Bryan Fischer says Sen. Marco Rubio should have just said yes, the earth is only 6000 years old. Because, Fischer claims, the evidence supports that “fact.” And he offers up the usual list of bad arguments from the creationist jokebook to support that absurd claim. Like this one:
Comets. Comets are supposed to be as old as the solar system, about 5 billion years old. Yet comets lose material every time they orbit the sun, and thus no comet can last more than about 100,000 years. If the earth is as old as we’re told, comets should have disappeared literally billions of years ago. But there they are, happily orbiting the sun and sending flutters through the astronomical community every time one becomes visible to the naked eye. So, where are all these comets coming from? Scientists have to posit that there is some kind of comet nest out there, which occasionally kicks one of these guys out into the solar system. Now scientists have no evidence that this nest exists, no idea where it is located, and have not clue one what kind of process could explain the whole thing. I’ll stick with a young earth as the most plausible explanation.
Uh, yeah. Except this is completely false. There are actually two different “comet nests” in this solar system, the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud (and actually more than that, further out). We do know where it is; we do have telescopes, after all. We have it mapped pretty thoroughly. We can observe it and predict the behavior of those objects pretty well. But none of Fischer’s audience will know that, of course.
Sediment on the sea floor. Mud is deposited by rivers and dust storms into the sea much faster than natural processes can remove it. Every year, about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock are dumped in the ocean. A process called plate tectonic subduction removes about a billion tons a year, which leaves 19 billion tons to accumulate on the seafloor year after year. The problem here is that the average depth of all the sediment in the entire ocean is less than 400 meters. That would take well less than 12 million years, which leaves us just a tad shy of the three billion years scientists demand. If the biblical account is correct, accelerated accumulation of deposits during the world-wide flood of Genesis 6-9 could account for it most if not all of it. I think I’ll go with a young earth on this one.
The Earth’s magnetic field. Electrical resistance in the earth’s core causes the earth’s magnetic field to lose energy rapidly. In fact, the half-life of the earth’s magnetic field is about 165 years. That means the magnetic field is half as strong today as it was 165 years ago. Put another way, it was twice as strong 165 years ago as it is today. As recently as 20,000 years ago the earth would have been a magnetic star incapable of sustaining life. For the objective observer, that’s powerful evidence for a young earth.
And by “objective observer,” of course, he means someone who is entirely ignorant of the fact that the strength of the magnetic field has varied considerably over time, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing — and that the poles actually reverse themselves every once in a while. Again, a textbook example of selecting one old study on one specific set of data and ignoring all the other data that is relevant in building a model of the earth’s natural history.
Dead bodies. Evolutionists tell us that Homo Sapiens was around for at least 185,000 years before the dawn of agriculture, and world population all that time was between one and ten million souls. Where are all the dead bodies? Under an evolutionary model, there should be at least 8 billion dead bodies buried somewhere. Where are all these stone age skeletons? Only a few thousand have ever been found. Maybe the Stone Age lasted only a few hundred years rather than a few hundred thousand years, hmmm?
Yeah, because fossilization is automatic, right? It’s not like we observe living things all the time decomposing or anything. It goes on like this, all bad arguments that have been debunked time and time again.