Spiral arms of galaxies would have broken up within a few 10's of thousands of years. Scientists proposed that this would not be a problem because the spiral arms are maintained by density waves. However, the density wave idea has been messed up by recent Hubble observations.   There is much to be learned about spiral galaxies, including how long they maintain their spiral structure. Although creationists claim that recent observations from the Hubble Space Telescope present problems for the density wave explanation of the spiral structures, this does not mean that an explanation will never be found that reconciles theory to observations.  That's the beauty of science - its theories are constantly evaluated against observed data, and if the data so indicates, the theory is modified or rejected as required. This indicates huge weakness in many creationist arguments. Rather than indications of a young earth, their examples are often simply phenomena that scientists do not fully understand. Eventually, when they are fully understood, the vast majority of scientists expect that these phenomena will be consistent with an ancient earth / universe. See "The Origins of Spiral Arms" by Charles Danforth (a Ph.D. candidate at Johns Hopkins University) for an introduction to current thoughts on spiral galaxies.  NASA page on Spiral Galaxies Star Formation Without Strong Density Waves: A Study of Flocculent Spirals

Galaxies are moving apart too quickly.  See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #8" from Dave Matson.

Jupiter is too hot - it would have cooled off by now if it were billions of years old.  The excess heat of Jupiter is an interesting question that is unanswered at this time. On the other hand, there is much we don't know about Jupiter and the other distant planets of the solar system, and much that we have only recently learned. Given the overwhelming evidence of for an ancient solar system and the great deal we do not yet know about Jupiter, it is far more likely that Jupiter's excess heat will eventually be explained by some process we do not currently understand fully. I think these are very tentative explanations at best, but they show that there are other explanations for the claims of creationists other than that the earth and universe are less than 10,000 years old.  One possible explanation:  Can D-D fusion explain Jupiter's excess heat?                                                         Rachid Ouyed                                                    Nordita, Copenhagen, Denmark    We explore the possibility of Deuterium-Deuterium (D-D) fusion in the interior of Jupiter. Our interest on investigating such an energy source resulted from the recent extrapolations of D-D fusion cross-section to eV temperatures which suggest D-D fusion as a potential energy source inside Jupiter. We speculate that D could have been brought deep inside the planet by planetesimals (during the process of planet formation) and deposited through planetesimal/ices vaporization. We estimate that with a modest degree of interior stratification of D (5\%$-$10\% of the total D of the planet or $1.0-3.0\times 10^{-4}M_{\oplus}$), during the early stages of the planet formation, D-D energy generation has the potential of contributing to the planet's excess heat while keeping the planet's interior stable to convection. The amount of D needed in our speculative model implies planetesimal/ices vaporization efficiency of 5$-$10\% during Jupiter formation (core-instability scenario). Possible, partial explanation from Students for the Exploration and Development of Space:  Jupiter radiates more energy into space than it receives from the Sun. The interior of Jupiter is hot: the core is probably about 20,000 K. The heat is generated by the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, the slow gravitational compression of the planet. (Jupiter does NOT produce energy by nuclear fusion as in the Sun; it is much too small and hence its interior is too cool to ignite nuclear reactions.) This interior heat probably causes convection deep within Jupiter's liquid layers and is probably responsible for the complex motions we see in the cloud tops. Saturn and Neptune are similar to Jupiter in this respect, but oddly, Uranus is not. Also, see this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #10" from Dave Matson.

Ganymede should have cooled solid but shows signs of volcanic activity. Io should have also cooled solid, but satellite photos of volcanic eruptions have been made.  Ganymede and Io are under the influence of extremely powerful tidal forces from Jupiter. These forces are enough to keep those planets geologically active. See, for example, Galileo Continues to Return Data from February's Flyby of Io from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The following is a pertinent extract from that article (emphasis mine):    Io is the most volcanically active body in our solar system. A little larger than Earth's  moon, Io is the third largest of Jupiter's moons, and the fifth one in distance from the planet. Of the four largest of Jupiter's known 16 moons, Io is the closest to Jupiter. The largest four of Jupiter's moons are also known as the Galilean moons. Io is close enough to Jupiter that the huge planet causes tremendous tidal forces on the smaller, more volatile moon. The tidal forces can cause the surface to bulge up and down (or in and out) by as much as 100 meters (330 feet)! By comparison, typical ocean tides on Earth amount to only 2 meters (6.5 feet) between low and high tides, and this for water, not solid ground! The tides in the solid body of the Earth are much smaller still. This tidal pumping generates a tremendous amount of heat within Io, keeping much of its subsurface crust in molten form. The heat seeks any available escape route to relieve the pressure, causing volcanic plumes rise as high as 300 kilometers (190 miles) above the surface.  Also, see "Jupiter's Io Generates Power And Noise, But No Magnetic Field" from a December 10th, 2001 report, also NASA..  "There's no intrinsic field," Kivelson said. "We can put that question to rest." That means Io's molten iron core does not have the same type of convective overturning by which Earth's molten core generates Earth's magnetic field. Lack of that overturning fits a model of Io's core being heated from the outside, by tidal flexing of the layers around it, rather than being heated from the center.  The heat generated inside Io by the tidal tug of Jupiter makes this moon the most volcanically active world in the solar system.

The F-ring section of Saturn's rings should only have lasted for 10,000 years.  Very little is known about Saturn's rings. Saturn's moons certainly affect the layout of the rings over time (including the F-ring, which appears to be shepherded by two small moons - see Saturn and Saturn's F-Ring from the Hawaiian Astronomical Society). Whether the F-ring section of Saturn's rings existed over 10,000 years ago has no bearing on the age of the earth or the age of the solar system. In fact, here is a great article from the Royal Astronomical Society Press Notices that shows that the F-ring changed quite a bit in just nine months! See Interweaving Strands Braid Saturn's Strange F-Ring. How in the world could creationists think that such a volatile phenomenon has any bearing on the age of the earth? Additionally, based upon these observations, I wonder how the creationists came up with their estimate that the F-ring section could have lasted only 10,000 years?

The moon is moving away from the earth at 4cm per year. It would have been touching the earth a few million (maybe he said a few hundred million - do the math) years ago. Displayed an Impact article dated Aug. 1982.  The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System by Tim Thompson

The earth's magnetic field is decaying a few % every year. Magnetic fields run down over time.  On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field by Tim Thompson  Decay of the Earth's magnetic field from The Age of the Earth by Chris Stassen  (Rebuttal to) Deterioration of earth's magnetic field, at present rates, implies an excessive field 10,000 years ago from The General Anti-Creationism FAQ by Jim Meritt  See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #11" from Dave Matson.

Earth's magnetic field would have stopped C14 dating no more than 1500 years ago.   The generation of C14 is affected by the earth's magnetic field. A strong increase in the magnetic field would deflect gamma radiation and reduce or halt the production of C14. Nonetheless, as the creationist idea that the earth's magnetic field has been constantly decaying has been rebutted immediately above, the claim regarding accuracy of C14 data is invalid. Interestingly, if it is true that an increasing magnetic would make C14 dating invalid after 1500 years,  the fact that C14 has been used to accurately date historical objects older than this is further evidence that the earth's magnetic field has not been decaying in the matter claimed by creationists.  The accuracy of radiocarbon dating was tested on objects with dates that were already known through historical records such as parts of the dead sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb. Based on the results of the Carbon 14 test the analysis showed that C14 agreed very closely with the historical information. ( Dating Exhibit ) Additionally, such a reduction in C14 would be immediately obvious when calibrating the C14 data against tree ring data. We would see the ages of tree rings rising much too rapidly over the past 1500 years until we started seeing ages of 50,000 to 100,000 (the limit of age detection for C14) years for rings that are more than 1500 years old. The studies that calibrate C14 dates against tree rings, annual layers in lakes, and coral dates all show that this is not the case.

Parts of the same woolly mammoth were dated to be tens of thousands of years apart.  This appears to refer to claims made by creationist Ken Hovind. These claims have been thoroughly rebutted as a huge error on Hovind's part. The most charitable explanation that can be proposed for Hovind's claims are that he misread the original paper and missed the fact that the different dates given were not for the same mammoth but for different mammoths. From "Arkansas House Bill 2548 is a composite of anti-evolutionary sources" by Wesley R. Elsberry. Section 1 (c)(3)(F)(ii): "One part of the Vollosovitch Mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000 years;" Anti-evolutionary source: Creation Science Evangelism  Critical Summary: The bill's text credulously relies upon a claim by Kent Hovind that certain C14 dates were taken from a single specimen of mammoth and yielded discordant results. In fact, an examination of the original paper cited by Hovind reveals that there was no single specimen identified as "the Vollosovitch mammoth" from which multiple dates were obtained, and that the specimens which did yield the dates given by Hovind were collected by different people at different locations at different times. Assessment: The bill presents information about the primary literature that is false to fact, and misleads by implying that C14 and other radioisotope dating methods cannot be reliably employed. This bill serves the anti-evolutionary agenda by implying that the label of "theory" means that students should have low confidence in the concepts and the empirical data which supports those concepts. This polemical content is profoundly anti-scientific in effect.  Top Online Resource: Dr. Dino's Fractured Fairy Tales of Science  Critical Resource List.   It should be noted that Kent Hovind was notified in correspondence with Skip Evans that this example was invalid. Hovind promised to check his  source and correct the information on his web pages. No such change to Hovind's web page has occurred as of 2001/03/28. Thus, Hovind is a possible source for a false or fraudulent claim put into a bill which aims to outlaw false or fraudulent claims, and Hovind testified to the Arkansas legislature in support of the bill including that false or fraudulent claim after having been informed of its falsity.

The Sahara  Desert, at about 4,000 years old is the oldest desert on the planet.  Why is there no older desert?   See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #23" from Dave Matson.

Pressure in oil wells cannot be contained for very long. The maximum oil pressure of 20,000 p.s.i. found in oil wells would have leaked off in around 10,000 years.  See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #18" from Dave Matson.

The Mississippi river dumps 80,000 tons of dirt into the Gulf of Mexico every hour. Why isn't the Gulf filled in? There is only 30,000 years worth of sediment in the Gulf at the most. Of course, sedimentation may have occurred faster during the Flood.  See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #19" from Dave Matson.

The oldest living tree is only 4,300 years old. Why aren't there any older living trees?   See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #27" from Dave Matson.  Additionally, were it not for the destructive acts of mankind, there would be trees 5,000 years old or older alive today. Who knows how old some trees may have been that were destroyed without inspection.  The following excerpt from Gary Nero recounts some information he learned about  Great Basin National Park:  Back to 1964. In the time before this became a National Park, a geologist was doing a research project here and thought he had found the   oldest living tree on Earth. He attempted to prove this by using the aforementioned increment borer, but his drill bit broke part way into the tree. Apparently he didn't have another bit, so he requested and was inexplicably granted (by the National Forest Service) permission to cut down the tree. His eye as a geologist was much better than his sense of responsibility, as it was determined (by growth ring count) that the tree was 4950 years old and was indeed the oldest living thing ever found on Earth. A slice of this tree, now called Prometheus, is on display in the Visitor Center. If not for this idiot geologist in 1964, however, I would have been able to see, and perhaps even touch, the oldest living thing on Earth. Instead it becomes just a footnote for my Journal: "I saw a slice of Prometheus at the Visitor Center in Great Basin National Park – now known as the oldest living thing ever killed by man."  Additionally, there is evidence of plants that have survived much more than 4,300 or even 5,000. The "King Clone" is a creosote bush near Victorville, CA that is estimated to be 11,700 years old. Additionally, see Botanical Electronic News - BEN #149  and  Tasmanian bush could be oldest living organism for a clonal shrub that may have been alive for 40,000 years.

Scientists tested the growth rate of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia after is sustained some damage during World War II. They determined that the growth rate was such that the Great Barrier Reef is no more than 4,000 years old.   See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #26" from Dave Matson.

Stalactites and stalagmites are said to be tens of thousands of years old because they grow at a rate of only 1 inch per thousand years. Creationists point to stalactites that formed under the Lincoln Tunnel; two inch stalactites on a refrigerator shed in Pensacola ; in 1903  a pipe in the ground led to the formation of the Teepee fountain, a massive structure that is at least 20 feet high as evidence that stalactites and stalagmites can form quickly.  None of these examples are naturally occurring stalactites / stalagmites. It would be interesting if anyone were to demonstrate that naturally occurring stalactites / stalagmites were growing at a rate of tens of thousands of times faster than the 1 inch per 1,000 years that creationists say is the typical growth rate claimed by scientists. However, even if such high rates were found, although it would demonstrate that scientists can sometimes make a mistake (if they do claim that all stalactites / stalagmites grow at a rate of 1 inch per thousand years), it would only show that these structures are capable of faster growth than scientists thought. It says nothing much about the maximum age of the earth, which is the reason creationists give for presenting this evidence.  See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #22" from Dave Matson.

Niagara Falls erodes five feet per year. The gorge in front of the Falls is only 71/2 miles long, so the falls can be no more than 9,000 years old.  See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #17" from Dave Matson.

From pg. 26 of "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown, 27 billion tons of sediment are dumped in the ocean every year. At this rate, all of the earth's continents would have completely eroded away in less than 14 million years.  See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #15" from Dave Matson.

Creationists claim that fossils such as one of a fish that was in the act of swallowing another fish when it was fossilized, and another that showed a fossilized fish with another fish it had consumed in its stomach region are the result of instantaneous fossilization. They claim that this shows that animals could not possibly take "millions of years" to fossilize.   Actually, there is nothing terribly surprising about fossils such as this. Whenever animal carcasses fall into water that has little or no oxygen, they are preserved. This is because the the decay process is slowed down greatly in water without much oxygen, increasing the chances that the carcass is preserved until it is covered with sediments. These fossils show that the animals were quickly killed and undisturbed while fossilizing, but they show nothing about how long the process of fossilization took.

The entire geological column cannot be found in any one place. The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood by Glenn R. Morton

Scientists dated fossils by the rock layers they were found in and rock layers were dated by the fossils found in them. This is circular reasoning.   This is one of the more nonsensical statements that creationists frequently make. The relative age of the layers were determined by the order in which they were found together. For example, in undisturbed locations where Cretaceous Era layers and Jurassic Era layers are found together, the Jurassic Era layer always lies beneath the Cretaceous Era layer. The geological principal of superposition says that in geologically undisturbed areas, younger layers will be found on top of older layers. (The reason the layers must be relatively undisturbed is that sometimes sections of rock can slide over one another or be inverted due to major geologic activity. Geologists are quite aware of this and can easily tell when it has occurred.)  This should all be seen as nothing but good common sense for most people - the lower layers must be older because they have to be in place first for the younger layers to be deposited upon them. As I said, when the layers are found together in undisturbed locations, they are always found in the proper order. Certain fossils in those layers are used to identify the layers when they are not found together. (We hardly ever see all of the geologic layers in a single location because there is almost always going to be a time at any given location when either no sediments are deposited or erosion occurs that removes sediments that were previously deposited.)  At any rate, the principal of superposition is one method that gives a relative age of geologic levels independent of the fossils found in the layer. Additionally, when radiometric dating became available, it gave absolute dates for the layers completely independent of the index fossils and the depositional order of the layers. If radiometric dating was as bad as creationists claim that it is, we would never see the agreement of the absolute radiometric dates with the relative ages determined for the layers through the principal of superposition.    See Creationist Objections Regarding the Fossil Record by Dennis Earl for more information on this topic. Also, see Relative Age Determination by Dr. Jürgen Schieber of the University of Texas at Arlington. Additionally, see  Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale - Circularity by Chris Stassen.  Finally, for some particularly dishonest quote mining by creationist Kent Hovind, see Niles Eldredge Says that the Geologic Column is Circular Reasoning?.

Polystrate fossils. Logs in Spirit Lake (Mt. St. Helen's). Floating vertically, some sank to the bottom of the lake and lodged vertically. We similar vertical logs in the fossil record that show individual logs cutting through thousands of years of sediments. This is not possible. These fossils were formed in Noah's flood.  "Polystrate" Tree Fossils by Andrew MacRae  Additionally, creationists sometimes refer to a "polystrate" whale fossil This claim has also been soundly refuted long ago. See A Whale of a Tale by Darby South.

A huge floating log mat settled into 27 layers in Yellowstone Park. This was due to Noah's flood.   This may be evidence of series localized catastrophes. If such sites were found world wide, it would be evidence of a global flood, but they aren't. If creationists want to convince scientists that a world wide flood occurred, they need to find sites like this all over the world.

Scientists say that coal takes millions of years to form, but every major coal deposit has polystrate fossils.  Again, see "Polystrate" Tree Fossils by Andrew MacRae

The oldest language (mentioned Chinese) is found "fully formed" and is too young (about 4000 years old).    The oldest living language gives no more of an age of the earth the the oldest living person.

The sun is shrinking five feet per second. Would have engulfed the earth no more than 20 million years ago.  See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #1" from Dave Matson.

Short period comets should have disappeared long ago. Scientists made up the idea that short period comets are replenished Oort cloud, but they have no evidence for that.  The Keiper belt, observed for the first time in 1992 (but predicted as far back as 1943) is thought to be the source of short period comets.  See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #3" from Dave Matson.

Where are the fossil meteorites?  See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #4" from Dave Matson.

U236 has too short of a half life to be found on the moon, but it is there. The same is true for Th230.  See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #6" from Dave Matson.

Space dust - Poynting-Robertson Effect.  See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #7" from Dave Matson.

There is not enough lava on the earth for the earth to be billions of years old.  See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #12" from Dave Matson.

There is not enough salt in the ocean.  This claim ignores the evidence that these ions are not accumulating in sea water - they are at or near equilibrium in sea water. This means that the various salts that are being washed into the oceans are being removed from the ocean by several methods. Although creationists want to talk about sources of these salts, they don't want to talk about ways these salts leave the ocean - precipitation, continental uplift. etc.  See Accumulation of metals into the oceans by Chris Stassen and The Sea's Salt by Glenn R. Morton.  See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #13" from Dave Matson.  See this rebuttal to "Young-earth "proof" #24" from Dave Matson.  Something interesting shows up with some of the dates seen here for erosion of metals into the ocean. (Note - metals are part of the chemical make up of salts. For example, sodium chloride breaks up into Na+ and Cl- ions when it is dissolved in water.) Creationists claim the claim that all of these dates are maximums for the earth's age. If this was true, we see from the following list that the earth can't possibly be more than 100 years old!     Metal ion (charge not shown) Apparent Age (according to the creationists) Al 100 years Fe 140 years Ti 160 years Cr 350 years Th 350 years W 1,000 years Mn 1,400 years Pb 2,000 years  from Chemical Oceanography, Ed. by J. P. Riley and G. Skirrow (New York, Academic Press, Vol. 1, 1965), p. 164.

The genetic load in man is too high for humans to be millions of years old.  This is a perfect example of a wrong conclusion reached because of the wrong assumptions of creationism. Scientists have recently started estimating the mutation rates in humans and other animals. The current estimates are higher than scientists think can be removed using the current models of population genetics. Since there is overwhelming evidence that the lineages leading to humans and the other animals have existed for billions of years, scientists are confident that there is an explanation this mutation rate. The most likely explanation is that there is a mechanism that allows populations to rid themselves of deleterious mutations at a faster rate than the current models predict. Other possibilities are that the current estimates of the mutation rates are higher than the actual mutation rates, or that the estimates are correct, but have recently increased. The important thing is that scientists are currently doing research to increase their understanding of mutation rates instead of just assuming that they already know everything they need to about the rates because they agree with some preconceived notion of what the world should be like.

 

Science is often pure religion.  This is a classic case of projection by many creationists. Obviously, creationism is pure religion. I don't think many creationists would deny that or even want to deny it, for that matter. Science, however, is not a religion. It is simply a way to learn about the world around us - by using the scientific method. This is the concept that we can a. observe the and describe parts of the world around us, b. form hypothesis that explain those observations, c. make predictions based upon those hypothesis, and d. design tests (experiments) that validate or disprove those predictions. There is nothing religious about the scientific method - other than the "belief" that one can learn something useful using the method; a belief that has been demonstrated thousands of times to the great benefit of humanity over the last several hundred years.  To the best of my knowledge, the VAST majority of creationists (especially of the young earth variety) believe the way they do solely to preserve their literal interpretation of Genesis (or some other religious writings in the case of the couple of Hindus I have come across over the years). That has been my experience from years of debating creationists - I can think of literally only 1 or 2 who might not be fundamentalists, and even then, I'm not sure. On the other hand, scientists reached the tentative conclusion that the earth was much, much older than 10,000 years old starting about 300 years - see  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html for an introduction to that history. Scientists almost uniformly agree that the earth is ancient because that is where the evidence has taken them, not because of some preconceived notion that the earth MUST be 10,000 years old due to a literal translation of scripture. Additionally, many Christians do not accept this literal translation - many scientists who accept common ancestry and an ancient age of the earth are Christians.  When it comes to religious beliefs, scientists (like the rest of us) hold a wide range of faiths. This can range from the militant atheism of Richard Dawkins to a strong belief in Christianity that we see in scientists such as Ken Miller. The fact is that while scientists in general hold a wide range of beliefs, it is the creationist organizations that often explicitly state what religious beliefs their members must hold. See, for example, CRS Statement of Belief and ICR Tenets of Creationism for two examples. It should be clear to anyone that we will never see objective research coming from organizations that put so much emphasis on statements of belief as these creationist organizations do.  See the essay God and Evolution by  Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub for more information on science and religion. Here is an interesting article from the American Geological Institute - Evolution and Faith by Patricia H. Kelley . It goes into some good detail about why creationism is not science. Another excellent article is  Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Roger C. Wiens -- A resource paper of the American Scientific Affiliation and the Affiliation of Christian Geologists . If creationists want creationism to be taken seriously as science, instead of just doing seminars, making web pages, and writing books aimed at the general public, they should be taking their arguments directly to the scientific community. The way to do this is through the peer reviewed scientific journals, such as Nature and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences  (PNAS), and Evolution. Now I am not saying that they should be producing articles that say the earth and all life was created only 10,000 years ago. That would never get published at this point because there are mountains of evidence against it. However, creationists could be chipping away at those mountains of evidence by publishing papers that document (what they claim) are problems with current theory. Such articles are published all the time by scientists, but the attempt is virtually never made by creationists. A good example would be Brown's hydroplate theory - he should be able to publish evidence that supports his theory if it exists, but he refuses to do so. Most people familiar with this fact believe that it is because the creationists know that their ideas would be torn to shreds by the scientific community if they were ever judged by working, non-creationist scientists.

75% of children raised in Christian homes leave their faith by about the age of their first year of college. This is because they are taught to doubt Genesis in school.    Regardless of its accuracy (which I question), this claim is interesting in that it represents one of the major concerns of creationists. The interesting thing is that the creationists themselves may be setting up a situation that gives these children a reason to question their faith. The creationists teach (often in church) that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old and that all life was created within a few days. When a child who was taught this sees the overwhelming evidence for an ancient earth and common ancestry of life, he or she immediately becomes aware of the fact that they were taught material in church that is entirely false. When they see how wrong the church is on these matters, it is not very surprising that some might begin to question the teachings of the church on other matters, including the basic tenets of the faith. It is for this reason, if nothing else, that young earth creationists should take a long, hard look at the claims they make (young earth and no common descent). It is their own children that they may be setting up to fall away from their faith as long as they continue to teach these ideas that are so easily shown to be false.

Scientists make lots of bad assumptions when it comes to radiometric dating. They do not test those assumptions.  This is another great fabrication of creationists. Part of his problem arises from his misunderstanding of how scientists use the word assumption. In the case of radiometric dating, an assumption is a condition that must be met in order for a test to report an accurate date. Scientists do not just assume these conditions have been met, they perform tests and make observations on each sample they collect to determine whether or not the conditions for an accurate test are in place. Additionally, many experiments have been performed over the years specifically to test whether or not particular types of samples meet the conditions for radiometric dating. Some minerals and conditions have been shown to be poor candidates for particular dating methods, whereas other minerals appear to give excellent dates under some conditions for particular radiometric dating methods. Generally, there are three conditions that are required to obtain a valid radiometric date for a particular sample:    The sample must either have had none of the daughter element present when it was formed or, if there was daughter element present at the time of formation, scientists must be able to calculate the amount of daughter element present at that time.  The radiometric decay constant for the element must have remained constant from the time the time of formation of the sample until the time the radiometric date of the sample is measured.  The sample must have remained closed to gain or loss of both the parent and daughter elements over its lifetime. This means that none of the parent element may have entered the sample or left the sample (other than by radioactive decay to the daughter element) and none of the daughter element may have left the sample nor entered it (except by radioactive decay of the parent element). Scientist have certainly not just assumed that any of these three conditions are true for all elements and conditions - they have performed many experiments over the years to verify when these conditions are true and when they are not true.  The most basic of the three assumptions is that the radiometric decay constants have remained unchanged throughout time and under all natural conditions (#2 above). Contrary to creationist assertions, this assumption has been tested repeatedly by scientists in the roughly one hundred years since the discovery of radiometric decay.    Referring to alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, Dalrymple says the following [note that a, b, and g should appear as the symbols for alpha, beta, and gamma (radiation types)]:   Because these types of radioactive decay occur spontaneously in the nucleus of an atom, the decay rates are, in essence, unaffected by physical or chemical conditions. The reasons for this are that the distances over which nuclear forces act are much smaller than the distances between nuclei, and that the amounts of energy involved in nuclear transformations are much greater than the amounts of energy involved in normal chemical reactions or normal physical conditions. Put another way, the "glue" holding the nucleus together is very effective and the nucleus is very well insulated from the external world by the electron cloud surrounding every atom. The combination of insulation of the nucleus and the strength of nuclear binding is the reason why scientists must use powerful accelerators or atomic reactors to penetrate and induce changes in the nuclei of atoms. A great many experiments have been done in attempts to change radioactive decay rates, but these have invariably failed to produce significant changes. It has been found, for example, that decay constants are the same at a temperature of 2000° C or at a temperature of -186° C, and are the same in a vacuum or under a pressure of several thousand atmospheres. Changes in a, b, and g decay rates are theoretically possible, but theory predicts that such changes would be very small (Emery, 1972) and would not affect dating methods. There is a fourth type of decay that can be affected by physical and chemical conditions, but only very slightly. This type of decay is electron capture (ec), in which an orbital electron falls into the nucleus and a proton is converted into a neutron. Because this type of decay involves a particle outside the nucleus, the decay rate may be affected by variations in the electron density near the nucleus of the atom. For example, the decay constant of 7Be in the metal and in several beryllium chemical compounds varies by as much as 0.07 percent (Emery, 1972). The only isotope of geologic interest that undergoes decay by electron capture is 40K, which is the parent isotope of the K-Ar method. Measurements of the decay rate of 40K in different substances under a variety of conditions indicate that varying the chemical and physical environment has no detectable effect on its electron-capture decay constant. [Concluding, on pg. 15 after discussion of some issues raised by Morris] Thus there are both theoretical and experimental reasons to conclude that radioactive decay rates are constant within the range of physical and chemical conditions affecting rocks available to scientists. There is also no evidence of mysterious perturbing factors, such as those invoked by Morris (1974). Confirmation of the constancy of decay also comes from the large body of concordant radiometric age measurements on the rocks themselves. Some examples of these data will be presented later.   From  Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, and The Age of the Earth: A Reply to "Scientific" Creationism by G. Brent Dalrymple, published by the U.S. Department of the Interior (Open-File Report 86-110), 1986, pg. 11-15 .   Since Dalrymple wrote this paper (in 1982), there has been a discovery that certain elements, when stripped of all of their electrons, have much higher radioactive decay constants than are normally measured. One isotope's (187Re) decay constant increased by a factor of one billion, and another isotope (163Dy) that is normally stable (no measurable radioactive decay) had a high decay rate when stripped of all its electrons. This issue is addressed in some detail by David Ewan Kahana in his article Modifications of Nuclear Beta Decay Rates From the thread "Decay Rates" . Without going into the detailed physics that Dr. Kahana discusses, there are a couple of problems with the argument that decay rates for minerals that are actually dated could be affected by this process. The first is that the extreme conditions required for stripping all the electrons from all atoms could not exist for a solid earth. The second is that most radiometric dating methods date rocks from the time they solidified (especially the K-Ar method - argon easily escapes from molten rocks, even more easily escapes from "rocks" in a gaseous state, and most especially from "rocks" that are in a plasma state!).  To address the arguments that creationists sometimes make that the decay constants may have been different in the past, see  Evidence about Constants Being the Same in the Distant Past by Don Lindsay. Isochron Dating by Chris Stassen demonstrates how this method carefully checks against both initial parent / daughter isotope concentrations and the possible loss or gain of these isotopes. Also, take a look at Stassen's section titled Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated from his essay The Age of the Earth. Consistent Radiometric dates by Dr. Joseph Meert, a geologist at the University of Florida, demonstrates that when many different tests are performed on the same samples, the tests routinely give the same age for the sample. See Radiometric Dating for many more examples of different dating techniques giving the same age for sample. The fact that these repeated tests using different techniques routinely yield the same result is strong evidence that scientists are at least sometimes capable of selecting samples that have not been contaminated by parent or daughter elements during their life. It is very unlikely that the initial concentration of daughter elements or loss / gain of daughter and parent isotopes will be exactly the same for different elements having different chemical properties. Chronology of Radiometric Dating by Chris Stassen is an introduction to the history of radiometric dating. If you read this essay, you will see how carefully scientists have addressed the conditions required for an accurate radiometric date.  Geochronologists have also discovered and carefully investigated many conditions that give erroneous dates (because they violate the conditions or assumptions of radiometric dating). These include xenoliths in volcanic lava, excess C12 in some marine life, lost argon due to heating events, and excess argon in pillow lavas. Each of these cases was discovered by scientists who were investigating the assumptions of radiometric dating, exactly what creationists say is not done. Creationists love to point these out as examples of the failure of radiometric dating, but in fact, they are examples of how carefully scientists investigate their dating methods. Each one that is discovered and accounted for increases the accuracy of future dates. Something to keep in mind is that while scientists consider dates that are off by 20% or even 10% to be a problem, creationists assert that virtually all radiometric dates are off by factors of 100,000% to roughly 100,000,000% (that's one hundred million percent)!  Dalrymple sums up the care scientists take in utilizing radiometric methods very nicely on pg. 17 and 19 of the article referenced above:   One of the primary functions of the dating specialist (sometimes called a geochronologist) is to select the applicable method for the particular problem to be solved, and to design the experiment in such a way that there will be checks on the reliability of the results. As we shall see, some of the methods have internal checks, so that the data themselves provide good evidence of reliability or lack thereof. Sometimes, the relative sequence of rock units, as determined independently by the geologist in the field, can be used to check the dating results. Frequently the dating is done on several samples of different type from the same unit, or by more than one method. Most scientists are very hesitant to trust a single age on a single sample as being definitive.  Later, on pg.22:   One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of the material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. Mistakes are sometimes made but are usually caught by the various checks employed in the well-designed experiment. Dalrymple has shown the care that scientists use in dating samples and the effort they have put into testing the methods they use. The consistency of dates on the same samples using completely different radiometric methods has also been well demonstrated. Taken together, this shows that claims that scientists do not check their assumptions and are regularly coming up with dates that are off by a factor of over a million are pure creationist fantasy.

There is no such thing as a missing link. They don't exist.   Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ by Kathleen Hunt   The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey

Used "Nebraska Man" as an example of a nonexistent missing link. Said that scientists built up a whole human ancestor from nothing more than a single tooth. The tooth was later found to be a pig's tooth. Nebraska man was used as evidence in the Scopes trial.    "Nebraska Man" was never really accepted by the scientific community. The existence of the fossil (and the erroneous claim of the discoverer that the tooth was that of an ape or human ancestor) was announced in 1922, and retractions were printed in Science and Nature in 1927. The tooth turned out to belong to a peccary (a relative of pigs), an animal that does have teeth that are somewhat similar to humans. The identification of this particular tooth was made somewhat more difficult because it was badly worn. It is amazing that creationists still bring this up over 70 years after the whole thing was debunked (by other scientists, not creationists). Although a mistake was made initially, this is a perfect example of the self correcting nature of science that helps to show how ludicrous the creationist claims that there is no evidence for an ancient earth or evolution are.  It is interesting to compare and contrast a somewhat similar incident that happened less than 20 years ago. Creationist Carl Baugh discovered what he thought was a human tooth in Cretaceous (over 65 million years old, in the time of the dinosaurs) deposits. Such a discovery, if true, would have had a major impact upon the theory of evolution. However, when Mr. Baugh's fossil tooth was examined by paleontologists, it was discovered to be a fish tooth (although the scientists did admit that they could see how it did bear a superficial resemblance to a human tooth). So here, we have a case of a creationist mistaking a fish tooth for a human tooth in the late 1980s, and being corrected by scientists, compared to scientists mistaking a "pig" tooth for a human tooth in the 1920s and being corrected by other scientists. Don Lindsay has a short write-up on this - see Glen Rose Man for further references. I would also like to note that in addition to "Nebraska Man" (which was a mistake, not a deliberate attempt to mislead), there have been a couple of fossils presented to the scientific community that were deliberate hoaxes. These include Piltdown Man and the recent Archaeoraptor hoax. The thing these two deliberate hoaxes have in common with the mistaken claims of Nebraska Man is that their true natures were all uncovered by evolutionary scientists, not creationists. This is additional evidence that scientists are working very hard to discover the truth about the materials they study. Additionally, scientific evidence for or against evolution was not allowed at the Scopes trial, nor has any credible evidence been presented that Nebraska Man played a role in the trial. See Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man and The role of "Nebraska Man" in the creation/evolution debate by John Woolf and James S. Mellett for more information. Also, see  Nebraska Man and Dishonest Creationists . Finally, I would like to know about any text book that has been published since 1930 that presents "Nebraska Man" as an example of a "missing link" or even as evidence for evolution. To learn what scientists actually have to say about human evolution, see Jim Foley's  Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution .

Evolutionists are forced to figure out how how things work without God.    Here creationists are confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism (sometimes called metaphysical naturalism) is the belief that the natural world is all that there is - that there are no gods, spirits, or "supernatural" events. Methodological naturalism simply refers to the fact that scientists learn about the natural world by studying the natural world (using the scientific method). This methodology has proven itself to be of great use through it fantastic record of success over the last three hundred years of its use. We have learned huge amounts about our world and ourselves through the scientific method and its reliance upon methodological naturalism. Now, just because a scientist uses the scientific method does not mean that she has to adhere to philosophical naturalism. This is certainly demonstrated by the fact that there are many scientists who are Christians (as well as many scientists who are members of various other religions that preclude philosophical naturalism.  I like to demonstrate the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism with the following example. If a child asks "Why is grass green?", a parent could reply to the child "Because God made it that way." This, of course, is a perfectly valid answer if that is the religious belief of the parent. However, another alternative would be to tell the child that grass is green because it contains the green pigment chlorophyll that is used to convert sunlight energy into the energy of food. You could go on to mention that chlorophyll is green because it absorbs most colors of light, but it reflects rather than absorbs a particular shade of green. You might even be able to discuss how the shape of the chlorophyll molecule influences light waves to reflect the green light, etc., etc., etc. The point is, these explanations are just as valid for the scientist who does believe in God as they are for the non-theist. That is the point of methodological naturalism - that we can learn much about the world by studying it as if nature was all there that was, whether we really believe that or not. Scientists (many of whom are Christians or practice other religions) are not forced to figure out how things work without God, they do so because it is the model that has worked best to add to our understanding of how the world works. Whether or not one believes that God is behind it all is a matter of religious belief, entirely separate from whether or not one uses methodological naturalism to learn as much as possible about how things work.

We should get school boards to change the text books that they use in the schools. 80% of Americans say they want creationism taught in schools and we live in a democracy.    The mission of the schools is to teach science in science classes, not religion. Creationism has no more place in the biology classroom than astrology has in the astronomy classroom.

Light coming from distant stars (tens of thousands of light years away , or more) was created "in transit" by God. This explains how light could travel millions of light years in a 6,000 year old universe. Just as Adam look to be an adult the moment he was created, you would see the light of stars on earth the moment it was created.  The problem with this argument is that it could be used to invalidate any evidence. "Last Thursdayism" is the proposal that we were all created last Thursday with intact memories of our life prior to last Thursday. Such a claim is untestable and hence irrefutable. Some have also objected that the "appearance of age" argument makes God out to be a liar. Remember that when we look in space, we aren't just seeing twinkling points of light, we are seeing events that happened in the distant past. A good example of such an event is the supernova SN 1987a, a star that went supernova in 1987. Scientists have been studying this event for nearly 15 years, watching the explosion proceed from the star and out into space where it caused a ring of gas surrounding the star to start glowing about a year after the initial supernova event. SN 1987 is about 160,000 light years away. If the creationist explanation were true, then none of these events are real, but rather are "lies" from God. The simple fact is that when we see events from hundreds of thousands of light years away, those events must have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago. The fact that creationists are willing to use this argument to explain away the simple concept of the speed of light tells us how desperate they are to maintain their believe in a young earth, regardless of any evidence that can be presented.

Supernovas prove the universe is only 8 - 10 thousand years old and that the earth is at the center of the universe. This is because of the way the light expands in all directions in the IR spectrum.    See  Debunking Gentry's "New Redshift Interpretation" Cosmology

The lack of observed supernova remnants is evidence of a young universe.    See the Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQ by Dave Moore

Tree rings reflect wet and dry seasons, not annual cycles. There can be multiple tree rings in a single year, meaning that tree ring counting is an overestimate of the age of the wood.   Actually, unseasonable weather that "tricks" the tree into "thinking" the growing season has ended or begun prematurely.  From "Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And the Age of the Earth: A Reply to "Scientific" Creationism" by G. Brent Dalrymple, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File 86-110 02/17/1982:  Supporters of "scientific" creationism frequently criticize dendrochronology, arguing that two or more growth rings may occur in any given year and that this precludes an accurate annual count (for example, Morris, 1974). Their objections ar fallacious. Not all trees growing in all climates are suitable for tree ring dating. Certain species of juniper, for example, are notorious for producing multiple rings. Likewise, many woody trees in tropical climates can produce  several growth rings in one year. For these reasons, dendrochronologists use only about three dozen genera of trees and only in particular geographic areas. In addition, the annual counts are meticulously verified by crossdating using ring matching in multiple radii, trees, and tree stands. Tree ring dating is complicated but very reliable when properly done (Fritts, 1972, 1976).

Life is evolving, but only in a downhill direction. No information is being added.    Life is not only going in a downhill direction. There is plenty of evidence for beneficial mutations and positive (fitness enhancing) natural selection.  See  Beneficial Mutations and  Beneficial Mutations in Humans for examples of beneficial mutations. See Natural Selection Has Been Observed in Nature Many Times for a summary of the evidence of natural selection in the wild.  The common creationist assertion that no information is being added to the DNA of organisms as a result of evolution is also false. Scientists have long known of a simple mechanism that explains increases in the number of genes, amount of DNA, and the complexity of an organism's genes. Genes have been observed to spontaneously duplicate. Once a gene duplication has occurred, the genes are free to diverge due to smaller point mutations.