Sometimes people ask me to show them some evidence that can only be interpreted to mean that the earth and the universe is about 6000 years old as the biblical chronologies suggest. Well, all evidence can be interpreted from both an old earth/universe perspective or from a young earth/universe perspective. But to make some of that evidence fit into an old universe one may have to make some extreme assumptions.
Nevertheless all evidence must be interpreted within an interpretive framework else we could never understand it. What evidence then is best interpreted with a young earth/universe worldview? That is the question. When we look into it we find that there are some lines of evidence that require additional assumptions to maintain a uniformitarian age of billions of years.
Recently I had the pleasure of spending some time with Dr D. Russell Humphreys as we toured around Israel and taught Messianic (believers in Christ) congregations about Genesis creation which includes all aspects from the creation of the universe to the global flood in Noah’s day. Russ gave a presentation on Evidence for a Young World.
Some of those evidences are:
- Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
- Too few supernova remnants.
- Comets disintegrate too quickly.
- Not enough mud on the sea floor.
- Not enough sodium in the sea.
- The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
- Many strata are too tightly bent.
- Biological material decays too fast.
- Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
- Too much helium in minerals.
- Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
The numbers for the ages listed (often millions of years) in his presentation are maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The ages required by evolutionary theory are often much greater than determined. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (about 6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages.
Related Reading
- D. Russell Humphreys, Evidence for a Young World, icr.org; PDF article.
- D. Russell Humphreys, Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World, icr.org; PDF article.
- Russell Humphreys, Evidence for a Young World, creation.com
- D. Russell Humphreys, Helium Evidence For A Young World Remains Crystal-Clear, trueorigin.org.
Recommended Reading
- Book: Apocalypse Now: On the Revelation of Jesus Christ
- Book: Merchants of Death: Global Oligarchs and Their War On Humanity
Follow me
- Telegram.org: @GideonHartnett
- Facebook: Gideon Hartnett
- X (Twitter): @gideon195203
To be notified by email put your email address in the box at the bottom of your screen. You’ll get an email each time we publish a new article.
Click this image to make a secure Donation (Stripe) !
Bible Science Forum 
5 responses to “Evidence For a Young World”
Dr. Humphreys’ arguments are great. Also see Don Batten’s “101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe“. Scientific evidence ought to make it very hard for anyone (whether atheist or compromised Christian) to hold to an “old-earth” view. Only by cherry-picking the evidence and appealing to sophistry (dark matter, dark energy, inflationary period, soft tissue remaining preserved for millions of years, etc.) can atheists and old-earth creationists uphold their contra-scientific views.
LikeLike
Mitch, although you are technically correct in your conclusion, you have to realize one very important thing. Atheists have already decided that there is no God and only natural processes created everything. That is, they have excluded God before they even look at evidence. In fact, they are so convinced that they are right, there is no evidence that could ever change their minds. You see, once you exclude God and have no choice but to believe that nothing created everything then it’s very easy for them to believe any crazy story of evolutionary origins no matter how fantastic. Their very best evidence that life arose from non-living matter by random chance processes is, now get this, because we are here and therefore it had to have happened at least once in the universe.
LikeLike
I totally agree, magiqueprod—it’s definitely a spiritual problem, where men cannot see the truth because they have a deeply rooted bias against the God of the Bible. God still holds them accountable for knowing that He exists and that they are accountable to him, but they willfully ignore the compelling evidence He has given us (Romans 1:18-32; John 3:19-21) because they love their own sin and despise His holiness and sovereignty. The brightest light in the world will not give sight to one who is truly and totally blind. Likewise, overpowering evidence will not convert the sin-blinded unbeliever. God alone can open the sin-blinded heart (John 3:6-7; 6:44; Eph 2:4-10; Titus 3:3-5).
LikeLike
I thought you yourself had an old blog post admitting a supernova remnant is too ”old”, but if we assumed the rate of expantion was faster in the past, it could fit with a 6000 year old Universe. You are basing the claim in this post on a paper by Keith Davies, who I think presented it at the 1997 International Conference On Creationism. I think CreationWiki admits this claim is out of date in its response to Talk.Origins. A lot of the stuff on Talk.Origins has been debunked on True.Origin and CreationWiki, but I don’t think Talk.Origins’ refutation of Davies’ paper is incorrect. Basically speaking there are actually Stage III SNRs, but if I’m wrong please correct me.
LikeLike
The supernova remnant you mention is claimed to be 3 million years old but based on the measured expansion rate of the cloud and the modelling used. My estimate though puts it within the 6000 years of biblical creation. See discussion on SNR shell GSH 138-01-94 in Supernova remnants and the age of the universe. I am not basing my claims on anything of Keith Davies. I don’t know what Dr Humphreys is using. But certainly a new survey needs to be done.
The real question is not whether there be stage III SNRs but how old those structures are. That is what is important. Also modelling indicates in our own galaxy that there should be a supernova every 25 years, on average, and that means we are 400 years overdue. The last, Kepler’s supernova, exploded in 1604. So where are they all? So it would seem there is still much that is not understood about supernova rates. Instead the approach will be that the old-universe paradigm is assumed to be correct and what is needed to be found is a new type of supernova remnant that is practically invisible, in order to justify the absence of upward of 30,000 SNRs in our galaxy, assuming the standard model is true.
LikeLike