256
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth (view source)
Revision as of 13:00, May 11, 2010
, 13:00, May 11, 2010no edit summary
The 4 comments above are not substantive. In each case, the evidence is that a basic attribute of Earth ''is'' young, and nothing above supports the denial of this fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 9 May 2010 (EDT)
The 4 comments above are not substantive. In each case, the evidence is that a basic attribute of Earth ''is'' young, and nothing above supports the denial of this fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 9 May 2010 (EDT)
== What's a counterexample? ==
Maybe we have to start with the question above. I think it is reasonable to expect a ''counterexample'' to have some basic properties:
# it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.
# it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a ''Young Earth'' and finally:
# the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.
What are the theories saying? Here are two working definitions...
'''Old Earth''': Since the 18th century, scientist are convinced that the surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time. So, if there is a somewhat widespread geological feature, we expect that we can observe it in all stages of development.
'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped as we find it now by the Great Flood.
So, how do the examples fit in?
=== The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them ===
''Fragile natural arches'' exist, as there are always formed new ones. Old natural arches collapse, but [http://www.archmillennium.net/Baby_Arch.htm others] may [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kcb60/level2/lith61.html replace] them. What if there were no natural arches? I don't think that anybody had thought of them then.
=== The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ===
No geologists thinks that these lakes are millions of years old: they were created during the last ice age. Lakes are constantly created (e.g., when rivers change there bed), and happen to perish over time ([[Messel pit]]). Some are older than others ([[Baikal sea]]). The absence of new lakes would be quite puzzling for geologists! And Earth isn't as young as the youngest lake, but much older than the oldest one...
=== The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood ===
As said earlier, saltwater lakes are explained easily as being [[endorheic]]. If there were no saltwater seas, then the endorheic basins would have to be very unstable, preventing bodies of water to become older than a couple of hundred years. This would imply quite a geologic activity, which we don't observe. But how do these inland saltwater lakes fit within the theory of a ''Young Earth''? Do you imply that the Earth was inundated by a salty ocean for forty days and nights? How could anything survive - and multiply - on this salty ground when the water receded? To explain these lakes with a global flood poses quite a few problems.
So, this ''counterexample'' is especially unconvincing, as it fails all three basic properties...
=== An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age ===
Has anyone done this extrapolation? Without it, the point is moot.
At the moment, the article impresses with the quantity of examples. But the obvious weakness of some examples distracts from other examples which may have some merit.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)