# Obvious evidence for an old earth **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 10, 2006, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183 "2006-05-10T03:25:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mrrealtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@mrrealtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrrealtime)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/1 "2006-05-10T03:25:05Z")
I think its pretty obvious that the earth and the universe we find ourselves in today is much older than the 5,000-10,000 or so years proported by [some people](http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html) The question is, what is some simple, glaring piece of easily observable evidence here on our planet that I can use to point out to our “young earth” enthusiasts? Pangea? I mean, for the earth to be 5000 years old, our continents would have had to have been travelling at a pretty good clip for the first bit…no? It clearly takes billions of years for light to travel from the stars to our eyeballs? Seeking laymans terms here, similar over simplification found abundant in today’s lazy mind. (to speak to a duck, ya gotta quack) ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/2 "2006-05-10T03:28:07Z")
> [@mrrealtime](#): > > Pangea? I mean, for the earth to be 5000 years old, our continents would have had to have been travelling at a pretty good clip for the first bit…no? Actually, that’s exactly what young earth creationists typically claim. They claim that much of the earth’s development was formed by rapid catastrophic events rather than slower processes. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/3 "2006-05-10T04:16:09Z")
> [@mrrealtime](#): > > The question is, what is some simple, glaring piece of easily observable evidence here on our planet that I can use to point out to our “young earth” enthusiasts? Immensely thick layers of sedimentary rock that obviously took millions of years to form. But it really does no good. There’s enormous amounts of evidence. People who wish to believe in “young earth” will believe so no matter how much evidence you give them. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/4 "2006-05-10T05:13:41Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Immensely thick layers of sedimentary rock that obviously took millions of years to form. > > But it really does no good. There’s enormous amounts of evidence. People who wish to believe in “young earth” will believe so no matter how much evidence you give them. Trow in a volcano for good measure: [http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/geotime/geotime.html](http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/geotime/geotime.html) > [@](#): > > British naturalist James Hutton was one of the first to recognize that Earth was much older than anyone had imagined. In 1795, he proposed that understanding the processes of the present was a key to understanding Earth’s history. Hutton noticed that the old Roman roads crossing his Scottish homeland were in remarkable condition, considering their age. If the forces of erosion had had little effect on roads more than 1,500 years old, much more time must have been needed to form the massive sedimentary rocks he detected throughout Great Britain. > > He reasoned that they must have been formed by a sequence of processes that led from the eroding of older rocks to the depositing of their debris as sediments subsequently transformed into the younger rocks. > > In that same decade, a British surveyor named William “Strata” Smith made a major contribution toward visualizing Earth’s history. He became quite good at recognizing similar rock formations or strata by the fossils he found in them. In the deeply buried older rocks he often found fossils with no living equivalents. He also learned that younger formations near the surface were much more likely to contain fossils resembling presently living species. > > At the time, most Europeans accepted Archbishop Usher’s declaration, made in 1658, that Earth was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 b.c. at precisely 6:00 a.m.–a date extracted from the Bible by back-calculating begats and exercising a bit of imagination. British geologist Charles Lyell challenged this orthodox worldview when he published the first volume of his Principles of Geology in 1830. Based on a plethora of evidence collected primarily from his work in Italy, he was able to show that a mere 6,000 years could not possibly have allowed enough time for the great geologic processes displayed in the rock record. > > In Italy, British geologist Charles Lyell found strong evidence that Earth’s history must be extended back into time. Prime sources were mud flats surrounding the ancient Roman port of Classis and two volcanoes, one in the Bay of Naples and the second, Mt. Etna, on Sicily. Each red dot represents one of Italy’s volcanoes. of erosion had had little effect on roads more than 1,500 years old, much more time must have been needed to form the massive sedimentary rocks he detected throughout Great Britain. He reasoned that they must have been formed by a sequence of processes that led from the eroding of older rocks to the depositing of their debris as sediments subsequently transformed into the younger rocks. > > One critical component of the rock record was sedimentary rocks. By Lyell’s time, the concept of sedimentary rocks was already well established: sediments laid down by erosional processes somehow, over time, solidified into rocks. Time was one of the unknowns of the process, but in Italy Lyell found a clear time reference. He noted that the ruins of the old Roman port of Classis were separated from the coast by five miles of mudflats, sediments laid down over 1,800 years. But the sediment remained loose, unlike the large formations of solidified sedimentary rock common everywhere. How long did it take for sediments to be turned into rock? Much longer, certainly, than the time since the Roman Empire. > > Thinking of time and geological processes, Lyell noticed other disturbing evidence. Sedimentary rocks lying hundreds of feet above sea level on the sides of a volcano in the Bay of Naples particularly caught his attention. These rocks contained fossils that resembled living species. To Lyell, it could only mean that the large volcano formed recently in geologic time if the sedimentary rocks resting on its side had no fossils of extinct species. > > Later, on the side of Mount Etna, a volcano on the island of Sicily, he discovered small cones formed during ash eruptions. These cones had existed as long as anyone in the region could remember. If no one had witnessed the formation of the small cones, then how long ago had Etna formed? He found the answer in layer after layer of lava flows, ash deposits, and buried cones in valleys exposed by water erosion along the sides of the mountain. He realized that the 10,000-foot volcano had grown from hundreds or perhaps thousands of small eruptions that must have occurred over millennia. > > But what really astounded Lyell was **the limestone layer that clearly ran underneath Etna and across the plains surrounding the volcano.** The limestone contained fossils of animals that were exactly the same as those living in the Mediterranean of his day. The limestone, in turn, was deposited on deeper sedimentary formations, layers that must have existed before the limestone was deposited on top. These older layers contained fossils of extinct animals. Mount Etna, ancient and enduring though it is in human terms, must be a recent geologic event, built on top of young limestone. > > These were the earliest inklings of evidence that geological processes take great expanses of time to run their course. Today we know that Mount Etna formed during the past 500,000 years through periodic and often violent eruptions. If we average out its growth to a towering 10,875 feet above the foundation limestone, Etna has grown at a rate of about 2.5 inches per 1,000 years. After slowly precipitating from seawater along the ocean floor over thousands of years, the underlying limestone was eventually pushed above sea level by tectonic forces. **mrrealtime** : you should rent he excellent series _Connections_ with James Burke. On it, he mentions Charles Lyell and he shows us the limestone layers that Lyell found around Etna. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/5 "2006-05-10T05:15:09Z")
T **h** row in a volcano for good measure… ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/6 "2006-05-10T06:07:33Z")
Show them an undeniable genetic proof of the ancientness and true age of life on the planet earth. Show them carbon dated fossils… Show them all that came before them and try to disposess them of their egocentric views. Date Genetic material with an absolute proof of generations. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/7 "2006-05-10T10:18:21Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Immensely thick layers of sedimentary rock that obviously took millions of years to form. Particularly if those sedimentary rocks contain inclusions consisting of weathered pebbles from other, previous formations, especially those that are themselves sedimentary or even metamorphic. > [@](#): > > But it really does no good. There’s enormous amounts of evidence. People who wish to believe in “young earth” will believe so no matter how much evidence you give them. But of course you’re right; they will permit themselves unlimited weaselling; the weathered metamorphic pebble inclusions in the 500-yard-thick limestone are there because _God did it that way_. Same thing with any other line of argument; humans and chimps share retroviral insertion sequences because _God did it that way_. Why did God do it that way? Don’t ask. ---
**Author:** ![mrrealtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@mrrealtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrrealtime)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/8 "2006-05-10T10:27:51Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > there because God did it that way. Ultimately, yes, they say it comes down to faith…they believe that, and I “believe” Evolution did it that way. (Evolution being my “evil god” that storms around planting disfigured skeletons everywhere…and looks like Charles Darwin… ) Yes, you can bring someone back from the dead, but still they will not believe… ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/9 "2006-05-10T12:10:15Z")
I am a Christian. I believe that God created the universe. I also am convinced by evidence that the universe and the earth are ancient, and that Darwin described the reality of species formation. I belong to a church in which young-earth creationism appears to be the majority view. I’m pretty sure that the piece of evidence the OP seeks simply does not exist. I don’t mean that there is no evidence for an old earth; I mean that there is a class of believer for whom faith overrides evidence. It is not, IMO, weaselly for them to dismiss fossils and sediments by saying “God just made it that way”. It is consistent with and essential to their view of the world. They simply believe that God made everything that we see, and that he did it around 6,000 years ago. Whatever scientists find was done by God in that time span. Rather than try to convince these believers that they are wrong about the age of the earth, we’d be better off expending our energies making sure that their faith-based timeline is not made part of the public school curriculum. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/10 "2006-05-10T13:39:05Z")
> [@mrrealtime](#): > > Ultimately, yes, they say it comes down to faith…they believe that, and I “believe” Evolution did it that way. This kind of argument (and I’m not accusing you of supporting it) is often forwarded as some kind of attempt to at least place creationism on an equal footing with science; “You believe _this_; I believe _that_, so we’re much the same - we just don’t happen to agree”… Except it’s utter rot, and in their heart of hearts, I think the creationists probably know it. Science (including that part of it that pertains to evolution) is based on an attempt to explain the observed evidence as simply as possible, at the same time as trying to broaden the scope of observation as far as possible. Creationism, OTOH, is an attempt to coerce the observable evidence to fit an explanation that has already been set, or to explain away, dismiss or ridicule evidence that is troublesome. The two camps are by no means equivalent opposites; hardly any new observations are generated by creationists; pretty much all they do is to sit around waiting for mainstream science to announce something, then try to demolish it. I realise this might seem a bit OT, but I believe it is a fundamental failing of creationism that needs to be pointed out strenuously and frequently to those supporting it. Creationism _ **doesn’t actually do anything** _. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/11 "2006-05-10T13:40:04Z")
As I have mentioned in similar threads in the past, I’m an atheist (or strong agnostic, depending on how one defines terms), but my mother is a Young Earther (happened long after I left home, thankfully). It’s important, I think, to understand the motivation, which is not anti-scientific for the sake of it. That would be foolish indeed. Rather, in my observation, what’s really at stake here is inerrancy. To Christian fundamentalists in general, and YEers in particular, it’s terribly important that the Bible be the literal divinely inspired word of God. If it isn’t, it’s a slippery slope from there to the proposition that it’s just a collection of stories; in fact, many skeptics (not me) attack picayune details of the Bible (especially the NT) in an effort to start just such a slide. In other words, it’s not important to YEers whether the Earth is 6,000 years old, except that they’ve concluded their belief system depends on the Bible being inerrantly true. For that, scientific implausibility (and more than a little social ridicule) is a small price to pay. ---
**Author:** ![davenportavenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f8ce5/32.png) [@davenportavenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davenportavenger)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/12 "2006-05-10T13:56:56Z")
There is no piece of evidence that would convince a true YE’er of the Earth’s age. Anyone who really did take a look at the facts would not be a YE’er. I had a roommate in college who said that God carbon-dated the fossils himself to make it seem like they had been here millions of years as a test to separate the true believers from the chaff. There’s just no convincing some people. But if you tried, being able to see the stars might be the most logical tack to take. That can’t be explained by sped-up evolutionary and geologic processes on Earth. Then again, God could always change the speed of light, or those stars might just be an illusion created by God. Creationism just doesn’t make any damn sense at all. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/13 "2006-05-10T14:54:20Z")
Yeah…I can’t think of one particular piece of evidence that ought to convince them. I think it is just important that they realize just how much of science they are condemning. If you cut out all of the articles in science journals that would be nonsense if the earth & universe were really 6000 years old, it would leave a huge gap. Not only do you have all of biological evolution and almost all of earth science, you also have most of astrophysics, you’ve got all the work on ice cores in the field of climate (which now go back as far as 700, 000 years), etc., etc. [I am not exactly sure how they date the ice cores, but at least going back some ways, I think they are able to count the individual layers. And, they have been able to look at the same climatic events in ocean sediments and other ways…and it all fits together.] And, of course, you couldn’t just get rid of this stuff because it is very difficult to have all of that science collapse without having affects on, say, high-energy physics, radioactivity, … Basically, if you are a young earth creationist, you have to believe that most of modern science is hooey. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/14 "2006-05-10T16:15:05Z")
> [@mrrealtime](#): > > The question is, what is some simple, glaring piece of easily observable evidence here on our planet that I can use to point out to our “young earth” enthusiasts? I think that estimates of the age of any piece of evidence are based on a chain of inference from various sciencies and so the age is not immediately obvious. Layers of sediment many feet thick have been laid down in a single, local flood from a single hard rainstorm. If one storm can do that think of what a worldwide flood with forty days and forty nights of rain plus water from the eruptions of the “fountains of the deep” would do. Thick sedimentary strata just won’t do without a chain of inference as to how they are formed and most people don’t have the geological background to follow the reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/15 "2006-05-10T16:39:47Z")
The OP makes two fundamental mistakes: 1. he believes that his target audience has a functioning hemispherical brain. Wrong. Brain’s there but it’s switched off. 2. he forgets that God put in all those layers of stuff, fossil fuels, kind-of-fitting continent silhouettes and trapped mosquitoes in amber beads just to drive us miscreants and disbelievers to Hell (y’ask this Catholic engineer, I’m quite convinced that God’s got better things to do with His time… uh… with eternity I mean… than play at being Jim Carrey). ---
**Author:** ![Greenback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/2bfe46/32.png) [@Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greenback)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/16 "2006-05-10T16:47:02Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > As I have mentioned in similar threads in the past, I’m an atheist (or strong agnostic, depending on how one defines terms), but my mother is a Young Earther (happened long after I left home, thankfully). It’s important, I think, to understand the motivation, which is not anti-scientific for the sake of it. That would be foolish indeed. Rather, in my observation, what’s really at stake here is inerrancy. To Christian fundamentalists in general, and YEers in particular, it’s terribly important that the Bible be the literal divinely inspired word of God. If it isn’t, it’s a slippery slope from there to the proposition that it’s just a collection of stories; in fact, many skeptics (not me) attack picayune details of the Bible (especially the NT) in an effort to start just such a slide. In other words, it’s not important to YEers whether the Earth is 6,000 years old, except that they’ve concluded their belief system depends on the Bible being inerrantly true. For that, scientific implausibility (and more than a little social ridicule) is a small price to pay. Exactly. The YE’rs in my town have told me that the bible is true and, if science ever came out with anything that specifically refuted something in the bible, they would simply not believe it. No amount of evidence can get through that. I’ll give them points for having a consistent world view but I don’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/17 "2006-05-10T18:03:12Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > The OP makes two fundamental mistakes: > > 1. he believes that his target audience has a functioning hemispherical brain. Wrong. Brain’s there but it’s switched off. In some cases, the brain is switch on and functioning, but operating in full SEP mode to rationalize away the _massive amount of observational data and scientifically-established theory_ which indicates the age of the Earth. As **Colibri** indicates, people who are unwilling to challenge the fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs and superstitions aren’t going to be swayed by factual evidence, particularly when much of it is based upon mutual confluence of a variety of fields. When you start arguing with a dogmatic creationist over well-established atomic decay theory in order to justify radioactive dating methods, you’re not going to persuade your opponent. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![purpler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/cab0a1/32.png) [@purpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purpler)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/18 "2006-05-10T18:18:54Z")
> [@mrrealtime](#): > > It clearly takes billions of years for light to travel from the stars to our eyeballs? This to me has always been the ultimate proof. How can YECs possibly say that the universe is only 6000 years old when light from galaxies that are obviously farther than 6000 light years away has reached our planet? [How indeed?](http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp) I’ve also heard others claiming the God “pushed” the light, which i suppose amounts to a similar argument. I get to hear a lot of this nonsense, unfortunately, having three YECs in my nuclear family, and many more in my extended family. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Clam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3bc359/32.png) [@Happy\_Clam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Clam)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/19 "2006-05-10T20:08:02Z")
Time Machine. Or Word of God. Absolutely nothing else would convinve Young Earthers. They are willing to “justify” away huge amounts of evidence at the moment, and any more evidence you could produce would simply be waved away in the same manner. On the other hand, stand them on a 5-million year old Pangean cliff, or have God himself descend in all his glory to say: “Hey, the Universe is about 5 billion years old, give or take. Use some f’kin common sense, guys!\*”- well, that might actually penetrate their brains. \*"Oh, and by the way, I’m TOTALLY okay wit’ gay folks- just wanted to mention that. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183/20 "2006-05-10T20:41:48Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Actually, that’s exactly what young earth creationists typically claim. They claim that much of the earth’s development was formed by rapid catastrophic events rather than slower processes. Why would a YEC be obliged to posit “catastrophic events” or anything else to explain the world’s current shape? Perhaps God merely made everything the way we see it at the beginning. E.g., the Grand Canyon; you need not posit some radical new theory of soil erosion, you can just assume God made it as we now see it, for esthetic reasons. It is a beautiful thing, isn’t it? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-evidence-for-an-old-earth/356183.md?page=2)