Here are some interesting arguments from a young-earth creationist
(Well, alright - some are old and much less interesting than others). I
would appreciate if those who are more knowledgeable in these areas to
comment on them. Thanks!
Received: from plato.pobox.org.sg (plato.pobox.org.sg [188.8.131.52]) by eve.whitworth.edu (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ateo for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 16:03:35 -0800
Received: from localhost (pobox@localhost)
by plato.post1.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA15612
for email@example.com; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:08:32 +0800 (SGT)
Received: from listserv.okstate.edu (listserv.okstate.edu [184.108.40.206])
by plato.post1.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA15581
for <AdrianTeo@MAILHOST.NET>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:08:29 +0800 (SGT)
Received: from listserv (220.127.116.11) by listserv.okstate.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.742058A0@listserv.okstate.edu>; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:04:46 -0600
Received: from LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU by LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP
release 1.8c) with spool id 1194781 for LABRI-L@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU;
Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:04:45 -0600
Received: from falcon.adelaide.on.net by listserv.okstate.edu (LSMTP for
Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.7146ABC0@listserv.okstate.edu>;
Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:04:41 -0600
Received: from ntserv2.celsiustech.com.au (mail.celsiustech.com.au) by
adelaide.on.net (PMDF V5.1-10 #25974) with ESMTP id
LABRI-L@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:33:05 +0930
Received: by ntserv2.celsiustech.com.au with Internet Mail Service
(5.0.1458.49) id <XBLDNJSL>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:36:28 +1030
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:36:22 +1030
Reply-To: "Friends of L'Abri and the founders Francis and Edith Schaeffer"
Sender: "Friends of L'Abri and the founders Francis and Edith Schaeffer"
From: Andrew Kulikovsky <anku@CELSIUSTECH.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: [LABRI-L] dating methods
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by plato.post1.com id IAA15581
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by plato.post1.com id IAA15612
X-Info: Running interNeTMail v3.02.K
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Teo [SMTP:AdrianTeo@MAILHOST.NET]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 3:43 AM
> To: LABRI-L@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU
> Subject: Re: [LABRI-L] dating methods
> Andrew, I have read through your arguments, and I don't think this
> discussion is going anywhere.
[Andrew Kulikovsky] =20
Yes, I feel like I am constantly repeating myself.
> I had been a supporter of a young-earth
> position once, am familiar with ICR, and names like Morris and Gish
> other antievolutionists. I have gone thorugh their books and their
> arguments to a sufficient degree to come to an intelligent conclusion.
[Andrew Kulikovsky] =20
Adrian, if you familiar with young earth arguments but disagree
with them then please tell me why? By simply telling me you are not
convinced does not aid me or anyone else in understanding the issues.
What problems do you have with young earth arguments? Look at the
following arguments and tell why they are wrong:
Here are a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary
idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers I list
below in bold
print (often millions of years) are maximum possible ages set by each
the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by
theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are
always much less
that the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age
always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus the
are evidence against the evolutionary time-scale and for the biblical
Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for
brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled
old universe only by making a series of improbable and unproven
can fit in only with a young universe. The list starts with distant
phenomena and works its way down to Earth, ending with everyday facts.
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the
galactic centre with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster
outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy
than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of
instead of its present spiral shape.(1)
Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old.
Evolutionists call this 'the winding-up dilemma', which they have known
about for 50
years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one
after a brief period of popularity. The same 'winding-up' dilemma also
For the past few decades the favoured attempt to resolve the
dilemma has been a complex theory called 'density waves'.(1) The theory
conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and
has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's
very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the 'Whirlpool'
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the
same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a
comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it
not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have
maximum ages (on this basis) of 10,000 years.(3)
Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets
come from an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of
Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently
stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable
interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to
the hundreds of comets observed.(4) So far, none of these assumptions
has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.
Lately, there has been much talk of the 'Kuiper Belt', a disc of
supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just
orbit of Pluto.
Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not
really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary
Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and
rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.(5) This material
accumulates as loose sediment (i.e. mud) on the hard basaltic
of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean,
including the continental shelves, is less than 400 metres.(6)
The main way currently known to remove the mud from the ocean floor
is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few
cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According
secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only one
billion tons per year.(6) As far as anyone knows, the other 25 billion
tons per year
simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present
of sediment in less than 12 million years.
Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction
have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three
billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans
massively choked with mud dozens of kilometres deep. An alternative
(creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis
running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a
time about 5000 years ago.
4. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers(7) and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons
of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back
the sea each year.(8,9) As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply
accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it
accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's
output rates.(9) This is much less than the evolutionary age of the
three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past
inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations
which are as
generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age
only 62 million years.(9) Calculations(10) for many other sea water
elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
5. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field has steadily
decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years.(11) Evolutionary
theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could
maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex
inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is
straightforward, based on
sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation,
reversals during the Genesis Flood, surface intensity decreases and
increases until the
time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.(12) This theory matches=20
paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.(13) The main result is that
field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least
as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years
6. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent
and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time-scale
these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of
millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred
cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still
unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding
less than thousands of years after deposition.(15)
7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.
Strong geologic evidence(16) exists that the Cambrian Sawatch
sandstone =97 formed an alleged 500 million years ago =97 of the Ute
Pass Fault west of Colorado Springs was still unsolidified when it was
extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains,
70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not
solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground.
Instead, it is
likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years
greatly shortening the geologic time-scale.=20
8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of colour formed around microscopic bits of
radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of
decay.(17) 'Squashed' Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic,
Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited
months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as
the conventional time-scale.(18) 'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos,
having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant
drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.(19,20)
9. Helium in the wrong places.
All naturally occurring families of radioactive elements generate
helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as
by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the
Earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into
space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the
today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated
five billion years.(21) This means the atmosphere is much younger than
the alleged evolutionary age.
A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that
helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time
to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years
their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of
10. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists say that the Stone Age lasted for at
least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of
Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and
10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with
artefacts.(23) By this
scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies.(24) If
evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last
longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed four billion Stone
skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts).
Yet only a few
thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much
evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.
11. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and
gatherers for 100,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering
less than 10,000 years ago.(23) Yet the archaeological evidence shows
Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that
of the four billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that
grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture
than a few hundred years after the Flood, if at all.(24)
12. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100,000 years
before beginning to make written records about 4,000=965,000 years ago.
Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave
kept records of lunar phases.(25) Why would he wait a thousand centuries
before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time-scale
much more likely.(24)
1.Scheffler, H. and Elsasser, H., Physics of the Galaxy and
Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352=96353,
2.Zaritsky, D., et al, Nature, 22 July, 1993. Sky & Telescope,
December 1993, p. 10. 3.Steidl, P.F., 'Planets, comets, and asteroids',
Design and Origins
in Astronomy, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983),
Williamsport Drive, Norcross, GA 30092, pp. 73=96106.=20
4.Whipple, F.L., 'Background of modern comet theory', Nature 263 (2
September 1976), p. 15.=20
5.Gordeyev, V.V. et al, 'The average chemical composition of
suspensions in the world's rivers and the supply of sediments to the
ocean by streams', Dockl. Akad,
Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980), p. 150.=20
6.Hay, W.W., et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of
sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction', Journal
Research, 93, No. B12 (10 December 1988), pp. 14,933=9614,940.=20
7.Maybeck, M., 'Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs
et apports en solution aux oceans', Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21
(1979), p. 215.=20
8.Sayles, F.L. and Mangelsdorf, P.C., 'Cation-exchange
characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with
seawater', Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979), p. 767.=20
9.Austin, S.A. and Humphreys, D.R., 'The sea's missing salt: a
dilemma for evolutionists', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism,
Vol. II, Creation Science
Fellowship (1990) pp. 17=9631. Address in ref. 12.=20
10.Austin, S.A., 'Evolution: the oceans say no!', ICR Impact, No. 8
(October 1973). Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 2.=20
11.Merrill, R.T. and McElhinney, M.W., The Earth's Magnetic Field,
Academic Press (1983), London, pp. 101=96106.=20
12.Humphreys, D.R., 'Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during
the Genesis flood', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism (Aug. 1986,
Science Fellowship (1987) 362 Ashland Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15228, Vol.
II, pp. 113=96126.=20
13.Coe, R.S., Pr=E9vot, M., and Camps, P., 'New evidence for
extraordinary change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal', Nature
374 (20 April 1995),
14.Humphreys, D.R., 'Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's
magnetic field during the flood', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on
Creationism, Vol. II, Creation
Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 129=96142, address in ref. 12.=20
15.Austin, S.A. and Morris, J.D., 'Tight folds and clastic dikes as
evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick
stratigraphic sequences', Proc.
1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship
(1986), pp. 3=9615,
address in ref. 12.=20
16.ibid, pp. 11=9612.=20
17.Gentry, R.V., 'Radioactive halos', Annual Review of Nuclear Science
23 (1973) pp. 347=96362.=20
18.Gentry, R.V. et. al., 'Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence
relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification', Science 194
(15 October 1976) pp.
19.Gentry, R.V., 'Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological
perspective', Science 184 (5 April 1974), pp. 62=9666.=20
20.Gentry, R.V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates
(1986), P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912=960067, pp. 23=9637, 51=9659,
21.Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: a study of the
helium flux through the atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research
(1990), P.O. Box 2667,
El Cajon, CA 92021.=20
22.Gentry, R.V. et al, 'Differential helium retention in zircons:
implications for nuclear waste management', Geophys. Res. Lett. 9,
(October 1982), 1129=961130. See
also ref. 20, pp. 169=96170.=20
23.Deevey, E.S., 'The human population', Scientific American 203
(September 1960), pp. 194=96204.=20
24.Marshak, A., 'Exploring the mind of Ice Age man', National
Geographic 147 (January 1975), pp. 64=9689.=20
25.Dritt, J.O., 'Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the
evolutionary timetable', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol.
I., Creation Science
Fellowship (1990), pp. 73=9678, address in ref. 12.=20
For information on obtaining a copy of the sources quoted above please
contact Answers in Genesis or Creation Science Foundation.
Author: Dr. Russell Humphreys, Creation Ex Nihilo 13(3):28-31,
> Now, will you also apply the same standards to yourself and tell us
> you have actually read works by old-earth supporters directly from the
> primary sources, instead from the filtered lenses of young-earthers?=20
[Andrew Kulikovsky] =20
Well as I said in a previous post I am currently reading
Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", and I have read a number of Hugh
Ross's articles on the subject and I have looked at several exegetical
commentaries on Genesis that support an old earth. I am willing to read
anything you think presents a convincing argument and I am willing to
constantly do so as new evidence comes to light.
> seem to keep coming to the same criticisms, even after I have
[Andrew Kulikovsky] =20
What have you addressed Adrian? The only argument you have
presented is that "hundreds of studies can't be wrong!" - but we all
know that hundreds of studies can be wrong - don't you agree? As I said
before, numbers are not an indication of truth...
I recently outlined the basic problems/assumptions in dating
methods at your request, yet you never addressed any of them!
> Appeals to authority are not very convincing - you need to show
> evidence is you want to make a strong case. You have made assertions
> that scientists are close-minded, driven by their presuppositions,
> studies disagreeiung with the dates are not published etc... but you
> have yet to show any evidence to back these up.
[Andrew Kulikovsky] =20
How about the following (this is all I could get hold of at this
instant - but there is much more data available):
Embarrassment From Young Dates:
In any case, even the incorrect uniform model has given, in many cases,
serious embarrassment to the evolutionist by giving ages which are
much younger than those he expects in terms of his model of earth
history. Consider this: if a specimen is older than 50,000 years, it has
calculated that it would have such a small amount of C14 that for
it would show an infinite radiocarbon age. So it was expected that most
deposits such as coal, gas, etc. would be undatable by this method. In
thousands of dates in the journals Radiocarbon and Science to 1968, only
handful were classed "undatable" - most were of the sort which should
in this category. This is especially remarkable with samples of coal and
gas supposedly produced in the Carboniferous period 300 million years
Some examples of dates which contradict orthodox (evolutionary)
Coal from Russia from the "Pennsylvanian," supposedly 300
million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8,
Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and
Eocene, respectively) should have been 50 million to 135 million years
old, yet C14 gave dates of 30,000 to 34,000 years, respectively.
(Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966. Many of the earlier radiocarbon dates on
such as coal and gas, which should be undatable, have been attributed
to contamination from, for example, workers' fingerprints,
creationist researchers are currently working on the construction of an
apparatus, using existing technology, to look for very low levels of C14
activity in, for example, coal after excluding contamination. Such
activity would not be expected on the basis of old earth theory, and so
is not looked for at present.)
Bones of a sabre-toothed tiger from the LaBrea tar pits (near
Los Angeles), supposedly 100,000-one million years old, gave a
date of 28,000 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 10, 1968)
Other C14 "Clangers":
In addition to the above effects, which are more or less
systematic, there are other possible sources of error in C14 dating. In
the light of all
this, it would be foolhardy indeed to insist that a C14 date represents
truth, especially if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture.
examples of C14 results:
A freshly killed seal dated by C14 showed it had died 1300
years ago. (Antarctic Journal, vol. 6, [September-October 1971], p.
Living mollusk shells were dated at up to 2,300 years old. (Science,
141, 1963, pp. 634-637.)
Living snails' shells showed they had died 27,000 years ago.
(Science, vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61.)
We hasten to add that one can usually retrospectively find out the
for these sorts of anomalous results, for example, the C14 activity in
carbonates in the water, etc. But when testing a sample of unknown age
from a largely
unknown environment at the time of its death, how can we exclude similar
A quotation from a respected anthropological journal highlights the
nature of the problem:=20
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep
and serious ... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of
the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half
to be accepted." (Lee, R. E., Radiocarbon, "Ages in Error",
Anthropological Journal of Canada, 1981, vol. 19, No. 3, p. 9)
> As a psychologist, I am
> intrigued by the fact that people will often make generalizations
> others and assume that those same rules do not apply to them.=20
[Andrew Kulikovsky] =20
As a philosopher and theologian I am always intrigued by the
fact that people will hold to beliefs that are either shown to be false
or shown to be highly unlikely according to current data, simply because
it doesn't fit their presuppositions.
> Do you
> grant the possibility that you too may be close-minded to some extent,
> driven by your own presuppositions and biases? Or do those rules only
> apply to scientists and not to philosophers and theologians? ;-)
[Andrew Kulikovsky] =20
I don't think I am closed-minded but I am certainly driven by my
presuppositions - as we all are.
Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS
Module 6, Endeavour House,Technology Park,
The Levels, S.A. 5095
Phone : +61 8 8343 3837 (Direct)
Fax : +61 8 8343 3778
Email : firstname.lastname@example.org
"There's no gene for the human spirit."=20
The leading newspapers in Singapore
Check it out at http://www.asia1.com.sg/