000 years old.

Rebuttal: In 1967, Keith McDonald and Robert Gunst collected a series of about two dozen measurements that scientists had made of the earth's magnetic field. In 1971, Barnes fitted them to an exponentially decaying function, producing the above results. There are a number of errors in Barnes' conclusions. Perhaps the most serious two are:

The field does not decay at an exponential rate; it fluctuates widely: The measurements that he used were taken over too short a period of time. "...archaeomagnetic data show that the dipole field was about 20% weaker than the present field 6,500 years ago and about 45% stronger than the present field about 3000 years ago." 1_0

The earth's magnetic field is not in a constant direction; it continually reverses itself. This has been detected in the form of zebra-like magnetic stripes in the rocks of the floor of the Pacific Ocean which alternately change polarity on each side of a spreading fault. Hundreds of reversals have occurred over the past 180 million years.

Indicator 13: Earth's rotational speed: The speed with which the earth rotates on its axis is slowing. Each day, the time taken for the earth to rotate on it axis is slowing down by about 1.5 milliseconds. This may not seem like much. But it amounts to over six seconds per decade. Astronomers must insert leap seconds many times each decade to compensate for this slowing. If the earth's rate of deceleration has been constant throughout the life of the earth, then its rotational speed would have been very high 4.5 billion years ago. A day would be have been only a few seconds long. This high rotational speed would have long ago flattened into the shape of a pancake. 11 That clearly did not happen, so the age of the earth must be a very small fraction of 4.5 billion years.

Rebuttal: In spite of the many web sites that show the error in this reasoning, many creation science promoters still offer this argument. Their basic belief is wrong: the time taken for the earth to rotate on its axis is slowing down by only about 1.5 milliseconds per century -- not per day.

The Moon raises tides in the ocean. This generates friction between the sea and the earth, diminishing the earth's speed of rotation. "This effect causes a slowing of the Earth's rotational speed resulting in a lengthening of the day by about 0.0015 to 0.0020 seconds per day per century." 12 The insertion of a leap second in most years is not directly related to this deceleration. In fact, if the earth stopped decelerating and achieved a constant speed, there would still be a need to insert leap seconds in most years. The need for leap seconds is caused by our basic definition of time, which is currently derived from atomic clocks. The second has been defined to match the day as it was in the year 1900. Over a century has passed since that time. During that century, each day has lengthened by about 1.8 milliseconds. So, over a year, the difference between an atomic clock and the earth is about 365 x 0.18 = 657 milliseconds, or 0.66 seconds. Thus the need for the leap second in most years. A century from now, the accumulated error will be over a second each year, requiring two leap seconds in some years.

We attempted to dialog with 15 creation science web sites which are in error on this matter. Even though we were able to prove that they were in error, only one webmaster acknowledged that they were wrong. And they decided to retain the error because their essay was part of their archive, so accuracy did not matter.

Related essays on this web site:

| Indicators that evolution never happened (with rebuttals)
| Indicators of an old earth (with rebuttals)
| Attempts to dialog with creation scientist webmasters

References:

1. Henry Morris, "The remarkable birth of planet earth," Page 14. Out of print. Read reviews or try to get a used copy safely from Amazon.com online book store

2. K.R. Miller, "Finding Darwin's God,"  Cliff Street Books, (1999). Page 300. Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store

3. Frank Steiger, "The second law of thermodynamics, evolution and probability," Talk.Origins Archive at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

4. "Polonium Halos: Evidence for earth's instant creation?" at: http://www.halos.com/

5. L.G. Collins, "Polonium halos and myrmekite in pegmatite and granite" at: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm

6. The "Creation 'Science' Debunked" Home Page is at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

7. "Gravity and the Shape of the Earth," at: http://wwwcatsic.ucsc.edu/~eart110c/Lectures/lecture12.html

8. Integrated Technology Education Learning Center of Jupiter Middle School, Jupiter, FL at: http://www.comp-acc.com/~techteam/students/lasargen.htm

9. "Earth: Geodetic and Geophysical Data" at: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/phys_props_earth.html

10. "Young earth 'proof," at: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html

11. "Evidence for a young earth," at: http://genesis.amen.net/earth.html

12. "Earth Rotation," at: http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen5090/earth_rotation.html

Copyright © 1996 to 2002 incl. by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Last updated: 2002-MAY-29
Author: B.A. Robinson

Go to the previous page, or to the Indicators of a young earth menu, or choose: