Keywords: creationism, developmental models, scientific criticism, creation science, evolution
ABSTRACT AND INTRODUCTION
Creation science ministry Answers in Genesis currently hosts on its home site a list of six pieces of robust evidence that they claim demonstrates a "young" age of the Earth (young being defined as approx. between 6kyo-10kyo). These examples are: detection of intrinsic radiocarbon in diamond samples; the uniform rate of lunar recession from the earth; the decay of the earth's magnetic field; recovery of soft tissue samples from dinosaurian specimens too old to accommodate them; the measured growth of the human population throughout history; and the presence of tightly folded rock strata within the layers of the Earth's crust. (Answers in Genesis, n.d.) Here, these prominent and often repeated examples of proof that the Earth is young will be examined in an effort to demonstrate that, despite being go-to arguments, they offer no real demonstrable evidence for the point they claim to prove, and have already been thoroughly refuted.
1. DETECTION OF INTRINSIC RADIOCARBON IN DIAMOND SAMPLES
According to Answers in Genesis, this piece of evidence "...actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth." (Answers in Genesis, n.d.) The argument goes that radioactive carbon-14 cannot be detected after 50,000 years, due to it possessing a half-life of approx. 5,730 years. (Eds. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2022) Thus, if intrinsic, significantly readable radiocarbon can be isolated and identified in something that is older than 50kyo (like diamonds, which conventional geology proposes are no younger than 900my), then it could be reliably suggested that the conventional usage of those dating methods may be in error, given the presence of an isotope that should not be present. This leads to the line of argument that, since radiocarbon could not exist in something that was any older than 50kyo, then diamonds cannot actually be millions or billions of years old due to the presence of active intrinsic radiocarbon.
Answers in Genesis cites diamond samples analyzed by the Institute for Creation Research's RATE Project, which (among other claims) is responsible for the alleged discovery of intrinsic radiocarbon within ten diamond samples: one tested by RATE themselves, and another nine tested by the University of California - along with an additional sample of Precambrian graphite. (Snelling, 2007) However, despite the claims made, "significant detectable levels of radiocarbon" were not detected in these diamonds. All samples analyzed by RATE and the University of California gave back data that is consistent with shallow and extrinsic contamination radiocarbon and not significantly detectable intrinsic volumes. The dates derived via these samples also reflect very shallow levels of detectable radiocarbon, falling far past the 50kyo mark and falling into 60kyo-100kyo, which is to be expected when contamination is dated instead of that which is intrinsic to the sample. As all samples dated via radio-isotopes must factor in reliable volumes of extrinsic contamination, it may not come as a shock to the reader to learn that other researchers have noted that the samples presented by RATE, ICR and AiG all match expected contamination levels perfectly. (Professor Stick, 2017) (Bertsche, 2008) While responses have been offered by Answers in Genesis to attempt to explain away this data, they have been found not only wanting, but consistent with similar failures of the RATE project when it comes to scientific methodology. (Footnote 1) (Kuban, 2019)
2. THE UNIFORM RATE OF LUNAR RECESSION FROM THE EARTH
This is one of the more popular positions in this list. An often repeated claim throughout young earth creationist circles is that the rate of the Moon's recession from the Earth places a limiting factor on the age of the Earth-Moon system. The argument goes along the lines that the Moon is receding from the Earth in minute distances every year (around 3.8cm per annum) due to the planetary tidal bulge caused by the Earth's oceans. (Answers in Genesis, n.d.) If you turn the clocks back to the distant past using the currently measurable rates of recession, then you find that only 1.2bya-1.3bya, the Moon would have been touching the surface of the planet. Therefore, the Moon cannot be older than 1.2byo, and thus neither could the Earth, invalidating both the conventional explanation of the Moon's formation as well as the current dating models of the Moon and Earth, all in one move.
While logically sound in its construction, the problem with this argument arises in the data, as it assumes the contemporarily measured rate of lunar recession to be uniformitarian into the past, which it is not. As just stated, the Moon's rate of recession is tied to both the consistency and makeup of the Earth's oceans, as well as the Earth's rate of rotation. By utilizing multiple lines of evidence gathered from the geological record, we are capable of determining the makeup of the Earth's oceans, the rate of the Earth's rotation, and even the length of days and nights in the ancient past. (Hadfield, 2012) (Isaak, 2004) (Matson, 2002) (Thompson, 1999) When all the data is accounted for, it indicates that the Moon would not have been skimming the surface of the Earth 1.2bya, but would only have been about 10% closer to the planet than it is today as far back as 2.5bya. Assuming the Earth and Moon have always existed in their current state (which they have not) and extending that same rate of recession back into time is not justified or accurate. For example, from 2.5bya up until 620mya, the Moon's recession was 1.24cm per annum as opposed to today's 3.8cm. (Matson, 2002) (Thompson, 1999) Thus the only reason to assume a uniform past-rate of recession is to try to cram the Earth-Moon system in to a young-age framework assuming uniformitarian rates, and is not a limiting factor that is self-evident in nature (much less, a valid contradiction to conventionally held ages).
3. THE DECAY OF THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD
Another popular young earth creationist talking point is that the Earth's magnetic field is in a state of rapid decay, and (similar to the uniformitarian model forced upon the Earth-Moon system just discussed) assuming the rate of decay is constant going backward into the past, then models of explanation must be proposed to explain this rapid decay. This is where Answers in Genesis and their advocates make a shocking departure from convention and flat out reject dynamo theory (the established model by which planets and celestial bodies generate magnetic fields via convection) and propose a completely different model based in speculative catastrophism. (Answers in Genesis, n.d.) (Humphreys, 1990) (Wikipedia, 2022)
The first issue to be addressed in this discussion is the alleged uniform and rapid decay of the Earth's magnetic field, in that it is simply not occurring. The magnetic field decays and strengthens intermittently, which creationist models ignore and do not account for when analyzing the present data. (Mellem, 2005) There is no observation in nature that would reliably lead to the conclusion that the Earth's magnetic field possesses a uniform decay rate. (Isaak, 2006) (Meert, 2008) (Neyman, 2017) The most astounding part of the hypothesis they put forward, however, would be the rejection of conventional dynamo theory. Other than this express instance, there is no good reason to object to the veracity of the theory's models for magnetic field generation any more than there are good reasons to doubt that gravity is responsible for the Earth's orbit around the Sun. It is being cynically rejected by Answers in Genesis solely to excuse persisting in refuted models that can be used to prop up the illusion of explanatory power in their creation science model.
4. ANOMALOUS RECOVER OF SOFT DINOSAURIAN TISSUE SAMPLES
Answers in Genesis claims that the discovery of flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and intact cells within the femur bone of a T. Rex left evolutionists "scrambling", and that laboratory studies show that there is no known way for biological material to last more than thousands of years (much less millions). (Answers in Genesis, n.d.) Both claims are patently false.
The case referenced by Answers in Genesis is the alleged finding of preserved biological material by paleontologist Mary Schweitzer and her team in the late 1990s and early 2000s. (Hurd, 2005) The finding in no way left "evolutionists scrambling" for a solution or a way to "rectify" the supposed anomaly with conventional narratives. The formation in which the bone was found has been reliably and consistently dated to the time period in which one would expect to find T. Rex remains, and has been confirmed via multiple independent lines of geological dating. (Isaak, 2005) (Isaak, 2006b) In regards to Schweitzer's work somehow challenging or rewriting evolutionary timelines, Schweitzer has gone on record multiple times in order to refute young earth creationist misrepresentation of her work and its implications. (Kuban, 2014) (Ruppel, Schweitzer, 2014)
This leads on to Answers in Genesis' next point, being the idea that there are no known methods for soft tissue preservation (outside of young-age models), or that laboratory studies have demonstrated that biomaterial preservation is not possible over periods longer than thousands of years. On the contrary, molecular arrangement and composition (in concert with special condition fossil formation) more than adequately explain the remains of original tissue that are recovered from fossilized dinosaur remains. (Boatman et al., 2019) (Kovner, 2020) In every instance of alleged soft tissue recovery that young earth creationists claim "completely upends" the evolutionary paradigm, we find that the conditions are set for the preservation of such material within conventional paradigms, without requiring that the "whole theory of evolution be rewritten". (Buchanan, 2015)
Lastly, two major facts from nature wholly refute Answers in Genesis' proposal that a creation-science model adequately explains this set of data. The first is that soft tissue biomaterial is readily recovered from fossilized remains much younger than dinosaurs that span the past several thousand years. (Isaak, 2005) If dinosaur remains were the same age as the vast majority of other animal remains in which we find biomaterial, it makes no sense that finding dinosaur biomaterial would be a rarity, so much so that it has only occurred a handful of times. Further, no DNA has ever been recovered from dinosaur remains, while it has been found in abundance in fossil samples that are upwards of 10kyo-300kyo. (Isaak, 2006b) If dinosaur remains actually were the same age as all other fossilized animal remains that are found, why do they lack the DNA that evolutionarily predicted younger specimens yield? These data serve to underline the reality that dinosaur remains actually are ancient, and that recovered biomaterial can be explained by current models.
A great summary of dinosaur soft tissue remains in the creation-science meta narrative can be found on Scott Buchanan's Letters to Creationists site, which addresses several cases and claims concerning the phenomenon in much greater detail than has been indulged here. (Buchanan, 2019)
5. HUMAN POPULATION MODELS
Perhaps the easiest to assess of all the claims AiG makes in their article is their human population model for dating humanity's existence and the age of the Earth. The method of calculating the age of humanity is via assuming the population doubles at least once every 150y (a figure that they hold to be "quite conservative"). Then, with this figure, they can reliably estimate the human population at any given point in history, even up to the modern day, with these figures dictating that the modern human population could have easily arisen from only 8 people in the span of 4500 years (the length of time AiG proposes between Noah's Flood and today). Additionally, if the human population had been arising over the "deep time" spans dictated by evolution, then the number of humans would be astronomical, thus demonstrating that creation science models are consistent with the anthropological data, and those that hold to deep time are not. (Answers in Genesis, n.d.)
The figures used by AiG, however, are both self-serving and self-defeating. All AiG has done is taken the beginning population they wanted (the post-deluge 8, Noah and his family), put in the ending figures (approx. 7.5 billion, the modern day human population), and then done the algebra backwards until they arrived at the figure they wanted (i.e., a continually doubling global population every 150y). To demonstrate the massive problem that this type of calculation causes, start with Noah and his family. Even though Noah is not recorded as having children, we will still factor him and his wife Na'amah into the equation. 150y after Noah's Flood, the human population according to AiG's figures would be sixteen individuals. In another 150y, there would be thirty-two individuals on the planet. The problem is almost self-evident, as AiG's figures show that 300y after the Flood, there would only be thirty-two people on the planet. Further extrapolation shows the absolute failure of these figures: AiG holds that the global flood occurred in the year 1656 B.C.E. (Wright, 2012) Between 1656 B.C.E. and 1-3 C.E., there is a space for the human population to double approximately 12 times, once every 150y. With the human population set at thirty-two individuals 300y after the Flood (meaning our starting date is approx. 1356 B.C.E.), we find that AiG's numbers dictate that at the time of Christ, the world population would work out to sixteen thousand three hundred eight four individuals (with the last doubling occurring approx. 6 B.C.E.) (Fig. 1)
Fig. 1 (c. N. J. Edmonds, 2022)
Even though these results do not account for statistical death rates throughout history, the numbers they generate are astronomically low. The Population References Bureau estimates that at the time that AiG predicts a global population around the sixteen thousand persons mark, the actual population was approximately three hundred million. (Kaneda, et al., 2018) Further, when one continues to apply AiG's formula into the contemporary era, inaccurate and unrealistically low population numbers continue to be generated. Even if we assume a rate of zero deaths (which is of course not realistic), AiG's population model misses an accurate representation for the current global population figures by a factor of nearly sixty, predicting a population of roughly two hundred million at a time when the population is nearly eight billion. (Fig. 2)
Fig. 2 (c. N. J. Edmonds, 2022)
Lastly, Answers in Genesis asserts that using their population model demonstrates that an astronomically high number of humans would be generated if deep-time scales are accurate, over a period of just 50ky. (Answers in Genesis, n.d.) This is only a problem if you ignore the real world data and instead substitute AiG's forced figure. Operating within a 50ky framework in reality, the human population was approximately five million individuals 8kya, with the population reaching three hundred million 2kya, the real population growth being .0512% per annum (or 7.68% every 150y, a much less fantastical or contrived figure than AiG's 100%). (Haub, 1995)
6. TIGHTLY FOLDED ROCK STRATA
Answers in Genesis claims that rock strata can only bend when super-heated, and thus, the presence of tightly bent and folded rock strata are features that must have been generated rapidly via heat, and not over vast ages. Had they formed under the latter conditions, they would have broken. Such data fit well with the creation science flood models, they say, which product rapid catastrophic geological settings involving high levels of heat that would result in the bent rock strata we observe today. There are two main issues with this idea.
The first is that the claim is in error: rock strata do fold without breaking under pressure when bent very slowly, which has been demonstrated in real time in contemporary laboratory studies. (Isaak, 2004b) Further, not all rock layers are the same: some are not able to bend well, while others bend very readily. The uniformitarian assumption thrust upon the totality of Earth's geological makeup by AiG is completely unwarranted. (Isaak, 2004b)
The second issue is the thermodynamics of AiG's model. The amount of heat that would need to be generated in order to result in all of these geological formations in such a rapid amount of time would leave the Earth, in the words of Glen Kuban, "boiled, steamed and roasted", as he remarked when analyzing a similar claim concerning the ejection of terrestrial matter via Flood Geology creation models. (Kuban, 2020)
CONCLUSION
To summarize, Answers in Genesis has presented a very weak list of defenses for rationally justifying its proposal of rejecting consensus natural history and substituting a novel creation science model in its place. None of the phenomena analyzed constitutes good evidence to reject any known or held paradigm in natural science, much less evidence that the Earth is far younger than conventionally thought. This paper highly recommends that Answers in Genesis remove this compilation from their site, and replace it with a more informed / scientifically literate case (the same way which AiG recommended that Carl Baugh cease with his claims for the same reasons). (Answers in Genesis, 1996)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Answers in Genesis (n.d.) Six Evidences of a Young Earth. LINK.
Answers in Genesis (1996) What About Carl Baugh? A Commentary by Answers in Genesis. Paleo.cc. LINK.
Bertsche, K. (2008, July 10) RATE's Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? TalkOrigins. LINK.
Boatman, E. M., Goodwin, M. B., Holman, H. N., Fakra, S., Wenxia, Z., Gronsky, R., Schweitzer, M. H. (2019) Mechanisms of soft tissue and protein preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Scientific Reports, 9(15678). LINK.
Buchanan, S. (2015, October 19) "Soft Tissue" in Dinosaur Bones: What Does the Evidence Really Say? BioLogos. LINK.
Buchanan, S. (2019, June) Dinosaur Soft Tissue - Soft Tissue in Dinosaur Fossils: Evidence for a Young Earth? Letters to Creationists. LINK.
Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (2022, May 15) carbon-14 dating. LINK.
Hadfield, P. [potholer54]. (2012, August 17) A receding moon proves a young earth - debunked (another Golden Crockoduck nominee) [Video]. YouTube. LINK.
Haub, C. (1995) How many people have ever lived on earth? Population Today, 23(2), 4-5. LINK.
Humphreys, R. (1990, July 30 - August 4) Physical Mechanism for Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field During the Flood [Paper Presentation]. Second International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. LINK.
Hurd, G. S. (2005, May 20) Dino Blood Redux. TalkOrigins. LINK.
Isaak, M. (2004, September 7) CE110: Moon Recession. Index to Creationist Claims. LINK.
Isaak, M. (2004, May 28) CD510: Folded Rocks. Index to Creationist Claims. LINK.
Isaak, M. (2005, April 24) CC371: Tyrannosaurus blood. Index to Creationist Claims. LINK.
Isaak, M. (2006, May 12) CD701: Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field. Index to Creationist Claims. LINK.
Isaak, M. (2006, June 28) CC371.1: Tyrannosaurus tissues from bone. Index to Creationist Claims. LINK.
Kaneda, T. et al. (2018) How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth? Population Reference Bureau. LINK.
Kovner, A. (2020, February 14) Berkely Lab Helps Reveal How Dinosaur Blood Vessels Can Preserve Through the Ages. Berkely Lab. LINK.
Kuban, G. (2014, July) Dinosaur Blood and Soft Tissue Preservation - or Ancient Slime? LINK.
Kuban, G. (2019, February 22) ICR RATE Project Results Falsify Young-Earthism (Even as Its Authors Claim the Opposite). LINK.
Kuba, G. (2020, May 12) Walter Brown's "Hydroplate" Flood Model Doesn't Hold Water. LINK.
Matson, D. E. (2002, December 10) How Good Are Those Young Earth Arguments? A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims (#5). TalkOrigins. LINK.
Meert, J. (2008, August 10) Is the Earth's Magnetic Field Young? University of Florida. LINK.
Mellem, K. (2005) The Erosion of Continents as a Creationist Clock. The Age of The Earth and the Formation of the Universe Honors Seminar, University of South Dakota. LINK.
Neyman, G. (2017) G811: Earth's Magnetic Field. Young Earth Creationist Science Argument Index. LINK.
Professor Stick. (2017, January 13) C-14 in Diamonds: Carbon Dating Disproves Evolution? [Video]. YouTube. LINK.
Ruppel, E., Schweitzer, M. (2014, July 21) Not So Dry Bones: An interview with Mary Schweitzer. BioLogos. LINK.
Snelling, A. A. (2007) Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed. Answers in Depth, 2, pp. 158-159. LINK.
Thompson, T. (1999, December) The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System. TalkOrigins. LINK.
Wikipedia (2022, May 9) Dynamo theory. LINK.
Wright, D. (2012, March 9) Timeline for the Flood. Answers in Genesis. LINK.
FOOTNOTES
Footnote 1 - (Bertsche, 2008) contains Bertsche's response to (Baumgardner, 2007), the former having received his doctoral degree in physics directly under the tutelage of Richard Muller (the inventor of AMS radiocarbon dating) and has worked in this arena his entire career, making him a more than qualified expert to analyze the claims and responses made by Answers in Genesis and their affiliates concerning the technology his mentor developed.
Comments
Post a Comment