It describes dozens of proofs which have been put forth by
young-earth creationists to prove that the earth and the rest of the
universe are less than 10,000 years old. Each proof is accompanied by a rebuttal
which describes why essentially all scientists who are not religious
conservatives reject the proofs. We try to explain each rebuttal so that it is
easy to understand by non-professionals.
Most of the proofs listed in this section are paraphrased from the original Emails
that we received from visitors to our website.
We have a corresponding essay which gives dozens
of proofs by scientists to show that the earth is extremely old. Scientists who
are not religious conservatives have reached a general consensus that the
earth's crust coalesced in excess of four billion years ago. The arguments
in that essay also contain rebuttals.
Implications of a young earth:
A young earth -- one less than 10,000 years of age -- is promoted by many
conservative Jews, Christians
and Muslims. They generally interpret the biblical book
of Genesis literally, and reject evolution as the driving force behind the
Earth's diversity of life.
If it can be shown that the earth is less than 10 millennia
years old, then the theory of evolution would be dead in the water. There simply
would not be enough time for species to evolve to their present diversity.
Proving that evolution never happened is a primary goal of many religious
conservatives. Most believe that evolution is incompatible with a literal
interpretation of the creation and flood stories in the biblical book of
Genesis. If the Bible can be shown to be wrong -- or at least ambiguous -- in
some places, then the validity of the entire Bible is thrown in doubt. Some
religious conservatives feel that if the stories of creation, the Garden of
Eden, and the fall of humanity found in the beginning of the book of Genesis are
shown to be myths, then the need for a savior is threatened, and Jesus' death on
the cross to save mankind is rendered meaningless.
Sponsored link:
Why a simple proof for a young earth is unlikely:
Scientists are driven by a desire to learn the laws behind nature. They are
an unruly lot. They are always working to prove that the current understanding
of nature is wrong to some degree. The "holy grail" of science is a Nobel Prize
in physics, chemistry, etc. Scientists dream of being another Einstein. He
overturned centuries of belief in Newtonian physics early in the 20th century
and forced physics in entirely new directions.
Any scientist who can prove that the Earth is young or that evolution never
happened would be a shoo-in for a Nobel Prize:
Biology is largely based on Evolution being a fact.
Geology is largely based on the Earth being about 4.5 billion years of
age.
Cosmology is largely based on a universe that is about 13.5 billion
years of age.
Proving that the Earth and the rest of the universe is less than 10,000 years
of age would completely revolutionize many areas of science. The name of the
discoverer of the proof would become a household word.
All of the proofs cited here are easy to understand and easy to disprove. We
suspect that if a rigorous proof is ever found, it will be complex in nature.
