Young Earther Christians, what's your scientific proof the earth is young?

The bible doesn't count, as this issue requires real hard science to prove any conclusion.

Got any?

13 Answers

  • 4 years ago

    I'm not a young earther, but there is some doubt concerning dating methods. For example, the speed of light probably is not constant, as claimed by most. If it is slowing down, then that throws a wrench in a great many things.

    • Doug4 years agoReport

      But of course I am not the only idiot. There are a great many gifted scientists who are idiots, too. Either that or you have a problem with your pride and aren't anywhere near as smart as you think you are. You decide.

  • 4 years ago

    The earth was created mature. Have you ever seen pictures of the spacecraft that landed on the moon? The poor scientists from NASA thought that the moon dust would be about 20 feet deep, so they designed the landing pads to be much larger than they needed to be.

  • 4 years ago

    The vids provide some. For more proof, go to a website like

    Youtube thumbnail

    Youtube thumbnail

    Here's one I came up with myself. If you like math and science like me, you can easily prove to yourself there is absolutely no way humans could have been around as long as athee-evos claim they have. So let’s have some fun.

    The Growth Rate (i) is defined by the equation below:

    Nf = Np x (1 + i)^t, where

    Nf = Future Number (i.e. Future Population)

    Np = Present Number (i.e. Present Population)

    i = yearly growth rate (percentage added per year)

    t = time in years

    For those unfamiliar with growth rate (i), let’s talk a little bit more about it to see how it works. Take a population of 100 that after a year grew to 101, that would be a yearly growth rate of 1 percent (i = 1/100 = .01). Or let’s take a population of 1000 that grew to 1015 in one year, that would be a yearly growth rate of 1.5 percent (i = 15/1000 = .015).

    Now, let’s try to be as conservative as practical, erring toward the smallest population growth side. The available data showing the slowest growth rate, shows a world population of 4 million in 10,000 BC growing to 5 million in 5,000 BC. Plugging those numbers into our growth rate equation, i = 4.463 x 10^-5. That’s an extremely low growth rate, basically saying that in a population of about 22,000 people, in one year it grew by only one person. As ridiculous as it may seem, let’s stick with that number, and go even further and neglect advances in agriculture and other population growth enhancement technologies that have happened over the centuries. Also, mainstream scientists tell us that humans have been around one or two million years. To be conservative, let’s assume only one million years, and that there were only two humans at the start. Plugging our numbers into our equation:

    Nf = 2 x (1 + 4.463 x 10^-5)^1,000,000 = 2.4 x 10^19

    When you consider earth’s land surface area is just 1.6 x 10^15 square feet, even using the most conservative assumptions and numbers available, the earth itself could not hold 2.4 x 10^19 people. Obviously something is amiss. Either mainstream scientists’ dating techniques are wildly off or the more simpler explanation is that human beings have not been around near as long as some speculate.

    If you plug in a more reasonable number for the growth rate (e.g. 0.46%), numbers today coinciding with a population of eight about 4,500 years ago make a whole lot more sense --and coincide with the biblical model.

    • Lv 7
      3 years agoReport

      You don't like maths and science, and your figures ignore such important factors as higher death rates and the amount of remote incest we know went on.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    Well there's the polonium halos in second hand cigarette smoke and when the Japanese fishing star ship Kobayashi Sulu dredged up a gay plesiosaur and the Flintstones meet the Flintstones they are a something something stone age family

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • G C
    Lv 7
    4 years ago

    Not true. Objective science validates the Bible which is the ONLY record of the beginning. Man's guesses just don't get it and besides, none of them agree with nature.

    • Doug4 years agoReport

      Straw man, Neckbeard. The ancient Hebrews said the praying mantis had four legs and two arms. The classification is arbitrary, so either is correct.

  • 4 years ago

    Nowhere does the Bible say that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. What it DOES say, is that humans have only been on the planet for a little over 6,000 years. BIG difference. .

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    Little me is simply hiding in the corner awaiting humerous or ridiculous answers. I might go fetch some Haribo's brb. :)


  • 4 years ago

    The earth is NOT young...

    It is as the scientists say...4.5 billion years old.

    It is man on the earth whose history is comparison.

    6-8,000 years...Genesis ch. 5.

  • 4 years ago

    the earth its self is proof the earth is young

  • 4 years ago

    There is so much water that is sealed up in the mantle that if it was released on the surface it would cover the highest mountain like the Bible says in Genesis!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.