The speaker started out with the Apostles Creed, saying this was what he believed in. This presents no problem for the old earth believer, as the creed makes no claims about the time it took God to create. I've addressed this in The Doctrine of Creation.
The claim is that since dinosaurs were created on Day Five, the fossil record is out of order, since dinosaurs are older in the fossil record than birds, which were created on Day Five. In reality, Genesis does not say "God created dinosaurs" on Day Six. Young earth creationists say the "creeping things" of Day Six includes the dinosaurs. We have no idea if this is true. I favor a Day Five dinosaur creation, as does Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe.
I agree that these verses testify to God's creation, but they do not indicate a young earth. In fact, Romans 1:20 indicates an old earth. Click here for more.
Brent brought up several issues again, such as the galaxies, the sun being too big in the past, the moon dust, the fossil hats, the coal issue. See the previous session reviews for these items.
A picture was shown of the bell in the rock. As you can form rocks quickly, and geologists know this, this presents no problems for an old earth. It is merely evidence taken out of context with the rest of science.
Same as above.
A picture was shown of a pipe clogged with rock. This is no surprise, as we have water softeners to prevent this from happening. See Choking Claims.
Mount St. Helens has been a favorite subject of young earth creation science experts over the last 15 years. First some background. There are two sides to Geology. They are:
Catastrophism – The belief that the past history of the earth and of
living things has been interrupted or greatly influenced by natural
catastrophes occurring on a worldwide or very extensive scale.
Uniformitarianism – The belief or principle that the past history of the earth and its inhabitants is best interpreted in terms of what is known about the present. Uniformitarianism explains the past by appealing to known laws and principles acting in a gradual, uniform way through past ages.
Naturally, young earth creationists believe totally in catastrophism, and the main cause they view as the Flood of Noah. When they look at Mt. St. Helens, they see catastrophic forces at work...and I agree. They view them as evidence of a young earth, because they can produce rock layers quickly through catastrophism.
What they fail to realize is that Uniformitarianism
includes Catastrophism. Since we see catastrophic events in the present,
we see evidence of catastrophic events in the geologic record. Yes,
there is some evidence in the geologic record of catastrophic events,
but most of the geologic record is not "catastrophic" in nature.
As an old earth believer, I believe in catastrophes...but they are the exception, not the norm. As such, Mount St. Helens provides no credible evidence for a young earth.
For specific Mt. Saint Helens claims, see the articles below.
The Grand Canyon is one of my favorite topics, mainly because it offers irrefutable proof of an old earth (more on that later in the dinosaur section).
Brent mentioned that between the Redwall and Mauv Formations, there was a unit of rock? that was out of sequence. Specifically, he used the term "interbedded." This is confusing, as even the young earth book on the Canyon, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, does not mention any rocks out of order, nor do any secular geology books. He may be referring to a disconformity (gap). But this does not make sense either, because young earth creationists Steve Austin argues that there are no disconformities in this section of strata. Anyway, the bottom line is that there are no strata out of order between these two formations.
He moved quickly away from the canyon to dinosaur bones. I was expecting much more on the canyon, but maybe this was due to the lack of time that he had, thus he did not have the luxury of spending too much time on one topic.
This argument mentioned that there are dinosaur graveyards, where it appears that a thousand or more dinosaurs were killed, and their bones are all together in the fossil record. There are several of these graveyards worldwide. It was given as evidence of a global flood. I have dealt with this erroneous claim in Dinosaur Evidences for an Old Earth.
The article referenced in the preceding line deals with many dinosaur issues, and shows that they provide irrefutable evidence for an old earth. I will summarize here. The Grand Canyon, according to young earth creationists, represents rock layers deposited during the early part of Noah's Flood. Thus, you have over 1 mile of sediment in this region that is flood related. Creation science advocate Steve Austin, of the Institute for Creation Research, is the main Grand Canyon researcher for young earth creationists. His book, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, has been fully rebutted on this website.
According to young earth theory, the rocks of the world are divided into five phases:
Division 1 & 2 - Pre-Flood and Creation Week. This is everything below the Great Unconformity.
Division 3 - Early Flood. This is the rest of the rocks in the Grand Canyon, or the flat, horizontal layers exposed in the canyon.
Division 4 - Late Flood. This is the rocks which overlie the Grand Canyon rocks, and are visible in the Zion Canyon, Arches, and other areas (very important...take note of this for later).
Division 5 - Post-Flood - This is listed as the formations that geologists claim formed in the Cenozoic, which is 65 million years or younger.
The rocks of the Grand Canyon are assigned to Division 3, Early Flood. Note Division 4, the late flood rocks. These rock layers are on top of the rocks at the Grand Canyon, and are younger than the Canyon rocks. We do not see them at the canyon due to erosion and depositional thickness. The graph at right shows the rock layers above the Grand Canyon. This is a stratigraphic column for Zion National Park in Utah. It is easy to tie it into the Grand Canyon. The last rock unit shown, the Kaibab, is the cap rock at the Grand Canyon...the rock upon which you are standing when you view the canyon at the top. Note that the next formation is the Moenkopi, and then the Chinle. These are eroded away from the Grand Canyon area. The Chinle's claim to fame is...the first layer in this location, as you proceed up the geologic column, that contains dinosaur fossils. How could these dinosaurs have survived the flood which deposited more than a mile of sediment...were they "treading water" during the first 100 days of the flood?
It gets even worse for the young earth model. Yes,
there are a few dinosaur graveyards, but these are all in Jurassic and
Cretaceous sediments. Adding up the rock units at right that are above the
Kaibab (the Triassic rocks), taking the minimum thickness, they are about
3,400 feet of Triassic sediment. Thus, these dinosaur graveyards (of which
there are only a handful) occur only after more than 8,000 feet of sediment
have been deposited by the flood.
But wait...it keeps getting better. If you believe the young earth creation science model, here is what you must believe. On day 1 of the flood, the rain starts. On Day 40, the entire earth is flooded, and all creatures perish (Genesis 7:21-23). The waters prevailed for 150 days more (Genesis 7:24). Thus, all the dinosaurs were treading water this entire time, until they could set foot on dry land. (of course, if they all died at Day 40...this could not be).
Young earth creationists believe that the water level fluctuated, and thus there would be periods of dry land. So now, after day 190, the dinos find dry land (all over the world!), start eating, laying down poop, breeding, etc. During this period, the water comes up several times, causing these dinosaur graveyards. Finally after 200+ days into the flood, the dinosaurs are dead!
Somehow, during day 190 and the end of the flood, these dinosaurs left evidence of carrying on life as normal...but life would have been anything but normal. They had not eaten for 190 days as the floated around the world.
Does this sound feasible! It's impossible! This is irrefutable proof of an old earth. If ALL dinosaurs showed evidence of rapid burial, and were in mass graveyards, then they may have an argument, but when you add the fact that all dinosaur "trace fossils," (footprints, poop, nests, eggs) are in sediments far above where the flood is said to have started depositing rocks, and the fact that there are more single dinosaur fossils than there are in these mass graveyards, the young earth model makes no sense.
The claim was made that since we have raindrop impressions and ripple marks, they must have been buried quickly. I agree, but this has no bearing on the age of the earth issue. Nor can you say those are raindrops from Noah's Flood...to say that you would have to be there to see it happen!
I agree with the assessment of Brent...there is no verifiable proof the ark has been found. If it is found, that would be great...but I doubt that it ever will be found. In fact, a young earth model, with a global flood, means that it would be impossible to find. Here's why...after the flood, the trees on earth would have been buried, and you would have nothing but yearling trees the first few years. However, Noah and his family would have had a ready source of wood...the ark! It was probably taken apart and used in buildings, for firewood, etc.
This claim is not true. It originates with a Seventh-Day Adventist creationist, Clifford Burdick, who claims to have found pillow lava at the 14,000 foot level of the mountain.
There are different types of volcano, and Ararat is a Stratovolcano. This type of volcano is composed of alternating layers of lava and ash, and is typical of land-based volcanoes. It also shows much evidence of pyroclastic ejecta, which is another feature you would not see underwater. There is no evidence whatsoever that Ararat was underwater.
Of course, the claim could be made that it was underwater, and then it continued erupting when it was dry land. If it did so, however, the supposed pillow lava would be buried. Also, there is no crater, and no eruption has ever been recorded, thus it has been dormant for a long time.1
The tectonic forces behind the formation of the Himalayan Mountain range are well understood. The young earth creation science model, with catastrophic plate tectonics, is completely unworkable. To learn more, see this link.
Brent MacDonald had been teasing the audience the entire week, selling the concept that a lost squadron of aircraft from World War II disproves evolution. Here's the truth! Fortunately, I had already provided a rebuttal to this claim last year.
The same concept applies to Roald Amundsen, and his buried South Pole equipment. The speaker only used the word "ice." Ice was said to build up. The "ice" is made from compacted snow, and the heavy amount of snowfall at the aircraft location, and the South Pole, contributed to this burial in both cases. The Greenland Aircraft Claim tells the story of another Greenland aircraft lost for 33 years, and in this location of Greenland there was no snow accumulation at all in 33 years. It all depends on the average snowfall for where you lose your plane!
Actually, even Answers in Genesis disagrees with this one. I'm sure if the speaker were to rephrase it, he would say that the new species do not show any addition of genetic material.
Young earth creationists need new species, because of their Noah's Ark model. For instance, a "cat" kind would have been the only cat on the ark. From this one pair of cats, all our present day cats "evolved" into new species (all 39 species evolved in only 4,300 years!). Other numbers of "kinds" which evolved from only a single pair on the ark:
Dogs - 1 pair on ark to 34 species today
Rabbits - 1 to 80
Even-Toad Ungulates (deer-type) - 1 to 220
Marsupials - 1 to 272
Shrews & Moles - 1 to 375+
Bats From - 1 to 925
Rodents - 1 to 2000+
Frogs & Toads - 1 to 4,000+
That's a lot of evolution that must happen for young earth creationism to work!2
Again, the theory of evolution does not mandate change. Change can occur if mutations are beneficial, but an organism can remain the same throughout time. Evolution does not equal constant change.
As previously mentioned, finding an plant or animal alive that was thought to be extinct presents no problem for evolutionists or progressive creationists.
The oldest known bee fossil is only 80 million years old. So, how could these bees survive without flowers, the oldest of which are dated at about 120 million years.
First, no actual bee fossils were found...just the hive evidence. Reading about them, though, I have no doubt they were bees. Early bees are said to probably eat sweet uxudates from non-flowering plants and pollen and spores from ferns, cycads, and other ancient plants. How do we know this...we don't, it's speculation about what could have happened. This is just like speculating that ancient bees have always used flowers. You can't say bees only eat flowers, since we cannot observe these early bees. For more on these bees, click here.
Another easy argument to refute. Trees standing up in the fossil record, even protruding through several layers, present no problems. For more, check out these articles.
Polystrate Tree Fossils
Joggins Fossil Cliffs
This is another of my favorite topics. Here's why. The statement above is true for the young earth model with a global flood, but this presents more problems. The calculations for food for the animals on the ark is done based on a 371 day requirement (see this ICR article). However, a much greater requirement existed in a young-earth, global flood model.
By the young earth creation science model, all animals before the flood were plant eaters. After the flood, they were allowed to eat meat. Also, by the young earth model, all the fossil bearing sedimentary rocks were deposited during the flood. In order to erode rock to deposit these sedimentary layers, much water force was needed. Young earth creation theorists Baumgardner and Barnette worked out an excellent model of what happens when you have a globe full of water. They were able to show that you would get ocean currents that top out at 194 miles per hour, centered over the continental masses. Therefore, underwater during a worldwide flood, all existing vegetation would have been stripped from the land and killed. Those that were not would have been buried by the massive amounts of sediment being deposited.
What was the land like that Noah found after the flood? By the young earth model, it would have been a desert wasteland, with no plants growing anywhere on the planet. Provided the seeds floated, it would take many years for plants to repopulate the globe. You may ask what this has to do with Noah’s ark. Well, if there were no plants, then the animals that were on the ark would need Noah to feed them for a few more years. However, ark studies do not account for this extra volume of food!
Two more points. After the flood, according to young earth theory animals became carnivorous. Also, they claim that there were dinosaurs on the ark. With no food, and hungry T-rex’s and raptors prowling around, all animal life, including man, would probably be extinct within a few months after the ark landed!
Why are there no trees older than this? The speaker asked this, but he didn't check to see what the oldest bush is. The creosote bush, which grows in the desert southwest of the United States, is the oldest living organism on earth. The oldest specimen, known as "King Clone," is approximately 11,700 years old! If young earth creationists want to believe in a global flood, it could not have occurred prior to 11,700 years ago! For more on the creosote bush, click here.
Another common target for young earth creationists, with a simple rebuttal. To read the rebuttal, see the link below.
The white cliffs of Dover do erode rapidly, just as Brent MacDonald claims. However, they have only been eroding for about 11,000 years!3 In fact, if you look at the French side, you see the same chalk formation. The sea floor at the margins, where the chalk falls into the ocean, contains chalk. Chalk dissolves readily in water, thus it is dissolved and carried away by the currents, leaving the center of the English Channel mostly, but not completely free, of chalk. This is not a good young earth argument, for this is what the geologic and ocean conditions would predict.
There is a related young earth argument for continental erosion. The basic argument is something like...at present rates of erosion, the continents would have been eroded to sea level in less than fifteen million years. Sorry, this claim doesn't hold water. Read these articles for more.
Sure, you may be able to instantly fossilize tree roots by zapping them with electricity. If we did that to the whole world, then we may have proof of a young earth!
The standard model is a comet/asteroid hitting the earth. The Yucatan peninsula has an impact crater of this age (65 million years ago).
The young earth creation science model says the flood did most of them in, with the remaining who were on the ark surviving (some say to this day). See the above dinosaur discussion on the subject of the Flood and dinosaurs. Also see Dinosaur Extinction.
This is referring to Job 40-41. I have written a commentary on Job which can be found here.
There are several rebuttals for this beetle. This one will do (it links to other rebuttals).
The claim was also made that if the beetle could spit hot liquid, then God could have designed a dinosaur to do the same thing. Sure, He can do whatever He wants, but we have no evidence of any fire-breathing dinosaurs. Also note, the beetle spits hot liquid, not liquid that is on fire.
I have never seen this claim before. But, if there were giant birds in Madagascar, that's fine with me. Their existence would have no impact on the age of the earth issue.
I was expecting this one, the Japanese Trawler claim from 1977. Granted, I thought Brent should not have brought this up, but he explained it in a good way that explained that most today thought it was a basking shark. To read more on this creature, click here for an article from Answers in Genesis. Also, Glen Kuban has an excellent article on this subject.
Even if a plesiosaur were found alive today, it would not be proof of a young earth. Click here to find out why.
This claim could not be found on the internet. I did find a French claim in the young earth dinosaur book The Great Dinosaur Mystery. In the section on France, It said:
A well-known, old science book, the Historia Animalium, claims that
"dragons" were not extinct in the 1500's. But the animals were said to be
extremely rare and relatively small by then.
I decided to check the Historia Animalium, and below are the only two references to dragons in the entire work.
River-fish and lake-fish also are exempt from diseases of a pestilential character, but certain species are subject to special and peculiar maladies. For instance, the sheat-fish just before the rising of the Dog-star, owing to its swimming near the surface of the water, is liable to sunstroke, and is paralysed by a loud peal of thunder. The carp is subject to the same eventualities but in a lesser degree. The sheatfish is destroyed in great quantities in shallow waters by the serpent called the dragon.
The dragon, when it eats fruit, swallows endive-juice; it has been seen in the act.
The first is a reference to a sea creature of some type, and is
inconclusive evidence for anything. It is located in Section 20 of Chapter
8, which deal completely with fish.
The second talks about a dragon eating it's fruit. This is in Section 6 of Chapter 9. This is in a section talking about the habits of various animals including animals not native to France, so it could be something like a large lizard species.
Anyway, did you notice the young earth book said they were extremely rare and relatively small? It's nowhere in the Historia Animalium as they claim.
The young earth book also mentioned there was a place in France that was renamed because a dragon was killed there. Of course, if you talked to all the knights in the Middle Ages, half of them have probably killed dragons!
This is known as
the Palestrina Mosaic, thought to have been done by Demetrius the
Topographer. The creature in question is said to be a
Crocodile-Leopard. As you know, the Romans worshipped many different
Gods. In the scene, it is said it shows scenes from Egypt, down the
Nile to Ethiopia. Are there any Egyptian or Ethiopian Gods that fit the bill with
crocodile and leopard features? Yes there are! Ammut, the Eater
of the Dead, had the head
of a crocodile, the fore body of a leopard, and the hindquarters of a hippopotamus.
Since mythological gods are all over the art of ancient Rome, why should this mosaic be trusted as a truthful, historical representation? Also, how do we know if this Roman artist ever traveled to Egypt and Ethiopia? He may have painted a scene from a country that he had never visited. For all we know, the crocodile-leopard is merely "poetic license."
This story was easy to find on the internet...it was all over young earth creation science websites. No credible scientific websites contained any information. There are two possibilities. First, it was not a small dragon, but something else such as a lizard of some type. Second, it could have been a work of fiction. The author of the work was a prolific writer of scientific texts. I'm trying to verify if he wrote any fiction. The author is most famous for his writings on evidences for the unicorn, thus the accuracy of this dragon report is suspect.
Since we have no physical evidence to support this claim, it means nothing.
I could not find anything about this claim on the internet...a search for "tree glacier" yielded over 600,000 results. Even so, it poses no problem. Trees grow in cold climates, and in some locations where snowfall is massive. It is entirely feasible to imagine a large tree being covered in one season. However, dating the earth as young based on a frozen tree is generally not acceptable science.
As there are many marine fossils all over the land we have today, what's the point in bringing this one up?
Asian and Oceanic people had contact with Australia's Indigenous peoples for thousands of years before the European expansion into the Eastern Hemisphere. It would be feasible that kangaroos were known of in Egypt.4
The finders took poetic license to set up the tusks for a picture. OK, no problem here...I may have done the same thing.
A single mammoth mutation does not justify any claims to the relationship between mammoths and elephants.
I could not believe my eyes on this one! The story was told of some men in Florida harpooning for sharks (a hundred years ago?), and they harpooned this creature who pulled the boat for hours. After five harpoons and 151 bullets, it ceased resisting, but was not dead. They pulled it to shore, then tied it to a dock, and it destroyed the dock. Finally they got it on land. I don't remember the exact measurements, but it was about 45 feet long. The cartilage was not solidified, indicating it was a youth!
Then he showed the picture...a row of palm trees, with a plastic toy fish superimposed in front of the trees for scale! Why was it faked? The cross-section of the fish was perfectly round, indicating a rigid object. If it were put on a flat surface, the contact line with the surface would be very small, a thin line. A dead whale body slumps, from the weight of the animal, and most of the belly contacts a flat surface of a boat. If Brent MacDonald does one thing to improve his credibility, as a result of my review, he would do well to remove this fish story.
No problems with a washed up whale.
This ship had it's sonar dome bitten by some unknown sea animal. Proves nothing.
A bird with 14 foot wingspan was seen by several people in Alaska. That's nice...but it proves nothing, even if it exists.
Although the seminar is enriching because of the archaeological and language information, none of the scientific data presented supported a young earth. Much of the data presented during Session Four was irrelevant. I pray for Brent's success in the future with this seminar, in leading souls to Christ, but it would be better in the long run to base the seminar on truth, not fiction.
If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth. Click here for more.
Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.
Clock in the Rock
To learn more
about old earth creationism, see
Old Earth Belief,
or check out the article
Can You Be A
Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?
Feel free to check out more of this website. Our goal is to provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism, and honor God by properly presenting His creation.