Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Carbon dating

2009-11-02T22:16:37Z

Pgmm: my past summaries explain for themselves

'''Carbon dating''', or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or artifacts made from anything that once lived.
Unlike many other radiometric dating methods, carbon dating has been calibrated for historical periods and within that range can give reliable results.

== Principles ==

The technique is based on comparing the levels of 14C and 12C [[isotope]]s in the sample.
14C is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic ray [[neutron]]s replacing a [[proton]] in [[nitrogen]] (14N), producing 14C.<ref name="TH">Higham, Thomas, [http://www.c14dating.com/int.html Introduction], Radiocarbon web-info.</ref>

14C is unstable and [[radioactive decay|decays]] back to 14N, at the rate of 50% every 5,730 years (so after 11,460 years 25% will be left, after 17,190 years 12.5% will be left, and so on).

In the meantime, however, the 14C will combine with [[oxygen]] in the atmosphere to form [[carbon dioxide]], which enters the food chain via [[photosynthesis]] in plants.<ref name="TH" />
By this means, most living things also have 14C and 12C in the same ratio as in the atmosphere.
This ratio is about one 14C atom for every 1,000,000,000,000 currently but this is a decelerating rate of change. 12C atoms.<ref name="TH" />

However, when the sample dies, it stops ingesting 14C, so as the 14C decays to 14N, the ratio of 14C and 12C changes.
This ratio of 14C to 12C is measured and a calculation turns the measurement into a figure representing how long ago the sample died.

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

Carbon dating, like other [[radiometric dating]] methods, requires certain assumptions that cannot be scientifically proved.
These include the starting conditions, the constancy of the rate of decay, and that no material has left or entered the sample.

=== Calibration ===

Unlike other radiometric dating techniques where it is not possible to [[calibration|calibrate]] the method against historically-known dates, limited calibration is possible for carbon dating.
That is, samples with dates known from historical records can be used to check the accuracy of the method.
Despite this, however, caution is still necessary in accepting dates derived from carbon dating.

Claims have been made of the method being calibrated back to 10,000 years using [[dendrochronology]],<ref name="TH" /> however these older dates derived via dendrochronology have themselves been derived with the assistance of carbon dating<ref>Batten, Don, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>, making this circular reasoning.

=== Variable intake ===

Not all living things do have 14C:12C ratios the same as the atmosphere.
{{QuoteBox|...various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animal's diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, [http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm Carbon-14 Dating"]</ref>}}

=== Atmospheric variability ===

The method relies on the assumption that we know how much 14C is in the atmosphere, but this has been known to change.
Nuclear testing since the 1950s has resulted in a large increase in the amount of 14C in the atmosphere, but because the levels have been measured since the 1950s, calculations can be adjusted for these changing levels, meaning that dating of recent samples is possible.<ref name="K12">Higham, Thomas? [http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html K-12] Radiocarbon web-info.</ref>

However, atmospheric levels are also known to have changed since the start of the [[industrial revolution]], making dating items from this period more difficult.<ref name="K12" />

Dating laboratories do not make any allowance for the change in atmospheric levels that would have occurred as a result of [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]].
This means that radio-carbon dates cannot be used to prove that the Flood did not occur, because it ''assumes'' that it did not occur.<ref>Batten, Don, (Ed.) [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf What about carbon dating?] Chapter 4 of the ''Creation Answers Book''.</ref>

=== Solar-Earth effect ===

Scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Physikalish-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany have reported "unexplained periodic fluctuations in the [nuclear] decay rates of Si-32 and Ra-226... strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the distance between the Earth and the Sun." It is likely that similar discrepancies and fluctuations occur with other nuclear decay rates, such as that of 14C. It remains for scientists to perform experiments to explore these emerging issues. <ref>[http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283 Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance], Jenkins et al. Abstract: Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of Si-32 and Ra-226 have been reported by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory (Si-32), and at the Physikalisch-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany (Ra-226). We show from an analysis of the raw data in these experiments that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Some implications of these results are also discussed, including the suggestion that discrepancies in published half-life determinations for these and other nuclides may be attributable in part to differences in solar activity during the course of the various experiments, or to seasonal variations in fundamental constants.</ref>

== History ==

Carbon Dating was developed by [[Willard F. Libby]] and his team of scientists at the [[University of Chicago]] in 1949.<ref name="TH" />
They initially measured the 'half-life' (a term that Libby coined)<ref name="TH" /> as 5568±30 years, and this became known as the ''Libby half-life''.<ref name="TH" />
It was later measured more accurately to be 5730±40 years, now known as the ''Cambridge half-life''.<ref name="TH" />

==See also==
*[[Martin Kamen]]
*[[Willard Libby]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Chronology]][[Category:Earth Sciences]]

Carbon dating

2009-11-02T22:14:39Z

Pgmm: Really you give the impression that we conservative know nothing of science.

'''Carbon dating''', or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or artifacts made from anything that once lived.
Unlike many other radiometric dating methods, carbon dating has been calibrated for historical periods and within that range can give reliable results.

== Principles ==

The technique is based on comparing the levels of 14C and 12C [[isotope]]s in the sample.
14C is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic ray [[neutron]]s replacing a [[proton]] in [[nitrogen]] (14N), producing 14C.<ref name="TH">Higham, Thomas, [http://www.c14dating.com/int.html Introduction], Radiocarbon web-info.</ref>

14C is unstable and [[radioactive decay|decays]] back to 14N, at the rate of 50% every 5,730 years (so after 11,460 years 25% will be left, after 17,190 years 12.5% will be left, and so on).

In the meantime, however, the 14C will combine with [[oxygen]] in the atmosphere to form [[carbon dioxide]], which enters the food chain via [[photosynthesis]] in plants.<ref name="TH" />
By this means, most living things also have 14C and 12C in the same ratio as in the atmosphere.
This ratio is about one 14C atom for every 1,000,000,000,000 currently but this is a decelerating rate of change. 12C atoms.<ref name="TH" />

However, when the sample dies, it stops ingesting 14C, so as the 14C decays to 14N, the ratio of 14C and 12C changes.
This ratio of 14C to 12C is measured and a calculation turns the measurement into a figure representing how long ago the sample died.

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

Carbon dating, like other [[radiometric dating]] methods, requires certain assumptions that cannot be scientifically proved.
These include the starting conditions, the constancy of the rate of decay, and that no material has left or entered the sample.

=== Calibration ===

Unlike other radiometric dating techniques where it is not possible to [[calibration|calibrate]] the method against historically-known dates, limited calibration is possible for carbon dating.
That is, samples with dates known from historical records can be used to check the accuracy of the method.
Despite this, however, caution is still necessary in accepting dates derived from carbon dating.

Claims have been made of the method being calibrated back to 10,000 years using [[dendrochronology]],<ref name="TH" /> however these older dates derived via dendrochronology have themselves been derived with the assistance of carbon dating<ref>Batten, Don, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>, making this circular reasoning.

=== Variable intake ===

Not all living things do have 14C:12C ratios the same as the atmosphere.
{{QuoteBox|...various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animal's diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, [http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm Carbon-14 Dating"]</ref>}}

=== Atmospheric variability ===

The method relies on the assumption that we know how much 14C is in the atmosphere, but this has been known to change.
Nuclear testing since the 1950s has resulted in a large increase in the amount of 14C in the atmosphere, but because the levels have been measured since the 1950s, calculations can be adjusted for these changing levels, meaning that dating of recent samples is possible.<ref name="K12">Higham, Thomas? [http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html K-12] Radiocarbon web-info.</ref>

However, atmospheric levels are also known to have changed since the start of the [[industrial revolution]], making dating items from this period more difficult.<ref name="K12" />

Dating laboratories do not make any allowance for the change in atmospheric levels that would have occurred as a result of [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]].
This means that radio-carbon dates cannot be used to prove that the Flood did not occur, because it ''assumes'' that it did not occur.<ref>Batten, Don, (Ed.) [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf What about carbon dating?] Chapter 4 of the ''Creation Answers Book''.</ref>

=== Solar-Earth effect ===

Scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Physikalish-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany have reported "unexplained periodic fluctuations in the [nuclear] decay rates of Si-32 and Ra-226... strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the distance between the Earth and the Sun." It is likely that similar discrepancies and fluctuations occur with other nuclear decay rates, such as that of 14C. It remains for scientists to perform experiments to explore these emerging issues. <ref>[http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283 Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance], Jenkins et al. Abstract: Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of Si-32 and Ra-226 have been reported by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory (Si-32), and at the Physikalisch-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany (Ra-226). We show from an analysis of the raw data in these experiments that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Some implications of these results are also discussed, including the suggestion that discrepancies in published half-life determinations for these and other nuclides may be attributable in part to differences in solar activity during the course of the various experiments, or to seasonal variations in fundamental constants.</ref>

== History ==

Carbon Dating was developed by [[Willard F. Libby]] and his team of scientists at the [[University of Chicago]] in 1949.<ref name="TH" />
They initially measured the 'half-life' (a term that Libby coined)<ref name="TH" /> as 5568±30 years, and this became known as the ''Libby half-life''.<ref name="TH" />
It was later measured more accurately to be 5730±40 years, now known as the ''Cambridge half-life''.<ref name="TH" />

== Widespread misunderstandings ==

Many people believe that carbon dating has proved that the Earth is millions or billions of years old, much older than the biblically-derived date of around 6,000 years.
However, as explained above, carbon dating is incapable of providing dates in the range of millions or billions of years.

Some also argue that carbon dating should only be used on samples that fall within the range over which it can measure.
However, this begs the question of how one might determine this prior to using carbon dating to determine the age.
They further argue that dating much older items will result in anomalous dates, which might fall within the range that carbon dating can measure.
This is incorrect. Any sample that is older than the range that carbon dating will measure will record zero 14C, and can therefore not be confused with younger samples.

==See also==
*[[Martin Kamen]]
*[[Willard Libby]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Chronology]][[Category:Earth Sciences]]

Carbon dating

2009-11-02T22:09:40Z

Pgmm: HALF LIFE LOOK IT UP!

'''Carbon dating''', or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or artifacts made from anything that once lived.
Unlike many other radiometric dating methods, carbon dating has been calibrated for historical periods and within that range can give reliable results.

== Principles ==

The technique is based on comparing the levels of 14C and 12C [[isotope]]s in the sample.
14C is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic ray [[neutron]]s replacing a [[proton]] in [[nitrogen]] (14N), producing 14C.<ref name="TH">Higham, Thomas, [http://www.c14dating.com/int.html Introduction], Radiocarbon web-info.</ref>

14C is unstable and [[radioactive decay|decays]] back to 14N, at the rate of 50% every 5,730 years (so after 11,460 years 25% will be left, after 17,190 years 12.5% will be left, and so on).

In the meantime, however, the 14C will combine with [[oxygen]] in the atmosphere to form [[carbon dioxide]], which enters the food chain via [[photosynthesis]] in plants.<ref name="TH" />
By this means, most living things also have 14C and 12C in the same ratio as in the atmosphere.
This ratio is about one 14C atom for every 1,000,000,000,000 12C atoms.<ref name="TH" />

However, when the sample dies, it stops ingesting 14C, so as the 14C decays to 14N, the ratio of 14C and 12C changes.
This ratio of 14C to 12C is measured and a calculation turns the measurement into a figure representing how long ago the sample died.

Depending on the method used to measure the 14C, after about 50,000 years or so there is not enough left to measure, although advanced techniques can possibly stretch that to 100,000 years.<ref>Nave, R., [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html Carbon Dating], Georgia State University.</ref>
This then becomes the maximum age that can theoretically be derived by this method.

Therefore, any sample with too little 14C to measure must, in theory, be older than 50,000 to 100,000 years, and it is not possible to determine how much older.
Similarly, any sample with measurable 14C must be younger than 50,000 to 100,000 years, assuming that adequate precautions have been taken to eliminate contamination.

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

Carbon dating, like other [[radiometric dating]] methods, requires certain assumptions that cannot be scientifically proved.
These include the starting conditions, the constancy of the rate of decay, and that no material has left or entered the sample.

=== Calibration ===

Unlike other radiometric dating techniques where it is not possible to [[calibration|calibrate]] the method against historically-known dates, limited calibration is possible for carbon dating.
That is, samples with dates known from historical records can be used to check the accuracy of the method.
Despite this, however, caution is still necessary in accepting dates derived from carbon dating.

Claims have been made of the method being calibrated back to 10,000 years using [[dendrochronology]],<ref name="TH" /> however these older dates derived via dendrochronology have themselves been derived with the assistance of carbon dating<ref>Batten, Don, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>, making this circular reasoning.

=== Variable intake ===

Not all living things do have 14C:12C ratios the same as the atmosphere.
{{QuoteBox|...various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animal's diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, [http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm Carbon-14 Dating"]</ref>}}

=== Atmospheric variability ===

The method relies on the assumption that we know how much 14C is in the atmosphere, but this has been known to change.
Nuclear testing since the 1950s has resulted in a large increase in the amount of 14C in the atmosphere, but because the levels have been measured since the 1950s, calculations can be adjusted for these changing levels, meaning that dating of recent samples is possible.<ref name="K12">Higham, Thomas? [http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html K-12] Radiocarbon web-info.</ref>

However, atmospheric levels are also known to have changed since the start of the [[industrial revolution]], making dating items from this period more difficult.<ref name="K12" />

Dating laboratories do not make any allowance for the change in atmospheric levels that would have occurred as a result of [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]].
This means that radio-carbon dates cannot be used to prove that the Flood did not occur, because it ''assumes'' that it did not occur.<ref>Batten, Don, (Ed.) [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf What about carbon dating?] Chapter 4 of the ''Creation Answers Book''.</ref>

=== Solar-Earth effect ===

Scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Physikalish-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany have reported "unexplained periodic fluctuations in the [nuclear] decay rates of Si-32 and Ra-226... strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the distance between the Earth and the Sun." It is likely that similar discrepancies and fluctuations occur with other nuclear decay rates, such as that of 14C. It remains for scientists to perform experiments to explore these emerging issues. <ref>[http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283 Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance], Jenkins et al. Abstract: Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of Si-32 and Ra-226 have been reported by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory (Si-32), and at the Physikalisch-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany (Ra-226). We show from an analysis of the raw data in these experiments that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Some implications of these results are also discussed, including the suggestion that discrepancies in published half-life determinations for these and other nuclides may be attributable in part to differences in solar activity during the course of the various experiments, or to seasonal variations in fundamental constants.</ref>

== History ==

Carbon Dating was developed by [[Willard F. Libby]] and his team of scientists at the [[University of Chicago]] in 1949.<ref name="TH" />
They initially measured the 'half-life' (a term that Libby coined)<ref name="TH" /> as 5568±30 years, and this became known as the ''Libby half-life''.<ref name="TH" />
It was later measured more accurately to be 5730±40 years, now known as the ''Cambridge half-life''.<ref name="TH" />

== Widespread misunderstandings ==

Many people believe that carbon dating has proved that the Earth is millions or billions of years old, much older than the biblically-derived date of around 6,000 years.
However, as explained above, carbon dating is incapable of providing dates in the range of millions or billions of years.

Some also argue that carbon dating should only be used on samples that fall within the range over which it can measure.
However, this begs the question of how one might determine this prior to using carbon dating to determine the age.
They further argue that dating much older items will result in anomalous dates, which might fall within the range that carbon dating can measure.
This is incorrect. Any sample that is older than the range that carbon dating will measure will record zero 14C, and can therefore not be confused with younger samples.

==See also==
*[[Martin Kamen]]
*[[Willard Libby]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Chronology]][[Category:Earth Sciences]]

Evolutionism

2009-11-02T22:03:41Z

Pgmm: Seriously pointless so unless you are an admin/sysop you have no right to put things that are UNTRUE on this wiki

'''Evolutionism''', as opposed to [[Creationism]], is the ''advocacy of or belief in biological evolution''.<ref>"evolutionism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 20 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionism>.</ref> Therefore one who ''believes in or supports a [[evolution|theory of evolution]]''<ref>"evolutionist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist>.</ref> would be referred to as an ''evolutionist''. Evolutionism, used in a general sense, encompasses ''any'' type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.

The term evolutionism is used differently in different circles of thought. Generally [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] use it as a reference to what they believe is the [[world view]] or [[presupposition]] aspect of the scientific theory of evolution. The term is not necessarily used as a world view unto itself, but is more based off of and is possibly an extension of a variety of other world views including [[Materialism]], [[Naturalism]]<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html CA601: Evolution and Naturalism] - TalkOrigins Archive</ref>, and [[Humanism]] in its broadest sense. Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be [[Atheism|atheists]] as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.
{{cquote|''Evolutionism is a '''world-view''', which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe...''<ref>[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm Evolutionism - AllAboutPhilosophy] - Accessed on March 22, 2007.</ref>}}

==Theistic Evolution==
[[Theistic Evolution|Theistic Evolutionists]] believe that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in the evolutionary process. In general, theistic evolutionists accept the evolutionist ideas of the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors. The Catholic Church holds that this is consistent with the Catholic faith.<ref>[http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html Mark Brumley, Evolution and the Pope]</ref>
Roughly twice as many people in the U.S. believe in this type of evolution(30%), as opposed to godless evolution that most atheist believe in(just a mere 13% of people). However both of these combined is still less people than the ammount of people who beleive in Young Earth Creation(48%), as told by The Bible<ref>http://hubpages.com/hub/Poll-Most-Americans-Dont-Believe-Evolution</ref>.

==Foundational question/starting point==
All the viewpoints take a ''step of faith'' as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.

===According to biblical Creationists (Young Earth)===
* God exists (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that "God exists"
**** The Bible comes ''before'' science. The science is based on the world view.

===According to biblical Theistic Evolutionists (Old Earth)===
There is disagreement among [[Theistic Evolution]]ists, as not all hold that God is not involved presently in His creation.

'''Impersonal God'''
* There is no personal/involved God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that God is not involved in His creation
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.

'''Personal God'''
* There is a personal/involved God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that there is a "personal God"
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.

===According to Atheistic Evolutionists===
Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or world view that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation. However evolutionists who are 'strong atheists' and who make a positive assertion that there is no God, do in fact have a world view; whereas 'weak atheists', who maintain there is probably no God due to lack of any objective evidence of Him, rely on science.

'''Strong Atheism'''
* There is no God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (i.e. [[naturalism]])
**** Naturalism comes ''before'' the science. The science is based on the world view.

'''Weak Atheism'''
* So far, there is no objective proof of God
** Therefore, we do not need to interpret evidence to fit in with the "fact" of God's existence
*** Thus science is not done on the basis of there being a God (i.e. [[naturalism]]) (unless His existence becomes objectively proven)
**** For [[Weak Atheism|weak atheists]], science comes before [[Naturalism]]. They (presumably) base their world view on the Science.

===Comparison===
The various viewpoints can be compared in general ways as they all have some sort of starting point. The general Creationist starting point is God, which then all the universe is based on including that of science. Some ''Theistic Evolutionists'' hold to a similar God idea, yet emphasize a somewhat secondary origin<ref>Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and yet He is no longer involved in it. Therefore "secondary origin" is referring to the idea that God is the origin of the universe, but not necessarily ''You and Me''.</ref> in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolutionists say that we must prove God by science, therefore their intellectual starting point is science itself.

==Controversy==
===Usage of Terminology===
The term ''evolutionism'' uses the suffix ''-ism'', which is commonly used to designate varieties of philosophical opinion, and some people who support evolution prefer to use other terms. Others are happy to call themselves evolutionists, and the terms have been in common use for a century. For example, the most popular American proponent of evolution called himself an evolutionist, <ref>"I count myself among the evolutionists", S.J. Gould [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html], also "Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory". [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html]</ref> and his obituary read "Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould dead".<ref>S.F. Chronicle, 1981 [http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/05/21/MN175165.DTL]</ref> This is all part of the controversy over evolution itself (see [[Origins debate]]).

Some Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists say that the term ''Evolutionism'' is simply a false Creationist perception,
or pejorative assertion that science represents merely another religion. They disagree that the theory of evolution is based on a [[philosophy]] or [[world view]]. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization. However, according to creationists, this disagreement arises from a misunderstanding of terms. Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] hold both terms in philosophically equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term "Evolutionism" has the same or very similar meaning to "Creationism" as it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or question (does God exist?). They say the term "Evolutionism" refers to a subset of a combination of world views, while the scientific theory of evolution is the result of the ''Evolutionist'' presupposition. In other words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective world view behind the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the similarities end with Creationism.

===Religion and Evolutionism===
Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects, not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves. Some will say how Evolutionists have a ''religious fervor'' over what Creationists believe is false science. Some Evolutionists have historically misunderstood this for Creationists labeling science itself as a religion. M. Green, a Creationist, put it this way in his ''Faith of Darwinism'' (emphasis added).
{{cquote|''Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with '''religious fervor''', and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.<ref name="mgreen" />''}}

Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the [[United States]]<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/evolution.htm</ref>. Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution<ref>http://mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com/2007/05/mike-huckabee-does-not-believe-in.html</ref>, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, according to Evolutionists, at least one aspect of religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive. Some deeply religious evolutionists believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of [[Theistic Evolution]].

===Religiosity and the Cult of Personality Surrounding Charles Darwin===
There is a cult of personality and type of religiosity currently surrounding Charles Darwin. [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote the following in 1978: "[A]ll theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists".<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref> In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref>

===Biblical Young Earth Creationist's problem with a Biblical Old Earth===
Taking the Bible literally, there are no gaps permitting an undocumented period of time between the creation week and the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 587 BC <ref>http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html</ref>, which is well established by archaeology and secular history. Accordingly, the birth of Adam can be placed at approximately 4,163 BC and the initial creation of the universe six days prior.

==Quotes==
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Evolutionists)''':
{{cquote|'''Michael Ruse''' ''Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a [[secular religion]] -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.''<ref>MICHAEL RUSE [http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html HOW EVOLUTION BECAME A RELIGION]</ref>}}
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Creationists)''':<ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a Religion?] - Northwest Creation Network</ref>
{{cquote|'''L.N. Matthews''' ''The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith? <ref>L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''J.W.N. Sullivan''' ''The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith. <ref>J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''[[R.L. Wysong]]''' ''Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator. <ref>R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''T. Lessl''' ''"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." <ref>T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''M. Grene''' ''"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." <ref name="mgreen">M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November (1959), p49.</ref>''}}

==See also==
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Faith]]
*[[Humanism]]
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Religion]]
*[[Theism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
==External links==
'''Notes'''
:'''''Affirmative''' articles that attempt to rebut the faith claim of creationists.''
:'''''Critical''' articles that claim evolutionism involves faith.''

{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
! Affirmative !! Critical
|-
| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''TalkOrigins'''
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html CA612: Evolution requiring faith]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html CA610: Evolution religious]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics]
'''EvoWiki'''
*[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]

| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''DrDino'''
* [http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=25 Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths]
'''Creationists.org'''
* [http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html Evolution is a Religion]
'''Northwest Creation Network'''
* [http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a religion?]
'''Creation Ministries International'''
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1491/ Evolution as religion]
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139 Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion]
'''Answers in Genesis'''
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp The Religion of Evolution]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp Evolution is Religion]
'''CreationWiki'''
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism Evolution requires as much faith as creationism] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion Evolution is a religion] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
'''Institute for Creation Research'''
* [http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution is Religion, not Science (1)], [http://www.icr.org/article/455/ (2)]
|}

[[Category:Naturalism]]

Evolutionism

2009-11-02T21:58:56Z

Pgmm: This is untrue and pointless

Young Earth Creationism

2009-11-02T21:56:27Z

Pgmm: Half life means exponential reduction THERE WILL NEVER BE NO CARBON 14.

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|300px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.

Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many [[anomaly|anomalies]] associated with the old earth/universe position.

== Beliefs ==

=== Biblical ===
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:
* Creation took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref>

=== Scientific ===
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view. {{fact}}

Some specific arguments are as follows:

* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/21</ref>
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>
*Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>
* The fact that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood, and geological evidence of a flood in almost every area of the earth, shows that it is very likely, if not garenteed that the great flood did take place.<ref>[www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref>

== Biblical exegesis ==

Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==
Young earth creation scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," [[American Scientist]] (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===
{{main|Starlight problem}}

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]]. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>

Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

==== Russell Humphreys's model ====

Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.
Humphreys's model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that here is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. <ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref>

==== John Hartnett's model ====

Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, it's removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref>
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).

== Biology ==

According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.

Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".

YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.

== Geology ==

YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.
The first was in creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.
The second was during Noah's Flood.
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, with massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation.
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood, which broke up during the Flood.
This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

== Anthropology ==
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}

YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".

== Contrasted with evolution ==

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:
* According to the [[chronogenealogies]] in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million(14 billion) years ago and Earth was formed around 4,500 million(4.5 billion) years ago.
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.
*Young Earth creationism is based on the bible, the infallible word of God.<ref>www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html</ref> <ref>atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/a/bible.htm</ref>

== Responses to criticisms ==

Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''
: Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there is metaphor an other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.
* ''Creationisms is not falsifiable.''
: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution. See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].
* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''
: Creationists have made it clear that they only want ''scientific evidence'' consistent with creation taught. Critics have not proposed any scientific evidence for other creation stories.
* ''Leading creationists know that what they promote is wrong, so they are liars.''
: Accusations like this are rarely backed by any evidence of systematic lying.

== Arguments for a recent creation ==
{{main|Arguments for a recent creation}}

[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]

Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments.

Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.
Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in sea water, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.
Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.

[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of [[sedimentary]] rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early [[church fathers]] held the young earth creationist view.<ref>
* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.
* Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref>

== Organizations and publications ==

=== Organizations ===

Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and [[NorthWest Creation Network]] (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].

=== Magazines and newsletters ===

The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.

Creation Ministries International publishes a 56-page colour magazine, ''Creation'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref>

Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the Journal of Creation is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further Reading==

*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe] by [[Don Batten]] of [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2708&grupo=Life%20%20Family&canal=Life%20and%20Bioethics The Problem of Evolution] Facts and theories of biological evolution.

Young earth creationism websites:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup Edinburgh Creation Group]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html Biblical Young Earth Creationism]

Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

Videos focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees

== See also ==
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[History of Young Earth Creationism]]
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]
=== Alternative views===
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Theistic evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Gap theory]]
*[[Day age creationism]]
*[[Progressive Creationism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]