What evidence support the YEC hypothesis over the mainstream science?

This thread is for YECs to present their physical empirical evidence supporting a literal 6000 year old Earth, a literal Noah’s Flood 4500 years ago, and a literal Noah’s Ark story.

Please, no “the Bible says” or Ussher calculations . Please provide the scientific physical evidence which established an actual maximum numerical age for the Earth, with error ranges.

Don’t just claim all of modern science is wrong - demonstrate what you say is correct.

1 Like

although I dont necessarily believe in a young earth i do have several points about that topic that i remember from yecs:

  1. human population growth: according to evolution human population pass the 1 billion limit only in the last hundreds years (from the last 2-3 my years). but its seems to fit well with few thousands years:

[​IMG]

(image from [Human overpopulation - Wikipedia](

  1. DNA from an old fossil. according to the scientific data DNA should not survive for more then about 10,000 years under an average temp (10-20c)(/291781657_Biomolecules_in_fossil_remains (table1). so according to the scientific data we can predict that we will not find an old fossil (20my old) with DNA. but surprisingly we actually found such a fossil:

DNA sequences from Miocene fossils: an ndhF sequence of Magnolia latahensis (Magnoliaceae) and an rbcL sequence of Persea pseudocarolinensis (Lauraceae)

the main objection to this finding is the claim about contamination. but not in this specific case:

“The possibility of contamination is extremely low because no PCR products were detected in any negative controls, and the laboratory at Washington State University in which DNA of M. latahensis was extracted, amplified, and sequenced never possessed samples of the four extant species of Magnolia that share an ndhF sequence with M. latahensis .”

  1. stalactite length. the average stalactite growth rate is about 1 cm per 100 years. so if the earth is indeed so young we expect to find that most stalactites (dont be confuse with stalagmites) should be no more then 50-100cm long. i think that this is indeed what we find in most stalactites caves.

the main objection to this claim is that those stalactites may fall apart every several thousands years. but if it was true then the floor should be full of stalactites chunks (about 100 stalactites in the floor for every single stalactite above in a 1my old cave). i dont think that we see that.

  1. radiometric dating can be wrong up to 100,000% from the real age. for instance: a living snail was date to about 27,000 years by c14:

Major carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern nevada springs. - PubMed - NCBI

rhenium-osmium dating can be wrong up to billion fold from the real age under some conditions and so on.

i do think that we might explain these points above under old earth scenario. this is why im not sure that they are necessarily correct.

Your whole comment, aside from the first and last sentence, was copied and pasted (poorly) almost verbatim from this 2.5 year old forum post:

Why did you try to make it seem as though these were your own words, even adding the sentence at the start about how these 4 points are ones you “remember”?

5 Likes

What do you mean you “don’t necessarily”? Have you not been espousing old earth, young life creationism? Was that all a sham? Do you have any actual opinions?

dont you think it might be me?:wink:

that means what it means

I suppose so, I didn’t realise you were a religious Jew though.

As usual, you refuse to engage in a real discussion of anything, including your own beliefs.

ok, but just for the fun. lets discuss about the stalactite length if you wnat (this is actually an original claim of mine). i was thinking about something related to the ice age. but maybe im wrong about that.

im not sure that im so religious.

In the forum post this 1996 paper is linked to support this claim: Observation of Bound-State β−Decay of Fully Ionized 187Re: 187Re−187Os Cosmochronometry

The take-home message of the paper: fully ionised 187Re has a half life of 32.9 years rather than “normal” 187Re’s half life of 42 billion years.

First, you do realise that this is all about cosmochonometry rather than geochronology, right? Re-Os dating is used in some geochronology, but the subject of this paper, regarding highly accelerated ß-decay is really limited to stars, as it requires stellar temperatures in excess of 10 million kelvin to fully ionise 187Re.

Second, let’s be clear: this discovery wasn’t surprising to physicists. The paper’s authors explicitly set out to confirm theoretical predictions of much faster 187Re ß-decay, for example those of Yokoi et al. (1983).

What Yokoi et al. did was to predict that the ß-decay of 187Re would be 9 orders of magnitude faster in the superheated plasma of stars, estimating a half-life of about 76 years. Using this number, not the “traditional” 42 billion years half life, Yokoi et al. employed a stellar evolution model that calculated the age of our galaxy to be between 11 and 15 billion years old. They even said:

”At the present state of the art, the only reasonable conclusion which can emerge from out study is that the 187Re-187Os pair allows TG to lie in the approximate range 11<TG<G yr in agreement without adopted chemical evolution model. This coherence appears to be obtained more easily (and most likely only if) the stellar enhancements of the 187Re-187Os ß-transmutation rates are taken into account.

In other words, this sped up radiometric decay rate actually supports the specific old age of our galaxy, and without it, the model would be harder or impossible to make viable. All this was calculated 13 years before Bosch et al. came along and experimentally demonstrated this faster decay rate in the lab.

Far from casting doubt on the validity of radiometric dating or the old age of our universe, this accelerated decay actually confirmed it.

6 Likes

I only meant it in the sense of following Judaism as opposed to simply being an ethnic jew.

Hebsgaard et al. (2005) disagree:

In 1990, Golenberg et al. [12] claimed to have obtained cpDNA sequences from a 17–20 Myr old Magnolia leaf preserved in waterlogged clay deposits. The claim is exceptional in several aspects. The amplification product obtained was 820 bp, although fossil remains preserved under non-frozen conditions will generally only allow for amplification products of <500 bp in size [6]. The fossil had been in direct contact with water, facilitating fragmentation of the DNA molecule by hydrolytic damage (Box 1, Figure 1a). It has been predicted that at 15°C and neutral pH, fully hydrated DNA will be completely depurinated into fragments <800 bp in ∼5 Kyr [1]. The Magnolia experiment was conducted in a laboratory used for amplification of DNA from contemporary plants, thereby facilitating contamination by product carryover. Later attempts to obtain cpDNA sequences from similar 17–20 Myr clay-deposited fossils of Taxodium, Magnolia and Persea have produced conflicting results. Some authors report that only prokaryotic sequences of unknown age can be obtained [51], whereas others, including a recent study, report the retrieval of authentic plant cpDNA in the 700–1500 bp size range 13, 29. However, this work was not conducted in dedicated clean laboratory facilities, nor was it cloned, or confirmed by independent reproduction of results. Although the cpDNA sequences published from the 17–20 Myr plant fossils pass a molecular-distance rate test they do not pass the more rigorous relative rates test (Table 1). Overall, the evidence strongly suggests involvement of contamination (probably PCR related).

I don’t especially wnat. But

  1. What part of “average” is unclear to you? Is it possible that the average growth rate is not the rate of all stalactites? Is it possible that stalactites only grow under a narrow set of conditions (a wet but not submerged cave)?

  2. What makes you think that stalactites are as old as the earth?

This is the argument on which you want to rest your claims about geology?

OK, now one for me: how can you reconcile your statement that you don’t necessarily support a young earth with your statement that you believe in an old earth?

Once you try that, we can get into what makes you think that all radiometric dates are due to contamination.

of course. but if its the average it should fit with most stalactites.

who said that?

im not sure what do you mean by that. i actually was born jewish.

You did. I see you don’t even really want to talk about the stalactites.

I assumed you were born Jewish (AKA ethnically Jewish) since you’re Israeli. That doesn’t necessarily mean you practice Judaism though. That’s why I said “religious Jew” to indicate that I was referring to you following Judaism. Not that complicated.

The average of 0 and 10 is 5. The 5 doesn’t fit with either.

Sometimes I just shake my head.

In the YEC flood model world, in the compass of time from Noah’s flood [old kingdom Egypt], sea life or algae blooms had to produce limestone deposits up to kilometers deep, those deposits then geologically crucibled to limestone, that subterranean limestone then up heaved to land, the now terrestrial and dried limestone subject to erosion to form the cave network, and the now eroded cave to be adorned with stalactites and stalagmites. Somehow, this is supposed to be an argument for a young earth???

2 Likes

Thanks for C&Ping the usual “science is ALL WRONG!” fluff from the usual YEC pseudoscience web sites but they don’t answer the question. The request was to provide positive evidence which establishes a numerical value for the age of the Earth, with error ranges.

The human population doesn’t establish an age for the Earth.

Stalactite length doesn’t establish an age for the Earth.

DNA survival time doesn’t establish an age for the Earth.

Claiming radiometric dating is wrong doesn’t establish an age for the Earth.

Feel free to try again. :slight_smile:

1 Like

OK, I had some fun with this. Let us assume YEC.

A pair of rabbits gets off the ark, hops around, and set about replenishing. One year later, as is the way with rabbits, the little family has grown to a hundred. You can use 2e^100 per year (4500 years) to bring us up to the current rabbit population. The population of rabbits overflows my calculator, but the earth would have long collapsed into a rabbit singularity in a super massive black hole. This is a clue that the whole population idea may be a bit more subtle than the YEC argument. Rabbit singularities are not observed in space because one, we have foxes, two, there are a limited supply of tulip bulbs, and three, we do not fully understand what happens to information thrown in black holes. So populations have carrying capacities. The reason for the increase in human population relates to agriculture, medicine, and other facilitating factors. Books on population ecology could fill an entire isle in a library, had our YEC advocate have just read even one, just one, we would not have had this discussion.

2 Likes

E. coil can divide every 20 minutes. At that rate, it would take less than 48 hours for a single E.coli cell to divide into a population that weighs more than the entire planet Earth. We don’t see that, so I guess that’s proof that life is less than 2 days old.

6 Likes