'Deep Time' and 'Evolution' allegedly 'falsified' by 'Rigorous' Empirical Research


  • Dear Jon,

  • You’re right that nobody has attempted to write a 300-page book in two hours. But notice the move you’re making: instead of standing behind one or two strong arguments, you’ve put forward 101 items of very uneven quality and then insisted no one can criticize them without refuting every last one.

    That’s a debating tactic sometimes called a Gish gallop. It sets an impossible burden on your opponent while leaving you free to defend only the items you prefer. Science doesn’t work that way. If even a handful of your “evidences” collapse under scrutiny—as many have—then the list as a whole cannot be treated as cumulative proof. It becomes a catalogue of anomalies and misquotes, not a case.

  • So, strap on your seatbelt:


1) “DNA in 425-Myr/‘ancient’ fossils proves the fossils aren’t that old.”

  • What the claim needs: DNA chemistry that can survive hundreds of millions of years.

  • What the literature shows: DNA breaks down on a measurable schedule. Empirical measurements in fossil bone estimate a ~521-year half-life for short mtDNA fragments at ~13 °C—predicting practical limits of a few million years at best under ideal conditions, not hundreds of millions. Reports of ultra-ancient DNA are routinely traced to contamination or misinterpretation. (Royal Society Publishing)

Bottom line: The chemistry doesn’t allow intact DNA over hundreds of Myr; outlier claims are not accepted once contamination controls are applied.


2) “Lazarus bacteria” from 250-Myr halite prove the salt isn’t that old.

  • What’s cited: Vreeland et al. (2000, Nature) reported viable bacteria from Permian salt inclusions. (PubMed)

  • What followed: Multiple critiques flagged modern DNA signatures and the ever-present risk of contamination in halite and lab workflows; broader reviews concluded that ultra-ancient DNA/viability claims in halite/amber are not reliable without extraordinary authentication that has not been met. (PubMed)

Bottom line: Even if an inclusion is genuinely Permian, the organisms/DNA need not be—later fluid ingress and contamination are the parsimonious explanations.


3) “Genetic entropy” (Sanford) shows the human genome is decaying → young humanity.

  • The move: A simulation-driven claim that slightly deleterious mutations inevitably accumulate and doom fitness on short timescales.

  • What population genetics says: In real populations, purifying selection and demography produce a mutation–selection balance; empirical and theoretical studies show the average deleterious load is stable, not spiraling. Recent demographic upheavals change allele frequencies, but do not cause runaway fitness collapse predicted by “genetic entropy.” (PubMed)

Bottom line: Peer-reviewed population genetics doesn’t support Sanford’s conclusion; his result is an artifact of assumptions baked into the model, not observed human genomes.


4) “Mitochondrial Eve fits only ‘several thousand years.’”

  • What mtDNA actually dates: The coalescence of maternal lineages (the MRCA of mtDNA), not the age of humanity or a lone female ancestor of all genes.

  • Age estimates: Calibrated mtDNA clocks (with purifying-selection corrections) place the MRCA of extant human mtDNA at ~150–200 thousand years, not thousands. (PMC)

Bottom line: mtDNA data are incompatible with a human origin “several thousand years” ago.


5) “Very limited Y-chromosome variation ⇒ mankind only thousands of years old.”

  • What Y actually shows: A recent bottleneck and punctuated male demography, but a Time to MRCA in the hundreds of thousands of years.

  • Age estimates: Large-scale Y-seq studies estimate Y-MRCA roughly ~174–200+ kya, with deep African lineages and later non-African expansions/bottlenecks shaping today’s “limited” variation. (PMC)

Bottom line: The Y data reflect demographic history, not a globe-spanning origin just thousands of years ago.

4 Likes

6) “Many million-year-old bones are hardly mineralized; 550 Ma worm tubes are soft ⇒ too young.”

  • Reality: The degree of permineralization is not a clock. Fossilization pathways vary wildly with burial, groundwater, chemistry, and time; bones can remain only lightly mineralized or be permineralized quickly—taphonomy 101. (UMD Geology Department)

  • Ediacaran/Cambrian ‘soft’ tubes: Reports of ancient worm/cnidarian tubes note original organic remnants bound within mineral shells or converted to geopolymers/kerogen, i.e., chemically altered residues preserved under exceptional conditions—not fresh tissue contradicting age. (PMC)
    Bottom line: Low mineralization or organics trapped/altered within shells tells you about preservation chemistry, not a young Earth.


7) “Dinosaur blood cells/vessels/proteins/DNA can’t last 65+ Ma.”

  • What’s actually found: Structures interpretable as vessels/cells and protein fragments (e.g., collagen peptides), plus heme/protein markersnot intact blood/DNA. Multiple studies show iron-mediated crosslinking and other reactions can stabilize remnants over deep time in the right microenvironments. (PMC)
    Bottom line: These finds are consistent with deep time via known stabilization pathways; they don’t require a 6,000-year timescale.

8) “Amino acids haven’t racemized to 50:50 ⇒ fossils are only thousands of years old.”

  • Key point: **Racemization rate depends on temperature, pH, water, and whether proteins are intra-crystalline (protected) vs. exposed. Modern AAR work explicitly models these variables; in cold/closed systems, racemization can be extremely slow. (Wiley Online Library)

  • Practice: AAR is a Quaternary tool (up to 10^5–10^6 years in favorable cases). Claims of “non-racemized” amino acids in much older fossils usually reflect contamination or protected micro-fractions, not a global clock failure. (ScienceDirect)
    Bottom line: No contradiction—kinetics + taphonomy explain the observations.


9) “Living fossils (coelacanth, Wollemi pine, stromatolites…) show billions of years aren’t real.”

  • Evolution ≠ constant shape change. Long morphological stasis under stabilizing selection and stable niches is expected; genetic and micro-anatomical change can proceed while outward form is conserved. Contemporary reviews detail how “living fossil” traits fit standard evolutionary models. (PMC)
    Bottom line: Stasis is data, not a disproof of deep time.

10) “Discontinuous fossil sequences/Lazarus taxa (e.g., coelacanth) defeat the geologic column.”

  • Taphonomy & sampling. The fossil record is patchy; taxa can vanish from accessible strata and persist in refugia or poorly fossilizing environments (e.g., deep sea), then reappear—hence Lazarus taxa. This is a well-known, non-mysterious pattern. (National Geographic)
    Bottom line: Gaps reflect where and how sediment preserves life, not the collapse of geological timescales.

3 Likes

Because it’s dishonest garbage that shouldn’t fool a ten-year-old and unlike you, I object to being lied to.

You don’t refute them, you simply ignore them (you haven’t quoted or responded to anything at all from my post apart from my comment about who reads it) and post a link to a different article with the exact same problem. You haven’t said a single word about arch collapse being balanced by arch formation, and you haven’t mentioned any of the remaining 100 ‘evidences’ that you consider any better.

This isn’t new information, it’s been known for far longer than when Batten’s blather was written.

Bovine faeces. None of the structures described in that article are purported to be extremely old, only the rocks from which they were eroded. You are coming extremely close to shifting from repeating the lies of others to presenting lies of your own.

If you’ve got a large amount of evidence, why are you posting this steaming pile?

4 Likes

Then why was the earth never described as a sphere, but always as a flat disc. There is a perfectly good Hebrew word for ball/sphere.

There is zero evidence for a young earth. You don’t see the evidence for a old earth because you always view everything through your worldview which requires denying anything which doesn’t fit your interpretation. An interpretation that is human and fallible.

5 Likes

11) “Oldest living trees are only thousands of years old ⇒ Earth is young.”

  • The age of surviving trees (e.g., bristlecone “Methuselah” ≈4.8–4.9 kyr) just tells you about tree survivorship, not Earth’s age. Dendrochronology + radiocarbon calibration link continuous tree-ring records past ~13,900 years (and anchor the broader IntCal20 curve back to 55,000 yrs). That alone exceeds a “few thousand years.” (Wikipedia)

12) “Few plant fossils beside abundant animal traces (Morrison; Coconino) ⇒ not long ages, but Flood transport.”

  • Morrison Fm. (Jurassic): Detailed plant taphonomy shows six plant taphofacies with a paucity of wood—consistent with a semi-arid, savannah-like mosaic of floodplains/riparian belts, not a universal lush swamp swept up by a single Flood. (ScienceDirect)

  • Coconino Sandstone: Mainstream geology interprets it as eolian dunes with large cross-beds and terrestrial trackways—exactly the sort of setting where you’d expect few plant remains. (The old “subaqueous Coconino” claims have been evaluated and rejected by most workers.) (Wikipedia)

Bottom line: Taphonomy + environment explain the pattern; no Flood needed.


13) “Tightly bent strata (e.g., Kaibab Upwarp) without shattering ⇒ folded while soft, so young.”

  • The Kaibab/East Kaibab monocline is classic Laramide fault-propagation folding: ductile flexure of lithified strata at depth over geologic time, driven by blind reverse faults. Monoclines commonly form without pervasive fracturing of the upper beds. That’s standard structural geology, not a miracle of still-soft Cambrian sand. (Semantic Scholar)

14) “Polystrate trees (Joggins, Yellowstone…) ⇒ rapid single Flood burial.”

  • Joggins (Nova Scotia): UNESCO-listed section with repeating cycles of coal/paleosols and upright lycopsids rooted in ancient soils—successive coastal plain deposits, not one-off cataclysm. (ResearchGate)

  • Yellowstone “fossil forests”: Multiple Eocene volcanic episodes (lahars/ash) buried forests in sequence; some trunks transported upright, others buried in place—documented by the National Park Service and classic studies. (National Park Service)

Bottom line: These are many events over time in well-understood settings, not evidence for a single global Flood.


15) “Experiments show coal forms in weeks to months ⇒ no need for millions of years.”

  • Lab methods (pyrolysis/HTC) can make coal-like char fast under unnatural temperatures/pressures; they do not demonstrate that natural coals formed that fast in basins. Natural coals show systematic rank progressions (peat→lignite→bituminous→anthracite), vitrinite reflectance trends, and basin thermal histories that record long burial and heating through geological time. (ScienceDirect)

1 Like

16) “Oil forms quickly in experiments ⇒ no need for millions of years.”

  • What the lab shows: Hydrous/open-system pyrolysis accelerates reactions so we can measure kinetics, then project them to geologic conditions; it does not mean most petroleum formed in weeks. (USGS Publications)

  • What basins show: Time–temperature models and maturity data (vitrinite reflectance, Rock-Eval) tie major oils to long burial/ heating histories over tens of millions of years. (USGS Publications)

  • Special cases exist: Hydrothermal systems (e.g., Guaymas Basin, Escanaba Trough) can generate petroleum rapidly—but they’re minor, localized settings, not the origin of global reserves. (USGS)

Bottom line: Lab “quick oil” is a kinetics tool; mainstream oils reflect deep time burial and heating.


17) “Opals form in weeks ⇒ not millions of years.”

  • You can grow opal-like silica spheres in jars or precipitate opal quickly in labs, but natural precious opal in Australia forms via groundwater/ deep-weathering of Cretaceous rocks in the Great Australian Basin—an Earth-surface process operating over long durations in veins and nodules. (Geoscience Australia)

  • Recent geologic work constrains major Australian opalization to the Neogene (i.e., still millions of years ago), with documented opal-A → opal-CT diagenesis and weathering controls. (MDPI)

  • Volcanic/ash settings show additional natural pathways, again tied to geological processes rather than week-long synthesis. (Geoscience World)

Bottom line: Lab synthesis ≠ geologic timescale; field evidence places opalization within standard stratigraphic time.


18) “Rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds; Z-shaped seams prove a single event.”

  • Z/S-shaped coal seam splits are a known sedimentologic phenomenon explained by differential compaction, subsidence, avulsion, and crevasse-splay deposition—not a one-off cataclysm. (Lyell Collection)

  • Basin studies show coal thickening/thinning and splitting driven by peat growth, flooding, and clastic influx over time; coal rank and thermal history record prolonged burial/heating. (USGS Publications)

  • Astronomically tuned stratigraphy even captures Milankovitch-scale cyclicity across coal measures—again a time-rich signal. (Wiley Online Library)

Bottom line: Coal beds reflect repeated environmental shifts and long burial, not a single Flood layer.


19) “Rapid petrifaction of wood ⇒ young Earth.”

  • Yes, in hot-spring or silica-rich settings, wood can silicify in years to centuries—this is well documented experimentally and in modern environments. (ScienceDirect)

  • But that simply shows rate under special conditions. Natural petrified forests record burial + mineralization within Triassic/Eocene strata, with permineralization and replacement described in detail; the host rocks still have geologic ages. (National Park Service)

Bottom line: “Rapid” silicification is compatible with deep time; it doesn’t set Earth’s age.


20) “Clastic dykes/pipes mean overlying strata were still soft ⇒ compress the timescale.”

  • Clastic dikes/pipes are classic soft-sediment deformation from liquefaction/dewatering (often seismic or overpressure-driven) that inject sand/mud into fractures shortly after deposition—a local event. (ScienceDirect)

  • Extensive research on sand injectites shows they occur in many basins and stratigraphic levels; they do not imply the entire overburden was unlithified or that the whole column formed at once. (ScienceDirect)

  • USGS paleoliquefaction work treats such features as earthquake indicators, not clock-stoppers for geologic time. (USGS Publications)

Bottom line: Clastic pipes/dikes record episodic deformation soon after a bed’s deposition—not a young geologic column.


3 Likes

21) “Paraconformities (‘flat gaps’) mean there can’t be millions of years missing (e.g., Hermit–Coconino).”

  • What a paraconformity is: a surface representing non-deposition (and/or very light erosion) where beds remain parallel—time can be missing without a rough surface. This is standard stratigraphy. (SEPMStrata)

  • Grand Canyon context: The Permian Hermit → Coconino → Toroweap → Kaibab stack records shifting environments (floodplain → desert dunes → mixed marine/terrestrial → shallow marine). Contacts in this interval include disconformities (gaps in time) even when the surface looks planar. (National Park Service)

  • At the Hermit–Coconino contact you even find mudcracks in the Hermit filled with Coconino sand—a classic sign of exposure then later burial, i.e., a time gap, not “instant back-to-back” deposition. (Wikipedia)

Bottom line: A flat or sharp contact can still represent substantial missing time; “no scalloped erosion” ≠ “no gap.”


22) “Raindrops/ripples/tracks at such contacts prove the next layer came immediately.”

  • Trace-fossil preservation depends on early stabilization/early cementation and burial conditions; delicate features (raindrops, tracks) can be preserved and then sit through a hiatus before later burial. Ichnology and sedimentology literature document this routinely. (Paleobiology Program)

  • Raindrop imprints simply show subaerial exposure and soft-sediment surface processes; they do not time-stamp the next bed to “minutes later.” (Wikipedia)

Bottom line: Ephemeral marks record environment, not the duration to the next deposit.


23) “Inter-tonguing of units ‘separated by millions of years’ eliminates those years.”

  • Facies intertonguing is exactly what Walther’s Law predicts: lateral environments migrate, so vertical successions stack former side-by-side facies. Boundaries can be diachronous—time-equivalent in one place, younger/older elsewhere. None of this “erases” geologic time. (SEPMStrata)

Bottom line: Interfingering reflects environmental shifts, not a globally synchronous event that compresses time.


24) “Little/no bioturbation at paraconformities ⇒ no time passed.”

  • Many omission surfaces are firmgrounds/hardgroundsearly-cemented seafloors that resist burrowing; where biogenic borings do occur, they’re diagnostic of exposure. Both cases are compatible with time gaps. (ScienceDirect)

  • Absence of bioturbation can also reflect anoxia, substrate hardness, or ecology—not necessarily zero elapsed time. (See ichnology/trace-fossil taphonomy). (زرمش)

Bottom line: Bioturbation varies with substrate and chemistry; its absence doesn’t collapse the clock.


25) “There’s an ‘almost complete lack’ of true paleosols in the rock record.”

  • This is simply false. Paleosols are abundant and well-described across the column, with clear criteria (root traces, horizonation, ped structures) and thousands of studies. Standard references and field guides cover recognition and applications. (basin.earth.ncu.edu.tw)

  • Classic examples:

    • Joggins Fossil Cliffs (Nova Scotia): multiple rooted horizons/soils in situ within a world-heritage Carboniferous section. (UNESCO World Heritage Centre)

    • Willwood Formation (Wyoming, Eocene): hundreds of meters of fluvial strata with stacked paleosols, even showing astronomical (Milankovitch) pacing in soil patterns. (USGS)

    • Comprehensive textbook: Retallack, Soils of the Past (multiple editions). (E-Bookshelf)

Bottom line: The literature is overflowing with documented paleosols; claiming they’re “almost absent” ignores a vast body of work.


26) “Limited extent of unconformities” ⇒ young strata
Unconformities are common at many scales; some are subtle (paraconformities) and preserve flat contacts without obvious erosion, yet still mark big time gaps. The Grand Canyon’s “Great Unconformity” alone removes up to ~1.3 billion years; modern work shows it’s a composite of multiple surfaces that vary laterally. Sequence stratigraphy specifically maps how such surfaces can pinch out regionally. (National Park Service)

27) “Arches collapse ~1/yr ⇒ all gone in ~2,000 yrs”
That extrapolation assumes a constant collapse rate and ignores new arch formation. Arches form and fail continuously by differential erosion in Entrada Sandstone; >2,000 are documented today, and the process is ongoing. Short-term collapse counts don’t clock Earth’s age. (National Park Service)

28) “Turbidity currents lay huge sediments in hours ⇒ deep time unnecessary”
Yes, turbidity currents and submarine debris flows can deposit thick beds rapidly—but they’re episodic events within basins that accumulate over much longer intervals, separated by quiescence/erosion. Modern monitoring and reviews document their rates and recurrence without collapsing geologic time. (PMC)

29) “Flume experiments show laminations form quickly ⇒ strata are young”
Flumes (e.g., Schieber et al. 2007) show muds can form ripples/laminae under relatively energetic flows—great! That revises how some mudstones form, not how long stacked successions took. Thousands of repeated events + bioturbation/cycles still imply extended time. (PubMed)

30) “Rapid canyon formation (Providence, Burlingame, Loowit) ⇒ big canyons are young”
Those are special cases: Providence Canyon is an anthropogenic gully from 19th-century farming; Burlingame Canyon was carved in 1926 by a diverted irrigation flow in soft sediments; Loowit Canyon formed during the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption and lahars. Small, rapid features in weak or volcanic deposits don’t scale to something like Grand Canyon’s multi-stage history. (Georgia State Parks)

2 Likes

Dear Marshall,

the Holy Bible plainly states that the LORD God said that He gave every green plant for food to both the animals and to Adam and Eve. That is not inconsistent, it is precisely what the Holy Bible tells us. What is inconsistent is attempting to distort that simple fact and make it mean something entirely different.

No one is adding anything to the historical flood account! It is exceedingly obvious to me that a global flood upon the entire surface of the Earth over all the high mountains under heaven would have massive volumes of floating matter, such as wood. The last time I checked, most wood floats, logs float, logs become entangled, indeed areas of trees ripped from their location with soil still around their roots happens from time to time in tiny little floods here in Australia, so with a global flood, its obvious that this sort of thing would have occurred then too. If you find that a problem, so be it, but To me it is a fairly logical deduction for a Global Flood to have massive rafts of vegetation afloat on the Global Ocean!

Nothing is expanded whatsoever! The Bible clearly tells us that when Adam sinned, death entered the world. Death was not present prior to when Adam sinned. Paul makes that ever so clear in Romans 5:12

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Your absurd dishonest misrepresentation is in fact against the LORD God because you are stating that what I referenced from the Holy Bible is that the text states that Eve is mother of all the living, which is clearly in reference to all the living people on Earth, including you and me even now. But you have chosen to take it upon yourself to be deceitful and have added the words, “not just humans.”

The actual English translation from the Hebrew in the KJV is:

20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. {Eve: Heb. Chavah: that is Living} Genesis 3:20

Completely devoid of understanding, is all I can see in your accusations here.

The Holy Bible clearly informs us that the creation was created by the LORD God and He looked upon what He had made, “and God saw that it was good.”

What God created was completely good in every respect, there was no sorrow, no guilt, no death or suffering, as Adam had not yet sinned and thus death had NOT YET entered the creation, and God had NOT YET cursed the creation, which was “very good.”

Eve is the mother of all the living and Adam is the Federal Head of ALL humanity. There were no other humans on Earth when Adam and Eve were first created by God. There were initially only TWO HUMANS alive in the beginning. And they were made by God, and as they lived exceedingly long lives as the Holy Bible faithfully tells us, it is not unreasonable to conclude that they had perfect genomes, that is there had been no deterioration BEFORE they sinned. When they sinned against God, their bodies immediately began to die; at that point in time death entered the creation for the FIRST time ever.

The only people alive were Adam and Eve and their children. As they had near perfect genomes, their would be no detrimental consequences from brother and sister marrying and having children. That was not incest, because that had not been forbidden by God at that point in mankind’s history.

At a point in time much later when the genetic errors were accumulating, that it would result in birth defects from close relatives marrying and having offspring, God commanded that doing so was henceforth forbidden, but make no mistake, The Bible is clear that we all go back to Adam through the 8 people that survived the Flood, I strongly suggest you open up your Holy Bible and read Genesis 3:20; Acts 17:26; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5.

So marriage between close relatives early on is required, but we can understand how this makes moral and scientific sense. And you may not be aware of the fact, that modern genetics helps to confirm that ALL human beings are very closely related, not at all what most secular evolutionists expected to find, but that fact simply further confirms the accuracy of the Holy Bible.

The whole concept of incest came later down the track than the first humans, and was not anathema then as it is now, for good reason, given the high mutational load we are all carrying now that is increasing each and every generation.

I strongly encourage you to read the article titled, “When did Eve live?”

at:

I’m sorry Marshall, but as I have shown above making claims based upon deception just does not justify the statements you have made here. The Holy Bible doesn’t need me to speak for it. The Word is completely capable of speaking for itself and it does. You can repeat the error of attempting to make the Holy Bible complicit with TEC dogma of the deep time and evolution worldview, but I for one will continue to trust in the revelation provided by scripture rather than the wisdom of men.

God Bless,

jon

This is another incredibly stupid argument. There are thousands of such trace fossil beds around the world that are known to have been exposed for centuries. Any one of them could be buried by sediment deposited by a landslide or local flood at some time in the future, which sediment clearly would not have come immediately.

3 Likes

31) “Rapid island formation/maturation (e.g., Surtsey) ⇒ deep time unnecessary.”

  • Yes, volcanoes can build islands fast (Surtsey erupted 1963–1967), and ecosystems colonize quickly—this is classic event sedimentation and primary succession, not a clock for Earth’s age. (Náttúrufræðistofnun)

  • Icelandic monitoring documents ongoing diagenesis (e.g., palagonitization of tuffs) and gradual marine erosion—i.e., fast birth, then slow evolution of the landform over decades to centuries. (Umhverfisstofnun)

Bottom line: A short eruption shows how some strata form, not how long the whole rock record took.


32) “Coastlines erode ~1 m/6 yrs (e.g., Beachy Head) ⇒ continents are too young.”

  • Coastal erosion is episodic and spatially variable. Chalk cliffs in Sussex retreat 0.11–0.7 m/yr depending on location and intervals; modern work shows recent acceleration relative to Holocene averages—rates aren’t constant. (ScienceDirect)

  • You cannot back-extrapolate a short-term rate to erase continents. Global denudation data (sediment budgets + cosmogenic nuclides) indicate long-term erosion rates are low and stable on 10^6–10^7-yr scales—fully compatible with deep time. (Watershed Processes Group)

Bottom line: Rapid local cliff loss ≠ a young Earth; it’s local process overprinted on deep-time landscapes.


33) “Vertical erosion of continents is too fast for billions of years.”

  • Long-term (million-year) denudation compiled globally shows no runaway removal of continents; typical rates are tens to a few hundred meters per Myr, balanced by tectonic uplift and isostasy. That’s exactly what deep-time geomorphology predicts. (Watershed Processes Group)

Bottom line: Denudation + uplift are in long-term balance; continents persist over geologic time.


34) “Old, flat paleoplains (e.g., Kangaroo Island) embarrass deep time.”

  • Twidale’s classic paper (“On the Survival of Paleoforms”) doesn’t deny deep time; it explains long-lived low-relief surfaces via aridity, tectonic quiescence, etchplanation, and caprock protection. Their survival is a geomorphic problem to be modeled, not evidence against old ages. (American Journal of Science)

Bottom line: Paleoform preservation mechanisms are well studied; they don’t collapse the geologic timescale.


35) “High mountain ranges mostly rose ‘recently’ (~5 Ma) and almost simultaneously.”

  • Major orogens have different clocks:

    • Himalaya tied to India–Asia collision beginning ≥60–50 Ma (with multiple uplift phases since). (ScienceDirect)

    • Rockies (Laramide) mostly 80–55 Ma. (USGS overview.) (USGS)

    • Andes: complex, multi-phase Cenozoic uplift with Neogene pulses—not a single 5-Ma flip. (AGU Publications)

Bottom line: There was no global, synchronous 5-Ma mountain pop-up. Different ranges record distinct, long-lived tectonic histories.


36) Water gaps mean rapid Flood-carving.
No. “Water gaps” (rivers cutting gorges through ridges) are well explained by standard geomorphology: antecedent streams maintain course while uplift occurs, superimposed streams inherit courses from former cover beds, and river capture/headward erosion can reroute drainages. These mechanisms are observed and modeled; they don’t require a global flood. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

37) Niagara Gorge erosion fits only a few thousand years.
Niagara’s post-glacial history is Holocene: the Falls initiated ~12,000 years ago and have retreated ~11 km since, with highly variable rates (including bursts during lake-level sills and meltwater pulses). Modern flow controls further slow retreat—so you can’t back-extrapolate a single rate to get a young age. (New York State Museum)

38) River delta growth shows only thousands of years.
Deltas build in pulses and switch lobes. For example, the Mississippi’s Lafourche lobe prograded 100–150 m/yr during active phases—within an overall Holocene delta complex evolving over millennia in response to sea-level and sediment supply. Point-in-time progradation ≠ whole-delta age. (PMC)

39) Underfit streams prove rapid, recent carving.
“Underfit” valleys (valley too large for its present stream) are a classic signal of past higher discharges—e.g., glacial meltwater/pluvial climates—or base-level changes. The foundational USGS monographs (Dury) quantify the needed discharge changes; none of this implies a young Earth. (USGS Publications)

40) Not enough salt in the sea for billions of years.
Ocean salinity is a dynamic balance: inputs (rivers, dust, volcanism) are offset by outputs (evaporite formation, authigenic clays, biological uptake, burial, hydrothermal circulation, subduction). Major ions have residence times of tens of millions of years (Na⁺ ~55–80 Myr; Cl⁻ ~74–98 Myr), consistent with an old ocean at quasi–steady state. (MBARI)

3 Likes

Given that the first 13 are just wrong, I’m going to guess that this lives down to their usually bad quality, and ignore the rest.

4 Likes

That one’s been known to be a bad option for 200 years, given that there are some ions with residence times under a year.

3 Likes

41) “Not enough sediment on the seafloor (so oceans are young).”
Reality: The average oceanic crust is young because it’s constantly created at ridges and recycled at subduction zones; sediments are scraped off, subducted, or trapped on margins. River fluxes (~20 Gt/yr) and observed recycling easily balance observed sediment volumes on a seafloor whose mean age is ~60–70 Ma. (AGU Publications)
One-liner: “Plate tectonics constantly removes seafloor and its mud—‘too little sediment’ ignores subduction and young oceanic crust ages.”

42) “Ferromanganese nodules grow fast → oceans are young.”
Reality: Deep-sea nodules mostly accrete millimetres per million years; multiple radiometric chronometers (e.g., ^10Be) date individual growth layers to multi-million-year ages. Rare, shallow-water or diagenetic cases grow faster but aren’t representative of abyssal fields. (World Ocean Review)
One-liner: “Typical abyssal nodules grow mm/Myr and carry ^10Be clocks—textbook multi-million-year records.”

43) “Placer deposits form fast → Earth is young.”
Reality: Some placers do accumulate quickly (modern beaches/rivers), but many major placer ores are demonstrably old—from Miocene strandlines (7+ Ma) to Archean giants like Witwatersrand (~3.0–2.7 Ga). Fast formation ≠ young Earth. (Taylor & Francis Online)
One-liner: “Yes, some placers form fast—but others are Miocene or Archean; deposit rate doesn’t set Earth’s age.”

44) “High pressure in oil/gas wells can’t last millions of years.”
Reality: Overpressure persists geologic times in low-permeability shales sealed by caprocks; it’s generated and maintained by disequilibrium compaction, hydrocarbon generation, and tectonics—standard petroleum-system physics. (OSTI)
One-liner: “Shales seal; overpressure is expected and sustainable over millions of years in tight, sealed systems.”

45) “Oil is forming today (Guaymas, Bass Strait) → Earth is young.”
Reality: Guaymas Basin is a special hydrothermal setting where high heat rapidly pyrolyzes organic-rich sediments—showing that petroleum can form rapidly under extreme conditions, not that all oil did so recently. Bass/Gippsland petroleum systems are sourced mainly from Cretaceous–Paleogene coals/shales with generation continuing as burial/heat proceed—again, ongoing processes within an old basin, not evidence against deep time. (ScienceDirect)
One-liner: “Modern oil generation in special settings (or ongoing maturation in old basins) says how oil forms—not that Earth is young.”


46) “Rapid reversals in paleomagnetism compress the timescale.”
Geoscientists do find episodes where the field changes geologically fast—often hundreds to a few thousand years—but that doesn’t imply a young Earth. High-resolution lava, sediment, and cave records show reversals/excursions spanning ~10²–10⁴ years, embedded within a polarity timeline stretching tens of millions of years. Rapid segments occur within an ancient record, not instead of it. Reviews and modern models: Valet & Fournier (2016), Alberti et al. (2023), Panovska et al. (2019/2021), USGS overview. (AGU Publications)

47) “Magnetic stripes at mid-ocean ridges mean ultra-fast reversals and a young Earth.”
The “zebra stripes” are the classic confirmation of seafloor spreading (Vine–Matthews–Morley). New crust forms at ridges, locks in the then-current polarity, and moves outward; symmetric stripes + radiometric ages give spreading rates and a geomagnetic polarity time scale. This is a cornerstone of plate tectonics—not evidence against deep time. See USGS explainer and historical summaries of the V–M–M hypothesis. (USGS Publications)

48) “Measured stalactite/stalagmite growth fits only thousands of years.”
Speleothem growth varies by orders of magnitude depending on drip rate, chemistry, CO₂, temperature, etc.—from ~0.006 to >2 mm/yr in modern datasets. Crucially, U–Th–dated speleothems yield continuous paleoclimate records back ~640,000 years (and beyond in some caves), demonstrating both old deposits and variable growth rates. Reviews & records: Railsback et al. 2018; Baker et al. 2021; Cheng et al. 2016 (Hulu/Chinese caves). (ScienceDirect)

49) “Exponential decay of Earth’s magnetic field ⇒ only thousands of years old.”
That “simple decay curve” is outdated. Direct, archaeomagnetic, and paleomagnetic data show non-monotonic field behavior: intensity rises and falls, sometimes sharply (regional “spikes”), and reverses/execursions occur on 10²–10⁴-year scales—exactly what a geodynamo in a convecting liquid outer core predicts. Global field reconstructions for the last 10,000 years (CALS10k family) and agency overviews (NASA/USGS) contradict a steady exponential decay. (GFZ)

50) “Excess Earth heat flow fits a young Earth.”
Modern syntheses put global surface heat flow at ~47 ± 2 TW, sourced roughly half from radiogenic decay (U, Th, K) and half from primordial heat—fully consistent with billions of years of mantle convection and plate tectonics. Lord Kelvin’s 19th-century “young Earth” cooling argument failed because it omitted convection (and, historically, radioactivity). See Davies & Davies (2010) for the heat-flow total; recent work on radiogenic contributions; and historical analyses of Kelvin vs. convection. (Copernicus)


51) “Carbon-14 in coal ⇒ coal is only thousands of years old.”

  • Why it shows nothing young: Coal is not a closed system—humic/fulvic acids, groundwater, rootlets, conservation glues, and lab handling add trace modern carbon. AMS labs explicitly measure a small background of ^14C even in “infinite-age” materials and correct for it. Creationist RATE coal values fall in that background/contamination regime. (Cambridge University Press & Assessment)
    One-liner: Trace ^14C in coal = contamination/background, not clock-resetting.

52) “Carbon-14 in oil ⇒ oil is young.”

  • Reality check: Fossil-fuel CO₂ from power-plant stacks is used as a radiocarbon-dead reference because petroleum has negligible ^14C; analyses of stack gases confirm the near-zero signal. When ^14C shows up in petroleum samples, modern carbon contamination (collection, solvents, graphitization) is the parsimonious cause. (ScienceDirect)
    One-liner: Petroleum is the textbook ^14C blank—any measured ^14C points to contamination, not youth.

53) “Carbon-14 in fossil wood ⇒ only thousands of years old.”

  • What’s going on: Old wood is notoriously susceptible to younger carbon (fungal/humic ingress, carbonates, consolidants). Radiocarbon labs therefore use aggressive pretreatments (e.g., ABOx-SC, cellulose extraction) precisely because simpler methods give spuriously young ages. The need for harsher cleaning—and the older, consistent results it yields—is well documented. (Cambridge University Press & Assessment)
    One-liner: Apparent ^14C in ancient wood is a pretreatment/contamination issue, not evidence against deep time.

54) “Carbon-14 in diamonds ⇒ diamonds (and Earth) are young.”

  • What the literature actually says: Natural diamonds have been used by radiocarbon specialists as instrument backgrounds to monitor AMS contamination. Taylor & Southon showed the tiny signals reflect instrument/target background, not intrinsic ^14C of billion-year-old diamonds; they later clarified this for non-specialists. (ResearchGate)
    One-liner: Those diamond ^14C counts are background from the AMS system, not a stopwatch on Earth’s age.

55) “Incongruent radioisotope dates (same technique) ⇒ the methods can’t be trusted.”

  • How geochronology handles this: Discordance happens (inheritance, Pb loss, metamorphism, open-system behavior). That’s why tools like the U–Pb concordia/discordia diagram exist—to detect disturbance and recover crystallization and disturbance ages. Across rocks, minerals, and labs, U–Pb, Ar–Ar, Rb–Sr, Sm–Nd, etc., deliver mutually consistent, cross-checked ages on a multi-Ma to Ga timescale. (TIMS Lab)
    One-liner: Occasional discordant dates are diagnosed and corrected; the overwhelming pattern is concordant deep time.

56) “Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques ⇒ methods can’t be trusted.”
Different systems/minerals have different closure temperatures and respond differently to metamorphism/fluids. So U–Pb zircon might date crystallization, Ar–Ar mica a later cooling or metamorphic event, and Rb–Sr whole-rock a fluid episode. Geochronology expects this and uses multi-system, multi-mineral cross-checks to reconstruct the sequence of events.
Bottom line: Divergent numbers usually record different geological moments, not method failure.


57) “Non-radiogenic (‘false’) isochrons undermine isochron dating.”
Mixing of two sources can mimic an isochron in some datasets, which is why geologists (a) use internal mineral isochrons, (b) test multiple isotope systems, (c) require petrographic/field consistency, and (d) reject datasets that flunk these checks. Vast numbers of isochrons from well-behaved systems agree with independent methods and stratigraphy.
Bottom line: “False isochrons” are a known pitfall with known diagnostics; robust isochrons remain strong evidence.


58) “Different faces of the same zircon / different zircons from one rock give different ages.”
Zircon commonly has zoned growth: inherited cores (older) plus magmatic rims (younger), sometimes metamorphic overgrowths. In-situ U–Pb dating (SIMS/LA-ICP-MS) maps these zones and routinely resolves magmatic inheritance, magma mixing, and metamorphism. Variation is the signal, not an error.
Bottom line: Age zoning in zircon records history (inheritance + new growth); it doesn’t invalidate U–Pb.


59) “Lead/helium in zircons show a burst of accelerated nuclear decay in the recent past.”
The RATE claim hinges on simplified diffusion assumptions and temperature histories. In the real world, helium retention depends on temperature, radiation damage, and annealing; U–Th/He in zircon is a standard thermochronometer that reproducibly dates cooling over tens of millions of years and matches independent methods (e.g., fission tracks, Ar–Ar). No independent line requires a recent, global decay-speed-up (which would also wreak havoc on heat budgets and isochron consistency).
Bottom line: Helium/lead data fit conventional thermochronology with realistic thermal histories—no “accelerated decay” needed.


60) “Helium in zircons implies ~6,000 ± 2,000 years.”
That number comes from overestimating diffusion rates and mischaracterizing the rocks’ thermal history in a single locality. When measured diffusion kinetics, damage/annealing, and burial/cooling paths are modeled, zircon He contents yield old (not young) U–Th/He ages consistent with other dating systems and regional geology.
Bottom line: The helium-in-zircon claim is a modeling artifact; standard zircon (U–Th)/He ages consistently indicate deep time.


61) “Lead in zircons from deep vs. shallow drill cores is similar; deep should have lost more Pb by heat ⇒ rocks are young.”

  • What zircon does: Zircon holds Pb extremely well; its closure temperature is very high (often >900 °C). Pb in zircon is produced in-place by U/Th decay and does not readily diffuse out under typical crustal temperatures.

  • Why ‘similar Pb’ isn’t surprising: Deep cores are not necessarily much hotter over geologic time (cooling, fluid flow, variable geothermal gradients). Pb retention is also controlled by radiation damage/annealing and grain size, not simply depth.
    Bottom line: Similar Pb contents at different depths don’t imply youth; they are expected from zircon’s low Pb diffusivity and complex thermal histories.


62) “Polonium radiohalos in granite require instantaneous ‘accelerated decay’ and rapid rock formation.”

  • Alternative mechanism: Polonium can be supplied secondarily: radon (Rn-222) and Po isotopes migrate in microfractures/fluids, precipitating at defect sites in micas/zircons and producing Po halos without instantaneous creation.

  • Field reality: Many Po halos occur near U-bearing inclusions and along microcrack networks, exactly what the fluid-transport model predicts.
    Bottom line: Po halos don’t require a burst of accelerated nuclear decay; hydrothermal transport explains them within standard geology.


63) “Squashed radiohalos in coalified wood show all layers formed quickly at the same time.”

  • What “squashed” records: Halos formed before full compaction, then the wood/host was compressed during diagenesis—a normal sequence in burial.

  • Why this isn’t global: Local timing (halo → later compaction) says nothing about a worldwide single depositional event; surrounding ash/strata date these horizons independently to standard geologic ages.
    Bottom line: Deformed halos record local burial/compaction history, not a planet-wide, instantaneous rock record.


64) “Australia’s ‘Burning Mountain’ refutes radiometric dating (coal burning ~40 Myr is impossible).”

  • What geologists date: The igneous intrusion that heated the basin rocks is Eocene in age; no one claims the coal seam has burned for 40 Myr. The seam ignited much later and has migrated slowly—centimeters to meters per year—over historic timescales.

  • The mix-up: Radiometric dates refer to intrusion age, not the duration of combustion.
    Bottom line: Burning Mountain is a natural coal-seam fire superimposed on old rocks; it does not challenge radiometric dating.


65) “Recent volcanic activity on the Moon contradicts a billions-of-years-old Moon.”

  • What’s actually observed: The Moon shows localized, small-volume late volcanism (some basalt flows likely <1 Ga, a few features perhaps ~100 Ma) and young thrust faults from ongoing contraction.

  • Why this fits models: Residual radiogenic heat, KREEP-rich pockets, and localized mantle sources can sustain minor eruptions long after large-scale volcanism waned. None of this requires a young Moon.
    Bottom line: Patchy, late lunar activity is compatible with an ancient Moon; it doesn’t overturn the ~4.5 Ga lunar age.


66) “The Moon’s recession (3.8 cm/yr) proves a young system.”
The current 3.8 cm/yr LLR rate is not constant through time. Geological tidal-rhythmite data and tidal-dissipation models show much slower average recession over deep time (≈1–2 cm/yr during large parts of the Proterozoic), so naïvely back-extrapolating today’s rate is wrong. Variable ocean-basin geometry and resonances modulate dissipation. Result: no “Roche-limit catastrophe”; the Earth–Moon system comfortably fits a ~4.5 Ga history. (AGU Publications)

67) “The Moon’s ancient magnetic field is too strong/short-lived for an old Moon.”
Lunar rocks record a core dynamo with surface fields of ~20–110 μT that persisted for billions of years (multiple phases/decay). Reviews and sample studies show a long-lived or episodic dynamo—driven by core cooling, crystallization, or precession—fully compatible with an ancient Moon. (Newer work debates exact duration, but all imply early, ancient magnetism—not youth.) (Science)

68) “Ghost craters on the maria mean cratering was rapid and recent.”
“Ghost craters” are older impact craters partly buried by later mare basalts; their subdued rims outline structures flooded by lava. They’re exactly what you expect when volcanic infill covers an older cratered surface—no young-Moon implication. Thickness studies of mare basalts and LRO mapping explicitly document this flooding-then-resurfacing sequence. (ScienceDirect)

69) “Mercury’s magnetic field is too strong for a small, old planet.”
MESSENGER showed Mercury’s field is a weak, offset dipole consistent with an active dynamo in a sulfur-rich, partially molten core; crustal magnetization also records ancient fields. Modern dynamo models reproduce Mercury’s peculiar field geometry—no need for a young planet. (NASA Technical Reports Server)

70) “Uranus/Neptune magnetic fields shouldn’t last for billions of years.”
Their weird, non-dipolar, off-axis fields are explained by thin-shell dynamos operating in electrically conducting “ionic oceans” (water-ammonia-salt layers) above deeper stable interiors. Simulations match Voyager-era observations and modern theory—again, not an age problem. (PubMed)


71) “Ganymede, Io & Europa have magnetic fields they ‘shouldn’t.’”
Only Ganymede has a long-lived intrinsic dynamo field. Europa and Io do not; they show induced magnetic signatures from salty subsurface oceans interacting with Jupiter’s field—exactly what Galileo’s magnetometer observed. Intrinsic at Ganymede (metallic core, active dynamo); induced at Europa/Io ≠ age problem. (Nature)

72) “Io’s volcanism means it can’t be billions of years old.”
Io’s extreme volcanism is powered by tidal heating from orbital resonances with Jupiter/Europa/Ganymede, delivering ~10^14 W (order of 100 TW; surface heat flux ~1–3 W m⁻²). That energy source can persist over geologic time; the “erupted its mass 40×” line assumes a constant, unrealistic outflow and ignores replenishment and heat-flow constraints. Recent observations and models explicitly show long-lived, tidally sustained activity. (DLR eLibrary)

73) “Europa’s crater stats mean far fewer impacts → young solar system.”
On Europa, ~95% of small craters are secondaries (ejecta from larger impacts). That revises local crater-counting surface ages downward (Europa’s surface ≈ 40–90 Myr), but says nothing about the age of the solar system. It reflects resurfacing on an active ice shell, not a young cosmos. (PubMed)

74) “Methane on Titan should be gone—so Titan is young.”
Titan’s CH₄ is photolyzed on ~10–30 Myr timescales, so it must be replenished—by cryovolcanism, release from clathrates, or interior chemistry—while a full methane hydrologic cycle (clouds, rain, lakes/seas) continually recycles it. Cassini/JWST and modern atmospheric reviews treat replenishment as standard, not a youth signal. (NASA Science)

75) “Saturn’s rings are changing fast → ‘young’ system.”
Cassini data imply the main rings are relatively young (often <100–400 Myr) due to low mass and micrometeoroid “pollution” rates—transient rings, not a young planet. Competing models even allow older rings via recycling/cleaning; either way, ring age ≠ Saturn’s or the solar system’s age. (NASA Science)


76) “Enceladus is too active to be old.”
Cassini found Enceladus’s south polar terrain emits GW-level heat and plumes—but tidal heating plus fracture/fault physics can sustain activity over geologic time. Models (e.g., turbulent dissipation, resonance locking, fault-enhanced tides) show long-lived oceans and persistent heat budgets without a young moon. (PMC)
One-liner: Enceladus’s heat/plumes fit tidal-heating models over long timescales; “still active” ≠ “recently made.”


77) “Miranda’s extreme surface means it’s young.”
Miranda’s canyons and coronae reflect a complex tectonic/cryovolcanic history (possibly diapirs or even a past ocean episode), not necessarily a young age. Voyager 2 imaging and recent analyses treat the features as results of internal processes across time, not a clock for the whole system. (NASA Science)
One-liner: Wild geology ≠ young world; Miranda’s features record ancient and episodic internal activity.


78) “Neptune should be cold and still; fastest winds imply youth.”
Neptune’s internal heat flux (residual formation heat) powers >1,100–1,200 mph winds despite weak sunlight. That’s standard planetary meteorology, not a young-planet signature. (The puzzle is Uranus’s low heat flux, not Neptune’s strong one.) (NASA Science)
One-liner: Fast winds come from internal heat, not a young Neptune.


79) “Neptune’s rings are clumpy, so they can’t be old.”
The arcs in Neptune’s Adams ring are dynamically confined by resonances with the moon Galatea; N-body work and observations explain their persistence. Clumps ≠ short lifetime; they’re a maintained dynamical state. (PubMed)
One-liner: Ring arcs are resonance-confined—clumpiness is expected dynamics, not a youth indicator.


80) “Triton’s surface is <10 Myr, so the system is young.”
Crater counts indicate Triton’s surface is geologically young due to resurfacing, not that the moon (or solar system) is young. Modern counts still support very young surface ages on parts of Triton while the body itself remains ancient. (ScienceDirect)
One-liner: Young surface from resurfacing ≠ young moon (let alone a young solar system).


81) “Uranus & Neptune have off-axis, ‘unstable’ magnetic fields ⇒ young planets.”
Ice-giant fields are explained by thin-shell/stratified dynamos operating in electrically conducting water–ammonia layers above deeper interiors. Models and reviews reproduce their non-dipolar, tilted, offset fields without invoking youth. (PMC)

82) “Pluto’s chaotic orbit on a ~20 Myr timescale ⇒ Solar System must be young.”
Pluto is chaotic but long-term stable thanks to the 3:2 resonance with Neptune and constraints on perihelion geometry; chaos ≠ imminent instability. High-precision integrations and modern analyses show Gyr-scale survival. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

83) “Short-period comets die fast ⇒ Solar System is <10,000 yrs.”
Short-period (Jupiter-family) comets are replenished from the scattered disk/Kuiper belt; long-period comets come from the Oort cloud, fed by stellar passages and the Galactic tide. That ongoing supply explains the steady trickle we see today. (PubMed)

84) “Crystalline H₂O ice + ammonia hydrate on Quaoar/Charon can’t be >10 Myr old ⇒ young Solar System.”
Irradiation would amorphize/alter surface ices over ~10⁷ yr unless resurfaced or annealed. Observations conclude recent resurfacing by cryovolcanism/impacts (exposing shielded ice), not a young system. Lab work shows NH₃–H₂O hydrates’ signatures and thermal behavior consistent with this picture. (PubMed)

85) “Long-period comets (e.g., Hale-Bopp) can’t last billions of years ⇒ young Solar System.”
They don’t last—they’re continually resupplied from the distant Oort cloud, with injections driven by the Galactic tide and passing stars. That reservoir naturally maintains today’s long-period comet flux over billions of years. (Astrophysics Data System)

86) “Near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) only last ~10⁶ years ⇒ Solar System is young.”
NEAs do have short dynamical lifetimes, but they’re continually resupplied from the main belt via resonances and the Yarkovsky thermal drift. A short lifetime for any one NEA says nothing about the age of the source reservoirs; it just shows the system is in steady-state turnover.

87) “Binary asteroids can only survive ~10⁵ years; there are many ⇒ young system.”
Binary (and contact-binary) asteroids form all the time through YORP-driven rotational fission, gentle re-accumulation after impacts, and tidal encounters. Even if binaries are transient, ongoing formation balances losses—again a steady-state population, not evidence of youth.

88) “Rapid stellar changes (e.g., Sakurai’s Object) contradict vast stellar ages.”
Sakurai’s Object is a textbook late thermal pulse of a post-AGB star—an expected, brief phase (years–decades) embedded in an overall multi-Gyr stellar evolution. Short, dramatic episodes are part of long lifecycles, not a refutation of them.

89) “Faint Young Sun paradox means Earth can’t be billions of years old.”
The paradox is addressed by combinations of stronger greenhouse forcing (CO₂/CH₄), lower albedo, different cloud microphysics, and geochemical feedbacks (e.g., carbonate–silicate cycle). Multiple climate–geochemical models keep early Earth above freezing without touching the Sun’s or Earth’s age.

90) “Recent lunar thrust faults mean a young Moon.”
Small lobate scarps and shallow moonquakes show the Moon is still cooling and contracting—minor, ongoing tectonism on an old body. Local young features (tens of Myr, maybe younger in spots) don’t reset the Moon’s ~4.5-Gyr formation age.


91) “Jupiter/Saturn radiate more energy than they get from the Sun ⇒ they’re young.”
Gas giants have internal heat sources: (a) Kelvin–Helmholtz contraction (slow gravitational settling) and (b) for Saturn especially, helium rain (phase separation of H/He that releases heat). These processes naturally sustain excess luminosity over billions of years and are standard in modern interior models. (Wikipedia)
Bottom line: Extra heat is expected from long-term contraction and helium rain—not a youth signature.


92) “Stars in dwarf galaxies move ‘too fast’ and would disperse in ~100 Myr.”
Dwarf spheroidals are dark-matter dominated, dispersion-supported galaxies; their velocity dispersions reflect deep gravitational potentials, keeping them bound. Modern kinematic studies (thousands of stellar velocities) and mass modeling show they remain stable over Gyr timescales. “Fast stars ⇒ unbound” ignores dark matter and the virial theorem. (arXiv)
Bottom line: Dwarf galaxies are held together by dark matter; their dispersions don’t imply imminent breakup.


93) “Spiral galaxies can’t be older than ~200 Myr (winding problem).”
The “winding” issue was solved decades ago: spiral arms are not material arms. They’re density waves and/or transient/dynamic spirals that are continually maintained or re-formed by disk instabilities, bars, and interactions. Hence, old spiral disks with ongoing arm structure are exactly what theory and surveys expect. (Astrophysics Data System)
Bottom line: Spirals persist via wave/dynamic mechanisms—no “young galaxy” required.


94) “Too few supernova remnants (SNRs) for an old Galaxy.”
Counts are incomplete because old/faint SNRs are hard to detect against the crowded Galactic plane; selection effects (surface-brightness limits, distance confusion, absorption) dominate. The Green catalogue lists ~310 Galactic SNRs and explicitly discusses incompleteness, with modern surveys estimating the sample may be ≲30% complete—i.e., hundreds remain undiscovered. (arXiv)
Bottom line: “Missing SNRs” = observational bias, not a young Milky Way.


95) “Paucity of highly expanded SNRs proves youth.”
Late-stage SNRs have low surface brightness and blend into the ISM; many will be undetected with current radio sensitivity and resolution. Catalog papers emphasize exactly this selection bias, and new surveys keep adding candidates. The expected Galactic SNR inventory over the past ~20–100 kyr is broadly consistent once incompleteness is included. (arXiv)
Bottom line: Old, diffuse remnants are hard to see—that’s a detection issue, not a timescale killer.


96) “Human population growth (0.5%/yr from 6 people in 4,500 yrs) ⇒ matches today’s population.”
That assumes a constant exponential rate and no wars, pandemics, famines, infertility, or long hunter-gatherer phases with near-zero net growth. Demography shows high mortality + low fertility kept prehistoric populations small; growth only accelerates with agriculture (Holocene) and especially industrial medicine. Genetics (mtDNA/Y/whole-genome coalescence) and archaeology both indicate deep human ancestry far beyond a few thousand years.
Bottom line: A cherry-picked growth rate isn’t evidence for a young humanity.

97) “Too few Stone Age skeletons/artifacts for 100,000+ years.”
Fossilization is rare; most bodies never preserve. Even so, there are tens of thousands of Pleistocene human remains and millions of artifacts across Africa/Eurasia/Australia, with long stratified sequences (open-air sites and caves). Many coastal Paleolithic sites are now submerged after post-glacial sea-level rise, further lowering counts.
Bottom line: The record is exactly as sparse as taphonomy predicts—yet still abundantly documents deep time.

98) “Recorded history is only a few thousand years ⇒ humans are that young.”
Writing arises late and independently (Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, Mesoamerica) because for most of human existence societies were small, mobile foragers with no need for writing. Archaeology documents prehistory (settlements, tools, art, burials) long before writing.
Bottom line: Short written history ≠ short human history.

99) “Similarities among far-flung languages ⇒ recent single origin (Babel).”
Superficial similarities can come from borrowing, universals, or chance. Historical linguistics reconstructs families (Indo-European, Bantu, Austronesian, etc.) with time depths of millennia–tens of millennia, but signals wash out deeper than ~8–12k years—so we expect limited recoverable relatedness at great depth. That decay doesn’t imply a recent origin; it reflects linguistic replacement over time.
Bottom line: Language science fits deep human time without requiring a single recent split.

100) “Common flood myths worldwide ⇒ global Flood, recent Earth.”
Flooding is a universal human hazard (rivers, deltas, tsunamis, glacial-lake outbursts), so flood stories are convergent and/or diffused—and they disagree on key details. Geology shows no single global, synchronous flood layer; instead we see local/regional events across different eras.
Bottom line: Shared motifs reflect common risks and storytelling, not a planet-wide flood thousands of years ago.

101) “Agriculture begins ~10,000 years ago; if humans are older, why did no one farm sooner?”
Farming correlates with Holocene climate stabilization after the Ice Age, plus rising population density and resource pressure. Agriculture arose independently in multiple centers (Fertile Crescent, China, New Guinea, Sahel, Andes/Mesoamerica) over millennia, exactly when climate and demography made it pay off relative to foraging.
Bottom line: The timing of agriculture matches climate economics, not a young-Earth timeline.

5 Likes

The problem is that there is no potential evidence that you would accept as being contrary to YEC. YEC is a dogma impervious to evidence. If you think I am wrong, then answer these questions:

What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify a young Earth and/or a recent global flood?

What features would a fossil need in order to falsify the claim of separate creation of kinds?

What genetic features in the genome of different species would falsify separate creation of kinds?

Let’s look at the observations themselves, using radiometric dating as a focused example:

  1. We can measure the rate of decay for unstable isotopes and determine their daughter products.

  2. We can measure the ratio of isotopes in rocks.

  3. We can observe that specific rocks form without any significant amount of daughter product present while including parent isotopes in their formation.

How is any of this a worldview?

7 Likes
  • Surprise, no cherry-picking. And here’s what ChatGPT said, when I asked it if it had anything to say to you:


  • Dear Jon,

    “Refute all 101” is not an argument; it’s the debate-world equivalent of dumping a phone book and calling it scholarship. There’s a name for this: the Gish Gallop—bury the thread in dozens of weak claims and then declare victory if no one sprints a marathon to swat each gnat.

    Science doesn’t grade on length. One solid, current, peer-reviewed result beats a 2009 blog compendium of 101 talking points. If your case is strong, you shouldn’t need a bucket brigade of half-claims—just your best five.

    So here’s a fair offer:

    1. Pick your top five items from the list—the ones you personally trust most.

    2. Cite current, peer-reviewed sources (not creationist house journals or copy-pasted summaries).

    3. State what would change your mind if the evidence goes the other way.

    4. We’ll test those five. If your best crumble, adding 96 more doesn’t resurrect them.

    If a chef serves 101 dishes and the first five are spoiled, no one has to finish the buffet to conclude there’s a kitchen problem. Same here. Quality over quantity—always.

God bless.

  
5 Likes

Psalm 104

4He makes the winds His messengers, flames of fire His servants. 5He set the earth on its foundations, never to be moved.

The Bible says the Earth rests on foundations and it doesn’t move. Heliocentrism says the Earth rests on nothing, and it moves.

The Bible says the Earth is a circle which is flat.

The Bible clearly states the Earth doesn’t move and it’s flat. So why don’t you believe these things?

5 Likes

Thank you for finally addressing this. I don’t see any way I have misrepresented you or misquoted you. I pointed out this issue 10 days ago, yet without clarification from you. Now that you have clarified, you avoid the absurd conclusion that all living things descend from Eve, but at the expense of contradicting how you read animals into other passages about people.

With this clarification from you, I can rephrase my earlier list into three clean contradictions:

  • Deny that any initial food sources existed but those mentioned in Genesis 1 (so land creatures and birds ate only green plants and fish ate nothing), but add creative ways of surviving the flood other than the ark Genesis presents as the only way to be saved.

  • Claim that death entering the world and spreading to all people refers to the start of death for animals you consider biblically alive, but when Genesis states that Eve is the mother of all the living, “all the living” just means people.

  • Allow God to call incest “good” initially even though it’s later called an abomination, but deny that God could call predation “good” initially even though it’s later called God’s good provision.

5 Likes

…and we’re back to the great pyramid being built when the entire world’s population was less than 100.

5 Likes

For the silent audience: how is the discussion going?

What you’ve likely noticed

  1. Repetition over engagement – The same set of claims recur (e.g., “evolution is a myth,” “no new information,” “indoctrination”), with little uptake of counterpoints already offered.

  2. Definitions remain unfixed – Key terms (“information,” “kind,” “intermediate”) aren’t operationalized, so the claims can’t be tested.

  3. Burden shifting – Demands for exhaustive proof from others, while offering no risky, falsifiable prediction from his own view.

  4. Moral framing as veto – Arguments that a good God “wouldn’t use” evolution are theological judgments, not tests of rocks, genes, or fossils.

  5. Reset moves – When pressed for mechanisms or metrics, the conversation resets to slogans, scripture citations, or incredulity.

Why that matters for you as readers

  • Without agreed definitions and a falsifier, a claim can’t lose—so it can’t meaningfully win either.

  • A discussion can be voluminous yet non-cumulative. If new posts don’t reduce uncertainty or narrow disagreements, they’re performative, not progressive.


A neutral scorecard you can apply

  • Defined terms? Are “information,” “kind,” and “intermediate” specified in measurable ways?

  • Risky prediction? Did he state one observation that would count against his view?

  • Primary evidence engaged? When evidence is presented (genomes, fossils, phylogenies), is it addressed directly or re-routed to slogans?

  • Update behavior? Any revision of claims after counterevidence appears?

  • Signal vs. volume? Do posts advance a single testable point, or multiply unscored assertions?

If most answers are “no,” you’re watching witnessing (a statement of stance), not inquiry (a test of claims).


4 Likes

To readers following along: Separate performance from progress. A claim advances when it (1) defines its key terms in measurable ways, (2) makes a risky prediction that could be wrong, and (3) engages counterevidence without resetting to slogans. In this thread, we’ve seen repeated assertions about “information,” “kinds,” and “indoctrination” without operational definitions or falsifiers, plus moral objections that don’t test geological or genomic data. That’s a valid testimony of belief, but it isn’t the kind of argument that can change anyone’s mind—including the author’s. If we want movement, let’s start with one agreed definition (e.g., an information metric), one prediction, and one possible falsifier.

2 Likes