EVIDENCES FOR A YOUNG WORLD?
INDEX
In his tract 'Evidence for a Young World' D. Russell Humphreys, PhD, presents twelve lines of evidence for a young world.
Evidence for a Young World
Humphreys' credentials are impressive, but almost all the 'evidences' are outside his experience as a practicing scientist. Let's see how well the evidence stands up to critical analysis.
Evidence 1: Galaxies wind themselves up too quickly
Our galaxy is a spiral galaxy with a distinctive spiral pattern of stars. Because the stars of the galaxy rotate around the centre at different speeds the spiral pattern should disappear in a few hundred million years, unless some process maintains the pattern. Since the galaxy is about 12 billion years old this could be a problem, and it's a problem for all known spirals.
However the spiral is mostly made up of very bright stars illuminating clouds of gas and dust. The rest of the galaxy's stars form a less distinct spiral pattern, as expected after billions of years of orbiting the centre. The bright stars that form the spiral are short-lived and explode in supernova after only a few million years. As they die their explosions produce shockwaves that compress gas and dust into new star forming regions, producing fresh stars to light up the spiral, perpetuating the process.
Other processes produce spirals too. Many galaxies, like the 'Whirlpool Galaxy' [M51] that Humphreys mentions, have formed their distinctive patterns through collisions with other galaxies. Such collisions have been successfully modelled by supercomputers and are quite well understood. It's an incredible oversight by Humphreys to use the 'Whirlpool' as an example of a mystery science can't explain, since its successful modelling was well publicised in astronomical magazines.
Examples of Galaxy Simulations
Humphreys also implies that because current theories of spiral galaxies are 'complex' that they are some how deficient. Aside from an implied insult to his readers, this ignores the complexity of galaxies as they are - we're talking of a physical structure composed of billions of stars. Of course it is complex! And a corresponding explanation will be complex too. Complex systems generally require calculation-intensive computer simulations to describe adequately, not simplistic models used for cheap debating points.
Scientific American on Spiral Galaxies
Evidence 2: Comets disintegrate too quickly
According to Humphreys comets only last a few thousand years before they disintegrate or become invisible after running out of gas and dust. What he fails to mention is the fact that comets come in two varieties, long period comets and short period comets. Most long period comets take thousands to millions of years to complete a single orbit, and since comet disintegration takes perhaps hundreds of orbits, this makes for a very long life indeed.
Long period comets that are first time visitors to the inner solar-system have orbits that average around 22,000 times the size of the Earth's orbit [an Astronomical Unit, or AU] and fall from any direction with respect to the plane of the orbits of the planets. This led two astronomers, Oort and Opik, to suggest independently that such comets come from a spherical 'cloud'. This is the Opik-Oort Cloud, or just Oort Cloud, of comets. Such comets can't be seen so far from the Sun, but their orbits can be modelled mathematically.
Comet Halley [orbital period 76 years] is an example of a short-period comet. After a visit by a variety of spacecraft in 1986 its expected life-span grew from a few thousand to perhaps 250,000 years because its size was greater than expected. But eventually short-period comets die-out and so a source of such comets is needed. In about 1950 two astronomers, Edgeworth and Kuiper, suggested a disk of comets just beyond Neptune as the source of short-period comets based on the nature of their orbits NOT the need for a supply of comets. In the 1980s the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt [or Disk] was modelled mathematically and it was shown that it could resupply short period comets in the observed numbers. By the early 1990s telescopes were finally able to observe comets in the EK Belt. Since the first discovery in 1992 over 700 have been found.
Humphreys dismisses this discovery and claims, oddly, that the Oort Cloud is needed to resupply the Kuiper Belt. This is total nonsense and shows Humphreys' total ignorance of the mathematical modelling involved, and his lack of acquaintance with current observations and theory of the Belt. If he actually knew the field he would know that mathematical modelling predicts both the Cloud and the Belt, and since the discovery of the Kuiper Belt has vindicated one set of modelling, the Opik-Oort Cloud is now even more likely.
Dave Jewitt's Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt pages
Tim Thompson refutes the Short-Period comet argument
Evidence 3: Not enough mud on the sea floor
Humphreys claims that not enough mud exists on the sea-floor since after 3 billion years at current levels of erosion the ocean should be 'choked' with kilometres of mud. This argument makes so many geological errors it's hard to know where to start. Firstly, only so much sediment can be eroded into the sea, unless it is replaced somehow. Where new sediment comes from solves Humphrey's supposed puzzle, as we shall see.
Secondly, the more sediment that is eroded, the more water it displaces, not replaces. The ocean can never be ‘choked’ by mud. That might seem like a minor point, but it shows the carelessness of Humphreys’ arguments.
Third, Humphreys ignores the fact that no mainstream geologist claims that the ocean floors are 3 billion years old. Based on plate tectonic theory and direct measurements of seafloor age, the oldest oceanic crust is a mere 180 million years old. Most of it is a lot younger, as new seafloor is continually formed along the mid-oceanic ridges. Older seafloor is subducted into the Earth's mantle, and most of its sediments are scoured off and found in uplifted mountain chains around the world.
Finally Humphreys misrepresents the nature of sea-floor sediments. Out in the deepest oceans, furthermost from land, the sediments are mostly composed of materials formed by plankton, and minerals that precipitate slowly around nodules on the sea-floor. This material does average about 400 metres in thickness and accumulates very slowly. Very little of this sediment is derived directly from river outflow off the land.
Along the edges of the continents, however, are extremely thick layers of sediment derived from river outflows. The actual average amount of sediment in the ocean is about 2,300 metres, some 5.75 times Humphreys' 400 metre average. Hence over 90 million years of erosive sediment exists in the ocean - if erosion was lower in the past it might have taken even longer to accumulate. Subduction is not the main cause of removal of such sediment. Instead it accumulates along what are known as inactive continental margins, until that continent eventually collides with another continental plate and is uplifted, to be eroded into the sea once more. Thus new sediment is created from old sediment that has been solidified and uplifted.
This is the main flaw in Humphreys’ argument. He extrapolates some one-way process until it produces an absurd result and claims that it is a consequence of evolutionary theory. However modern geology depicts the Earth as a dynamic system that is continually recycling its materials between one reservoir and another. Humphreys mentions 1.3 billion tons of sediment is annually subducted into the mantle. It doesn't disappear. Eventually it is melted in the mantle and rises as a great mass of molten material that uplifts the piled up material above it, producing new elevations to be eroded into the sea once again.
Geophysicist Glenn Morton refutes the Erosion Argument
Evidence 4: Not enough sodium in the sea
Humphreys takes another process and extrapolates it to an absurd degree. This time it is sodium, the metallic half of the ocean’s most common salt. He claims that only 27% of what flows into the ocean is removed. Does he explain all the sources of removal? And does the sodium need to ‘leave’ the ocean in order to be removed from solution in the ocean? In all probability he has neglected all the removal processes. Vast amounts of salt are known to be buried beneath sediment along the continental margins. As sea-levels have changed over time, shallow lagoons and land-locked bays – even seas like the Mediterranean – have become super-saturated with salt, causing it be precipitated on the sea-floor. Also the various minerals dissolved in sea-water can, in the open ocean, interact with the chemically active mid-ocean ridges and be locked away beneath the seafloor.
Humphreys has assumed that the few processes of removal he has calculated with are the ONLY means for sodium and other dissolved minerals to be removed. But as we have seen from previous 'evidences' he drastically over-simplifies for the sake of a cheap point.
Salt in the Sea
Evidence 5: The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast
This argument is really a rehash of an old and totally refuted argument originally developed by Thomas Barnes decades ago. Basically Barnes decided that the Earth's magnetic field was created by electric currents in the Earth's core, which have lost energy since their direct creation by God. He claimed that magnetic field strength measurements over the last 100 years show the Earth's field is decaying.
The field is definitely decreasing in strength - at present - but there's abundant evidence that its strength varies up and down over time, over cycles of tens of thousands of years. This totally invalidates Barnes' original model, but Humphreys has his own version of magnetic field reversals. However he misses the point since once field reversals are taken into account there is no longer any evidence for a short-lived magnetic field.
Talk.Origins refutes the Magnetic Decay argument
Evidence 6: Many strata are too tightly bent
In this argument Hunphreys claims that tightly bent strata had to be soft while undergoing deformation. He bases this claim on an early 1970s argument from Steve Austin [alias Stuart Nevins.] What does 'soft' sediment mean in the context of sediment hundreds of metres thick? Imagining that 'wet' sediment is like sloppy mud is a gross error, as the weight of thick layers of sediment create high pressures. 'Bending' the water mixed in with the sediment is absurd since water is incompressible. It would erupt through any weakness within the layers [strata] of sediment and such disruption is definitly not seen.
Geophysicist Glenn Morton describes what really happens to wet sediment under pressure
On the very large scales that are involved in geological processes, even 'hard' rock has a very low mechanical strength compared to its bulk. In other words even 'solid' rock is soft enough to distort into tight curves. Slow movements are necessary to compress and deform rock layers else they fracture and faults appear through out the formation involved.
Evidence 7: Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'
Basically this argument rests solely on the supposed 'fact' that unconsolidated sediment can't exist deep under-ground in mainstream geology. This is utterly FALSE. Unconsolidated sediments are not solidified by pressure alone. They need chemical cementing agents like carbonates to truly become hard rock. In the link below [same as the one above] Glenn Morton describes unconsolidated sediments found in very deep oil-drilling bores, some almost like beach sand. Clearly then this argument of Humphreys relies on a 'problem' for Geology that really doesn't exist.
Clastic Dykes
Evidence 8: Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years
This 'evidence' is really two lines of argument from Creationist Robert Gentry, both of which have been thoroughly refuted elsewhere. Gentry claims that 'haloes' of radiation damage in crystalline minerals are unexplainable by mainstream science. He then creates a theory to fit his espoused Flood Geology that includes these 'anomalous' haloes i.e. they are NOT independent evidence indicating Earth's youth. The fact that mainstream explanations do exist utterly negates this supposed evidence.
Geologist Tom Bailleul refutes Gentry's arguments
Geologist Lorence Collins explains the Haloes without miracles
Also the supposed squashed haloes in coalified wood involves a misunderstanding of how coal forms. Coalification of wood involves water and volatile loss from the wood, and heat and chemical reactions to change it to coal. For it to be a mystery Gentry requires wood to coalify fairly rapidly, but under the right conditions it can remain volatile-rich for a very long time. Wood doesn't become coal immediately when under pressure. This being so 'squashed' haloes don't require rapid geological ages as Humphreys claims.
Lorence Collins explains why 'squashed' haloes aren't a problem
Evidence 9: Helium in the wrong places
This really constitutes two evidences. One ‘wrong place’ is the atmosphere in which Humphreys claims only 0.05% of several billion years worth currently resides. He claims all the means of removal can be calculated and they don’t remove enough. Since he doesn’t show us the means of removal and the calculations this is hard to check. One removal process is thermal escape which means that helium atoms at the top of atmosphere are hot enough that a proportion escapes the Earth’s gravity into space. This provides about half the removal needed. The rest is lost through energising of the helium by the Solar Wind, a continual stream of particles that fly out from the Sun. The Earth’s magnetic field traps and concentrates the Wind so that it rains down around the north and south poles, and this provides enough energy for light atoms like helium to escape the Earth. Detailed studies have shown this to be sufficient to remove the helium. Humphreys, as a physicist, should know about this process, but I suspect that he has neglected it for the sake of another quick ‘evidence.’
NASA News on the Polar gas escape
Tim Thompson refutes the Helium Escape argument
The other helium in the wrong place is helium trapped in crystals [specifically zircons] in hot rocks beneath the Earth. Geothermal heat causes helium created by radioactive decay of uranium and thorium to escape its crystal cage in the zircon. Perhaps in this case there might be accurate reporting of the scientific study involved, as it was by a fellow creationist, but the conclusions may not fit reality. When theory – in this case how long helium takes to escape hot zircons - comes face to face with nature often theory must change.
Helium in Zircons Geologist Tom Bailleul at his Haloes page also refutes Gentry's Helium and Lead retention arguments
Geologist Joe Meert also takes issue with Humphreys on Helium retention
Also the migration of helium produced by radioactive decay within crystals is used extensively by mainstream geologists to date the heating history of geological formations. They don't find any of the supposed incompatibility with millions of years of geological time that Humphreys and his colleagues imagine. Humphreys has created a 'problem' for geology that just doesn't exist.
Evidence 10: Not enough stone age skeletons
When an animal dies in the wild many different processes work to destroy its remains. Africa has been home to vast herds for thousands of years at least, and yet its soil is not full of bones from the many billions that have lived there. Likewise the millions of bison left to rot in the North American plains after the mass slaughters of the 19th Century have left few, if any traces, of themselves. Flesh rots and is scavenged and even bone will break-down in most soil types. Humphreys tries to make an argument based on the few stone-age burials that have been found, but he neglects the many billions who must have followed from the Copper, Bronze and Iron Ages. Their skeletons and burials don't litter the landscape by the billions either, but they surely existed.
The simple fact is most people were too low on the social ladder to be buried in a fashion that guaranteed preservation. Being placed in a hole and buried in most soil types virtually guaranteed that their remains would be gone in decades at most. For example, many thousands of people were crucified in the Holy Land during the struggles that led up to the war with the Romans of 66-70 CE, yet only one victim of crucifixion has ever been found. Hundreds of ossuaries exist from the time, but crucified criminals rarely received such careful preservation.
Evidence 11: Agriculture is too recent
Unlike physical processes human behaviour is not predictable by equations and extrapolations. Humphreys asks why intelligent stone-age peoples did not figure out the life-cycle of plants and begin planting them deliberately. This ignores rather grossly the many cultures who never adopted agriculture, not changing until they were forced to by more ‘advanced’ cultures. Such peoples understand the life-cycles of plants quite intimately, but have other reasons for not ‘coercing’ nature to behave according to their desires. Instead they migrated to take advantage of the natural seasonal cycles of the many plants they relied on.
While agriculture has many advantages, it does eventually create social inequalities, something that many cultures have realised and have chosen not to allow. Also the nutritional advantages of raising a few crops versus the wide-range of foods that can be foraged is doubtful. Many peoples have suffered dietary deficiencies when forced into inappropriate agriculture. The real mystery is why agriculture was ever adopted, but that is irrelevant to the age of the Earth.
Evidence 12: History is too short
The birth of cities also saw the birth of writing, according to archaeological investigations of the oldest cities, though pictographic signs have been used by all modern human cultures and possible signs are known from tens of thousands of years ago. Cities can only exist through agriculture and hence this ‘evidence’ is related to number [11], which has a response already. Writing developed as a means of accounting for trade goods and eventually was adapted for its current use through a long evolution through different forms, some of which, like Chinese pictographs, are still used today.
But even the literate ancients did not write history as we normally understand it, but many cultures claim traditions that go back thousands of years beyond the development of writing. For example, Australian Aboriginal society has beginnings 50,000 years old, and while they paint 'signs' they never developed written language and history as we understand it. Yet they retain cultural memories dating right back to their earliest arrival in Australia. Some remember the various floodings that followed the last Ice Age, which sank the land bridges between mainland Australia, Tasmania in the south, and Papua New Guinea in the north. Others remember large extinct animals in various guises as monsters of the Dreaming.
Finally, the development of a certain type of human behaviour is not a certain means of dating Earth's history. While many millions drive cars, and billions watch TV, none of these behaviours existed a few generations ago. Human technology has beginnings and history, but such arguments are largely irrelevant to the physical dating of the Earth and only serve to confuse the real issues.
Professor Donald Wise has refuted Young Earth Creationism along Russell Humphrey's lines in detail here...
Geologic Time Scale
This page hosted by 
Get your own
Free Home Page