Origin of the Earth

An unsuccessful attempt to correct an
error on a young-earth creationist web site

Sponsored link.

About the age of the earth, and why it is so important:

You may wish to skip this introduction.

Many creationists and scientists disagree about the age of the Earth. The most vocal creationists believe in a young earth -- one that has been in existence fewer than 10,000 years. All of the scientists that we have heard of, who are not young earth creationists, believe that the earth is much older -- over four billion years.

Old earth belief: Over 99.8% of specialists in the biological and geological sciences support the theory of evolution. This implies a very old earth. A near universal estimate, based on radiometric measurements of earth rocks, is that that the earth coalesced into more or less its current shape about 4.5 billion years ago.   Many "Old earth creationists" believe that God inspired the authors of the Bible to write text that is inerrant -- free of error. They interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) as implying a very old universe. They generally accept the scientists' estimate of a  universe coming into existence approximately 15 billion years ago and a roughly 4.5 billion year old Earth. They believe that God created both.

Young earth belief: Many, perhaps most, Christian Creationists are "young earth creationists" who view the Earth and the rest of the universe as less than 10,000 years old. Conservative Christians have made many calculations to estimate the date of creation on the basis of the biblical records of generations of ancient Hebrews, from Adam and Eve onwards. They have computed dates ranging from 3641 to 6000 BCE. A common estimate for creation is 4004 BCE; this implies a 6 millennia-old earth. However, some young earth creationists suspect that some of the generations between Adam and David were simply not reported in the Bible. That is, when the Bible states that A begat B, then A might have been really the grandfather, not the father, of B. This could push the date of creation, according to their interpretation of the Bible, back perhaps to sometime between 4000 and 8000 BCE -- as much as ten millennia before the present time.

The difference between ten thousand years and 4.5 billion years is enormous. It is roughly like comparing the thickness of a piece of paper with the length of a football field!

Resolving the age of the Earth has a profound impact on the theory of evolution:

If the earth's age is fewer than 10,000 years, there could not possibly have been sufficient time for animal and plant species to have evolved. In a rare display of unanimity, both the supporters of a young earth and supporters of the theory of evolution agree on this fact. If the earth were in fact that young, then the various life forms on earth could not have evolved. They must have been created (or transported to earth by a more advanced civilization) sometime during the past 10,000 years.

The vast majority of biologists, geologists, cosmologists, astronomers, etc. believe that the earth is "old," and that evolution from a primitive cell to the current diversity of life forms is possible. Further, they believe that the fossil record and radiometric analysis prove that much of it actually happened. Unfortunately, very early life forms were incapable of leaving fossils behind, and so the complete history of evolution is not fully documented, and may never be so.

One strong indicator of the earth's age:

Both young earth creationists and old earth scientists believe that their estimates of the Earth's age are consistent with calculations based on the gradual deceleration of the earth's rotational speed. Everyone agrees that the earth is continuously slowing down; the days are gradually getting longer. Unfortunately, people interpret the data in two very different ways:

What some young creationists and almost all, scientists agree on:

A combination of many factors "...causes a slowing of the Earth's rotational speed." ₁ The main cause of the deceleration, by far are the tides created by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon. "...the moon is responsible for 56% of the earth's tidal energy while the sun claims responsibility for 44%." ₁₅ Tides generate friction between the moving water and the base of the oceans. This converts a very small part of the earth's kinetic (rotational) energy into heat. That slows the earth rotational speed, and heats up the ocean by a miniscule amount. The phenomenon functions much as brake pads work in an automobile. The car slows; its kinetic energy is converted to heat. Other possible causes of the deceleration are relatively small, and possibly include:

The long-term changes in the Earth's oblateness parameter, J2. This is caused by a change in the earth's shape. The surface of the earth is still rebounding after the pressures caused by the glaciers in the last ice age disappeared. Strong earthquakes can change the oblateness as well. The earthquake that created the South Asian tsunami in 2004-DEC-24 is believed to have shortened the length of a day by a few microseconds.

An effect that scientist call "deep ocean dissipation." 5

In ancient times, the rotation of the earth was sufficiently accurate to measure time. One rotation of the earth's rotation was defined as 24 hours; one second was set at 1/86,400 of a day. But with the increased need for precision, scientists recognized that the earth's rotation could no longer be used as a time standard. The rotational speed is continuously changing. They decided to define the second as an absolute interval of time: exactly 86,400 of our present-day seconds totaled almost exactly the length of one day back in 1820 CE. About 185 years have passed since that base year. The earth has slowed down slightly. Each of today's days consist of about 86,400.002 seconds. Two milliseconds may not seem like much, compared to 86,000 seconds. However, they accumulate during the year. Each year has lengthened by 365' x 2 = 730 milliseconds -- almost one second. ₁

Leap seconds have traditionally been inserted either at the middle or end of the year in order to keep time in synchronism with the earth's rotation. When a leap second is inserted, in essence, clocks are stopped for a second to let the Earth catch up. This ensures "...that the difference between a uniform time scale defined by atomic clocks does not differ from the Earth's rotational time by more than 0.9 seconds." ₈ This was done 22 times in the 30 year period from 1970 to 1999; the process has continued to the present time. ₆

What some young earth creation scientists conclude about the leap second:

Many creationist web sites observe that scientists make an adjustment of one second during most years and no adjustment during other years. This averages about  0.7 seconds per year or in excess of 2 milliseconds per day.  This may not seem like much. But it amounts to over 20 milliseconds difference in the length of a day per decade, 0.2 seconds per century, 20 seconds per 10,000 years. If this rate were constant, the loss would be over 9 million seconds per day over the 4.5 billion years that scientists believe the earth has existed.  Since there are only 86,400 seconds in the day, that is clearly impossible. Still, If the earth's rate of deceleration has extended throughout the life of the earth at even a fraction of the present rate, then:

	If the earth's rotational speed had started off at a reasonable value 4.5 billion years ago, as supporters of evolution claimed, it would have essentially stopped turning by now. That clearly has not happened.
	Since the earth's speed at the equator is currently about 1,609 kph (1,000 mph), its rotational speed would have been extremely high 4.5 billion years ago. The earth would have flattened into the shape of a pancake long ago. That clearly did not happen either.

Thus, they conclude, the age of the earth must be a very small fraction of 4.5 billion years. If this is true, then evolution could not possibly have happened. There simply would not have been sufficient time for the present diversity of life forms on earth to have evolved. The species must have been specially created recently, presumably by God. They are confident that these observations, along with other indicators, points to an earth of less than 10,000 years of age.

Most creation science web sites that explain this "proof" of a young earth and the impossibility of evolution seem to use very similar wording. We suspect that many have directly or indirectly derived their beliefs from the same book(s). Still, it makes sense as creation scientists view the data. It makes a powerful proof/indication that an old earth is simply impossible, and that evolution never happened. _2,3

What some supporters of an old earth conclude about the leap second:

They are certain that the believers in a young earth have misunderstood the source and the significance of leap seconds. Creationists' estimates of the rate of deceleration of the earth's rotation is incorrect by a factor of almost 200.

As described above, the length of a year has lengthened by about  0.73 seconds over the 185 years since 1820. This is a lengthening of about 0.004 seconds per year, not 0.73 seconds as some young earth creationists believe. Since their calculations are in error, their conclusions about the age of the earth are not valid.

In the 2070s, the accumulated error will probably exceed one second per year. This will require at least one leap second in most years, and two leap seconds in some years. Of course, with so many factors influencing the deceleration rate, it is difficult to extrapolate far into the future.

The insertion of a leap second in most years is not directly related to the current value of deceleration. In fact, if the earth stopped decelerating and achieved a constant speed, there would still be a need to continue to insert leap seconds in most years.

Eventually, so many leap seconds will have to be inserted each year that the process will become onerous. Scientists will probably change their base date from 1820 CE to something more recent.

If the scientists revise the base year to, say, 2000, then they would not have to insert a leap second for many years.

Recapping the results:

Some new earth creationists suggest that the length of a day 4.5 billion years ago would have been extremely short, to the point where the earth would be rotating so quickly that year that it would have long since flattened into a pancake. Alternatively, if the rotation were reasonable 4.5 billion years ago, the earth would have slowed down to a crawl by now. They conclude that the earth is young.

Scientists have measured the length of a day and have found an increase of about 0.004 seconds a year in recent years, -- not about 0.73 seconds as some creation scientist believe. Young earth creation scientists are out by a factor of 185 because of their misunderstanding of the leap second insertion. Thus, their conclusions are invalid.

An attempt to discuss the deceleration "proof" with creation science webmasters:

Proving a young earth on the basis of the leap seconds and deceleration of the earth's rotation is clearly in error. It is based on a misunderstanding, on the part of some creation scientists, of how time is calculated. This error has been picked up by numerous supporters of creation science and added to their web sites.

The author of this essay is a supporter of the theory of evolution, and thus of an old earth. However, he attempts to write essays on both evolution, creation science, and the age of the earth in a balanced manner, explaining the beliefs and the bases for those beliefs of both creation scientists and supporters of evolution. He decided to attempt to discuss the error in the deceleration "proof" with some creation scientists. If they could be persuaded that their "proof" is in error, then they might remove it from their web sites. This would be a win-win situation:

	The cause of creation science would benefit, because the invalid "proof" of a young  earth would be withdrawn. Their credibility would increase in the minds of the public.
	The cause of evolution would benefit, because the creation scientists would have one fewer "proof" of a young earth.

On 2002-JAN-3, the author E-mailed the webmasters responsible for 15 creation science essays which contained the deceleration "proof."

	"The Age of the Earth I," at: http://www.cryingvoice.com/
	"The Age of the Earth - 2: Evidence from the Globe," Proof 1 at: http://www.pathlights.com/
	"Continuation," at: http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse. This is from a cached copy retained by www.Google.com. It is not currently online.
	"Creationism vs. Evolution Debate," at: http://www.mustbemore.org/
	"Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 1: Chapter Six: The Age of the Earth," Proof 32, at: http://www.evolution-facts.org/1evlch06a.htm
	"Evolutionists are wrong! The earth is young," Chick Publications, at: http://www.chick.com/
	"Evidence for a Young Earth," Proof #20, at: http://genesis.amen.net/
	"Evolution vs Creation," Proof 4, at: http://www.geocities.com/
	"The Final Frontier: Creation," The earth is slowing down proof, at: http://www.finalfrontier.org.uk/
	"Handout given to the congregation of Horizon Christian Fellowship," at: http://home.wmis.net/
	"How old is the Earth?," at: http://members.aol.com
	"Old Earth?," at: http://www.wasdarwinright.com/
	"The Seed Sower: Age of the earth," at:  http://www.saved.com/
	"What's Wrong with Evolution," at: http://worldmissions.org/ This is from a cached copy retained by www.Google.com. It is not currently online. *
	"Young Earth," Proof 4, at: http://www.angelfire.com/

Unfortunately, by mid-2005, many of the URLs have since been broken. Some websites have been closed down; others have been reorganized with different file names. So, many of the hyperlinks are not valid today.

You can still find them by doing a Google search using the search string pancake earth rotation. On 2005-JUL we found about 2,750 hits. A bunch of them are young-earth creationist web sites.

Responses:

	2002-JAN-4: One webmaster thanked us for our interest. However, they will not change their web site because it is an archive of previously published materials. Thus, accuracy is unimportant.
	2002-JAN-7: A second webmaster responded, but said that there are no inaccuracies in Scott Huse's book.
	2002-JAN-9: A third webmaster responded, asking for information on our identity and motivation. They also asked for more information about the error.
	2002-JAN-14: A fourth webmaster thanked us for our E-mail.
	2002-MAY-16: The remaining 11 webmasters have not replied to our E-mail.
	2002-JUL-12: Dr Luke Randall of WasDarwinRight.com responded to our query. However, his site leaves the original error in place. 7 He wrote that he has many quotes from scientists which suggest that many dating methods are equivocal. "It is not a crime to present a differing viewpoint."

Conclusions:

As of 2005-JUL, no further responses have been received; none are expected.

None of the 15 web sites has been changed. Persuading the webmasters of these creation science web sites to correct their error appears to be quite impossible. In fact, dialog seems to be hopeless.

One author, a supporter of an old earth, commented on the continuing use of the deceleration "proof" by creation scientists, even though their error has been pointed out to them many times. It seems applicable here: "I really don't blame them for making this mistake initially. We are all entitled to a few mistakes. But this does not justify keeping this claim going for years and years. My question is, why is this claim still being made?" ₄

Path forward:

The author honestly expected that some level of sincere dialog would occur. He hoped that this project would be successful, and that a number of webmasters would delete their earth-slowing "proof" from their web sites. If that had happened, then his intention was to attempt continue the process by trying to convince creation science webmasters to remove other false "proofs" of a young earth. Among the most popular are indicators based on:

	The decay of the Earth's magnetic field.
	The recession of the Moon from the Earth.
	The age of trees.
	Population growth.
	The temperature of the earth's core.
	The second law of thermodynamics.

The experiment has convinced the author that meaningful dialog is probably impossible. Supporters of creation science -- at least the 15 contacted -- seem to be totally resistant to change. Attempts to correct these websites are probably not worth pursuing.

References:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

1. "Earth Rotation," at: http://www.colorado.edu/
2. Wysong(?), "Age of the Earth," (1981 ?), Page 21. There are many books with titles like this one; most are out of print. It is unclear which one is used by many creation science web sites.
3. Scott Huse, "The Collapse Of Evolution," (1996), Page 25.
4. "The Earth's Rotation is Slowing Down Fast?," at: http://home.mmcable.com/
5. R.A. Nelson, et al., "The leap second: Its history and possible future," at: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/ You need software to read this PDF file. It can be obtained free from:
6. "NIST time scale data archive," National Institute of Standards and Technology," at: http://www.boulder.nist.gov/
7. Dr Luke Randall, at: http://www.wasdarwinright.com/
8. "Leap seconds," U.S. Navy Observatory, at: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/
9. "One Billion Years Ago: Over 500 Days Yearly, 17 Hours Daily," China Education and Research Network, 2004-DEC-21, at: http://www.edu.cn/
10. Terence Dickson, "The expert spin on Venus," The Toronto Star, 2005-JUL-13, Page B7.
11. "The Slowing of the Earth's Rotation Rate Means the Earth Must be Young," 2000-DEC-19, at: http://www.geocities.com/
12. "Young-earth 'proof' #20: The earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning that the earth can't be older than a few million years," Internet Infidels, 2002-SEP-13, at: http://www.infidels.org/
13. "Claim CE011: Earth's rotation is slowing down, so it cannot be more than a few million years old." CreationWiki, at: http://www.nwcreation.net/
14. This image is reproduced here under the terms of the GNU General Public License. See the GNU Free Documentation License at: http://www.gnu.org/
15. Mat Rosenberg, "The Sun and Moon Affect the Oceans," About, at: http://geography.about.com

Copyright © 2002 to 2009 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2002-JAN-3
Latest update: 2009-OCT-25
Author: B.A. Robinson

Sponsored link

Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Sponsored link: