Chapter Seven - The Age of the Earth
¡@
1. INTRODUCTION
The believer will possibly find that the evolutionary geological findings which claimed that the earth must be billions of years old, is a problem challenging to his faith. It will be our task in this chapter to provide some latest scientific evidences as a response to those who proclaim this incorrect world view, which is contrary to the biblical position.
This chapter, divided into four major divisions, is a brief consideration of the latest scientific evidences to support for a young earth:
we will provide some definitions of geological terms;
we will examine the circular reasoning adopted by the evolutionary geologists to date the sedimentary rocks by the fossils;
we will examine the assumptions, limitations and unreliability of various radioisotope dating methods; and
we will provide some latest scientific evidences to support for a young earth.
1.1 Conflict Between the Bible and the Geological Findings As to the Age of Earth
From the biblical record, some Christians will possibly find that the earth must have been created not too many thousands of years before the birth of Christ. However, some evolutionists and geologists claim that the earth must be billions of years old. How can we reconcile the conflict between the Bible and the geological findings as to the age of the earth?
1.2 The Bible and the Age of Man on the Earth
While no dates are given in the Bible for the creation of Adam, the genealogical tables from Adam to Christ (see Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38; Genesis 5:3-31; 11:10-32) would lead us to believe that the origin of man took place between 4000 BC and 8000 BC.
Archbishop Ussher (AD 1581 - 1656) worked out a series of dates from the genealogies in the Bible and concluded that the world was created in 4004 BC. The chronology calculated by Archbishop Ussher which is found in many English Bibles is not a part of the original text, should be treated as a reference instead of the Word of God.
On the other hand, some evolutionists and geologists claim that they have found some fossils (e.g. dinosaurs) which they state are approx. billions of years old.
1.3 No Conflict with True Science
We can say with utter confidence that the Bible has never been in conflict with the established findings of true science. The Bible is "truth," and truth cannot conflict with truth (John 17:17).
¡@
2. DEFINITIONS OF SOME GEOLOGICAL TERMS
2.1 Fossils and Strata
Fossils are the remains of living creatures, both plants and animals. These fossil remains may include shells, teeth, bones, entire skeletons, footprints, bird tracks, tail marks, or rain drops. They are found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is composed of compacted sediments (sand, gravel, clay, etc.) laid down by flood waters, which have hardened into layers of stone piled up like a layered cake. Sedimentary rock is fossil bearing or fossiliferous rock.
Fossil remains provide evolutionists with their only real evidence that evolution might have occurred in the distant past. Yet there is an astounding amount of evidence to disprove their claims.
Fossils are extremely important because they ought to provide evolutionists with all the evidence needed to show that one species has evolved into another. Fossil evidence reveals whether evolution has occurred in the past.
2.2 Index Fossils
While almost every stratum of rock contains many of the same basic fossil type, i.e., clams, coral, etc., certain individual organisms or variations are thought to have existed in only a brief period of supposed geologic time, and thus can be used to determine the layer's age.
2.3 Geologic Column / Geologic Time Scale
Hypothetical column of fossils, with ancient ones on the bottom, more recent ones on top. Does not exist in complete form in nature, except as a trend. Index fossils are thought to be unique to individual eras, periods and systems. Sometimes called the Geologic Time Scale, it's a statement of evolutionary dogma which cannot be proved by any scientific methods.
2.4 Uniformitarianism
This, a basic theory of evolution, teaches that everything has occurred in the past just the way it occurs today. In other words, evolutionists maintain there have never been any catastrophes in the past, i.e., no great Flood which caused the strata and buried the plants and animals fossilized within it. But the evidence shown in this article clearly disproves that theory.
2.5 Catastrophism
There have been episodes in the past which occurred at rates, scales, and intensities far greater than those possible today, or which were of an entirely different nature than those of today.
2.6 The Genesis Flood
The solution to the mystery of the rock strata, and the fossils in them, is to be found in the first book in the Bible: Genesis, chapters 6 to 9. A sudden, worldwide Flood occurred which laid down the mud and sediment and buried the plants and animals in it.
First, in the lowest strata, the slow moving creatures were buried; then, in higher layers, faster moving creatures. This explains why larger, stronger creatures are in the upper levels. It also explains why remains of humans are rarely found in the strata: They were able to run to the tops of the mountains and were drowned above the laid-down sediments.
¡@
3. THE CIRCULAR REASONING ADOPTED BY GEOLOGISTS TO DATE THE SEDIMENTARY ROCKS AND FOSSILS
3.1 Evolution Model
The evolution model demands an immensity of time not even 30 billion years would suffice for the chance evolution of even the simplest living molecule. Read anything on the subject by evolutionists, and you will learn that the one obvious proof that the strata and fossils must be so ancient is the fact that the strata all have dates going back into the multibillions of years!
How are the strata and fossils dated?
Evolutionary geologists dated the rocks from the fossils, and then dated the fossils from their theories! And they decided on nearly all those dates in the Geologic Time Scale over a century ago. However, only a few fossils had been found!
3.2 Why Evolutionary Geologists Don't Adopt the Other More Accurate Methods to Date the Sedimentary Rocks and Fossils?
The evolutionary geologists cannot adopt the other more accurate methods to date the rocks and fossils. There are numerous reasons for this:
Real history. Real history is available for only the past few thousand years. The beginning of written records, with anything approaching a verifiable chronology, dates from about the first dynasty in Egypt, (between 2200 and 3500 BC). Everything before that is guesswork. No one was present to see when any of the rocks of the geologic column were laid down, so there can be no direct evidence as to their age. Any such determination must therefore be indirect, and will be uncertain at best.
Rocks are not dated by their petrologic character. Rocks of all types - shales, granites, limestones, conglomerates, sandstones, etc., - may be found in all "ages."
Rocks are not dated by their mineralogic contents. There is no relation between the minerals or metallic ores that might be found in a rock and its "age." Even oil may be found in rocks of practically any "age."
Rocks are not dated by their structural features. There is not necessarily any kind of physical break (unconformity) between any one age and its succeeding age. Faults and folds and other structural features bear no relationship to the chronology of the rocks.
Rocks are not dated by vertical superposition. "Old" rocks are often found resting vertically, sometimes in perfect conformity, on top of "younger" rocks. Normally, sedimentary rocks are formed with the earliest sediments deposited on the bottom, and successively young sediments deposited in ascending order, so that vertical position ought to provide at least a local relative chronology. The many cases of "inverted order," however, make this rule apparently an unreliable guide.
Rocks are not dated radiometrically. Many people believe the age of rocks is determined by study of their radioactive minerals, such as uranium, thorium, potassium, rubidium, etc, but this is not so. The obvious proof that this is not the way it is done is the fact that the geological column and approximate ages of all the fossil-bearing strata were all worked out long before anyone ever heard or thought about radioactive dating. Also, as we shall see in the next section, there are so many sources of possible error or misinterpretation in radiometric dating.
Rocks are not dated by radiocarbon-14 dating. Carbon-14 dating can only be used on organic materials, not on rocks or even on the fossils.
Rocks are not dated by their total fossil contents. A great many fossils are remains of organisms that still live in the modern world. Consequently, such organisms are useless as geochronological indices. Sponges, for example, could presumably be found as fossils in rocks of any "age."
3.3 How Are the Sedimentary Rocks and Fossils Dated by the Geologists?
How are the sedimentary rocks and dinosaur fossils dated by the geologists? Let's hear the authoritative statements made by some of the famous geologists.
H.D. Hedberg, past president of the Geological Society of America, stated that, "our present-day knowledge of the sequence of strata in the earth's crust is in major part due to the evidence supplied by fossils in a truism. Merely in their role as distinctive rock constituents, fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning of strata in widely separated regions and from continent to continent." (H.D. Hedberg, The Stratigraphic Panorama, Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 72, April 1961, p.499)
3.3.1 Rocks are dated by index fossils
Are the rocks dated by fossils? Yes, but the same fossils are found in many different strata! A full 99.8 % of the fossils are useless for dating, because they are in so many different strata.
How are rocks actually dated? What is that determines the geologic "age" to which a given rock formation is assigned?
The answer is index fossils! Rocks are dated by index fossils. It may seem strange that all evolutionary geology is keyed to a few fossils. In every strata, there are a few fossils which are mainly found in that one strata. The strata is then dated according to those index fossils.
3.3.2 Index fossils are dated by the theory of evolution
But how do geologists know which index fossils date which age?
The answer to this question is the theory of evolution! That is, since evolution has taken place in the same direction all over the world, the stage of evolution attained by the organisms living in a given age should be an infallible criterion to identify sediments deposited in that age. Thus, rocks are dated by their fossil contents, expecially their index fossils.
Notice that the rock itself was not examined. It was dated by the index fossils in it, and the index fossil type was dated by the assumption of the Geologic Time Scale which was a statement of evolutionary dogma. There is no way to tell the age of a certain fossil. They date the fossils by their theory of how old they think the fossils and those strata should be! The whole idea of "index fossils" is a charade to hide the fact that each strata, and everything in it, is assigned an arbitrary date according to what men imagine it ought to be! The criterion for assigning fossils to specific places in that chronology is the assumed evolutionary progression of life.
3.3.3 The assumed evolutionary progression is based on the fossil record
But how do geologists know that the theory of evolution is correct?
Geologists know that fossil evidence is supposed to be the primary basis for evolution. The assumed evolutionary progression is based on the fossil record so constructed.
3.3.4 Circular reasoning to date the strata and rock
Here is obviously a system of circular reasoning. Fossils are used as the only key for placing rocks in chronological order. The criterion for assigning fossils to specific places in that chronology is the assumed evolutionary progression of life; the assumed evolutionary progression is based on the fossil record so constructed. The main evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolution!
Therefore, the fossils really do not provide a satisfactory means for dating rocks. Consequently there is certainly no real proof that the vast evolutionary time scale is valid at all.
The Geologic Time Scale is a statement of evolutionary dogma which cannot be proved by any scientific methods. Due to the above reasons, the dinosaur fossils cannot be used as a valid evidence to prove that the earth is several billion years old.
¡@
4. RADIOISOTOPE DATING FOR THE IGNEOUS ROCKS AND OTHER ORGANIC MATERIALS
Some teachers have taught their students that uranium dating has proved the earth to be billions of years old, with ample time, therefore, for evolution. Actually, quadrillions of years would not suffice for evolution due to the complexity of organisms. However, the concept of several billion years is sufficiently incomprehensible to make evolution at least seem possible in that length of time, and radioactive minerals decay so slowly and so constantly as to give at least an appearance of great age, if interpreted in a uniformitarian context.
In attempting to determine the real age of the earth, it should always be remembered that recorded history began only several thousand years ago. Not even uranium dating is capable of experimental verification, since no one could actually watch uranium decaying for millions of years to see what happens.
Certainly many people think radioisotope dating methods can determine the age of ancient rocks. It must be stated that only rocks which can be dated by this method are igneous and metamorphic rocks, rocks which once were extremely hot and which since have cooled into solid rock. Advocates propose that melting resets the age clock to zero and that the date given through this method reflects the time elapsed between the cooling of the rock and the present.
Carbon-14 dating can only be used on organic materials, not on rocks or even on the fossils, since they too are rock. Carbon-14 is helpful in dating materials that contain carbon and were once living, such as bones, plant materials, or fleshy parts. For instance, a tree buried by a lava flow can be dated, but the hardened lava itself cannot be dated by this method.
Generally speaking, sedimentary rocks, such as limestone, sandstone, and shale, cannot be dated with radioisotope schemes. Sedimentary rocks, by definition, are laid down as sediments by moving fluids, are made up of pieces of rock or other material which existed somewhere else, and were eroded or dissolved and redeposited in their present location. In other words, the rock material itself would have been from a previously existing older source, and no dating would be accurate because of redeposition. Such fossil-bearing rocks are dated ultimately by the index fossils contained therein, which, of course, are organized, arrayed, and dated by the asssumption of evolution.
4.1 Six Initial Assumptions for All Radioactive Dating Methods
Radioactive dating methods can only be accurate if each of the following assumptions always apply:
Nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products during the process. When something is in the ground for a long period of time, how can anyone be certain that this is true?
Each system must initially contain none of the daughter products. But, of course, no one was back there then to know that.
The decay rate must never change. Who was standing there all those years with a time clock in his hand?
There can be no variation in decay rates. But one researcher has already demonstrated that it actually happens.
If any change occurred earlier in certain atmospheric conditions, this could profoundly affect radioactivity. There are reasons to believe this has happened.
There are two widely used radioactive dating methods:
uranium-thorium-lead dating (applicable to igneous and metamorphic rocks only); and
radiocarbon-14 dating (applicable to organic materials only).
4.2 Uranium-Thorium-Lead Dating
It is the first radioisotope dating technique which was well studied and which has formed the basis for all of the others, utilizes the fact that uranium-238, an unstable radioactive element, decays spontaneously into lead-206. Old-earth advocates don't think that uranium-238 and other radioactive elements formed here on earth, but instead result from the fusing together of smaller atoms in the interior of stars, and were flung out into space during past supernova events. Both larger and smaller atoms are presumed to be part of the inter-stellar stardust which coalesced to form the earth billions of years ago.
4.2.1 Theory of uranium-thorium-lead dating
Uranium-238 changes into thorium-234 through what is called alpha decay. The alpha particle actually has mass and decreases the mass of uranium, changing it to equal the mass of thorium-234. Thus, thorium-234, in turn, changes into protactinium-234, which changes into uranium-234, which, in turn, changes into thorium-230, and on down the line, through various isotopes of radium, radon, polonium, lead, and bismuth, finally arriving at the stable atom lead-206. Each time an atom changes into another type of atom, it gives off a certain amount of energy, the level of which can be measured, and the specific decay-episode recognized. Uranium, in this process, is called the "parent" material, which eventually produces the "daugher" material, lead, after passing through the various intermediate stages.
The rate at which uranium changes into lead through its intermediate steps is measurable and has been accurately measured for the last several decades. It is referenced by its "half-life," the time it takes for half of a given number of uranium-238 atoms to turn into lead-206. Actually, each of the intermediate steps has its own characteristic half-life, the sum of which provides the complete half-life from beginning to end. As it turns out, for uranium-238, nearly all of the total half-life is in that first step from uranium-238 to thorium-234, the rest being much more rapid decay episodes. As we proceed, keep in mind that the measurement of half-life is not a measurement of time, but of the rate of decay.
Simplistically stated, when a scientist wants to age-date a rock, he or she must first measure the present rate of that rock. This means measuring the amount of each of the affected isotopes present in that rock, including the amount of uranium-238 and lead-206. Since we already know the rate of decay of the parent uranium into the daughter lead, we can begin the process of answering the question, How old is this rock? How long, in other words, would it take for this amount of decaying uranium to produce the amount of lead present?
4.2.2 Uranium-thorium-lead dating is not reliable
Here are several reasons why uranium and thorium dating methods cannot be relied on. Each of these five problems is very, very likely to have occurred over past time, thus devastating the value of the computed dates:
Lead could originally have been mixed in with the parent substance.
Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leaked out.
Inaccurate lead ratio computations may have been worked out in the laboratory.
During the decay process, neutron capture (from a radiogenic lead) may have contaminated the results.
Clock settings would initially be greatly varied, if the substances originally were (as evolutionists claim) derived from molten materials.
4.3 Radiocarbon-14 Dating
Radioarbon-14 (C-14) dating was devised in 1948. Many people have the mistaken notion that the carbon-14 dating technique places the age of the earth at billions of years and various rocks at millions of years. But, in reality, the carbon-14 method is valid only for "recent" times. Even the most devoted advocate would not claim that it has anyting at all to say beyond about 60,000 years before the present time, and its inaccuracies are well-known.
On the other hand, the cabon-14 technique does have some application in the most recent few thousand years. If the standard assumptions are valid, i.e., that the rate of carbon-14 decay is constant, that there have been no additions or deletions of parent or daughter materials in a specimen, and that the amount of the daughter material present at the start is known, then the method can perhaps tell us something about the specific dates of historical artifacts.
Keep in mind that carbon-14 is not thought to be helpful in dating inorganic rocks, but, rather, materials that contain carbon and were once living, such as bones, plant materials, or fleshy parts. For instance, a tree buried by a lava flow can be dated, but the hardened lava itself cannot be dated by this method.
4.3.1 Theory of radiocarbon-14 dating
Radiocarbon is the popular name for the unstable isotope Carbon-14, whereas so-called "natural" carbon is Carbon-12. Radiocarbon is formed in the earth's upper atmosphere by a complex set of reactions between the incoming cosmic radiation and atmospheric Nitrogen-14. As soon as it is formed, Carbon-14 begins to decay back to Nitrogen-14, by the beta-dacay process, with a half-life of approximately 5,730 years.
Carbon unites with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, an important component in the life-processes of all plants and animals. In terms of chemical reactions, there is very little difference between the two isotopes of carbon, so that radioactive carbon dioxide and non-radioactive carbon dioxide should presumably be found in a constant proportion everywhere, provided there has been adequate time for mixing the C-14 with the C-12 (say about 100 years). Consequently, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 should be a constant in the biosphere, including its presence in living organisms.
When a plant or animal dies, it ceases to exchange carbon with its environment. As the C-14 which it contains continues to decay, its ratio C-14 to C-12 decreases. The magnitude of this ratio any any time after death, inserted in the radiocarbon decay equation, should then yield the length of time since death, or the "age" of the specimen.
4.3.2 Carbon-14 dating is not reliable
Theoretically, it sounds like a good method; but, in practice, it does not turn out that way. As with uranium and other radioactive dating, carbon-14 dating requires flawless uniformity, down through the centuries. If one or more assumptions are incorrect, then C-14 dating will be unreliable.
In addition, there are 17 reasons why radiocarbon dating is seriously flawed:
Many living organisms are not in equilibrium for C-14 exchange. The C-14 method assumes the standard C-14 to C-12 ratio applies to all living organisms at the time of death. That this is not correct has been shown in many instances. For example, it has been found that the shells of living mollusks may show radiocarbon ages of up to 2,300 years (M.S. Kieth and G.M. Anderson, Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells, Science, August 16, 1963, p.634.). This seems to mean that there must be some kind of carbon exchange between these organisms and carbonate deposits which contained little or no C-14. If any such possibilities exist (i.e. for carbon exchange between the organism and any carbon source deficient in Carbon-14) then, of course, the radiocarbon "age" of such an organism will be too great by an unknown amount.
Variations within samples. There can be biological alteration of materials within the soil which can radically affect the dating over a period of time.
Loss of C-14. Moisture intrusion of any kind (e.g. flowing rivers, flooding, etc) will dramatically decrease the amount of C-14 stored inside the organism. Even small changes in atmospheric or ground moisture, would greatly affect the C-14 clock. As a result, the radiocarbon dating of such organism will register longer periods of time than they should..
Changes in atmospheric carbon. We do not know what were the carbonic and atmospheric conditions in ancient times. Yet we must have that information, in order to start the radiocarbon clock and keep it running right for the first part of its cycle.
Recent dates are most accurate. One landmark fact is that C-14 dates, from the present time back to 600 B.C., tend to be more accurate. Before that time, the results are highly speculative.
Magnetic field. The greater the strength of earth's magnetic field, the more cosmic rays would enter our atmosphere. And it is the cosmic rays which change C-12 into C-14 (which is then absorbed by body tissues).
W.F. Libby, inventor of the C-14 dating technique, found that, prior to 1600 B.C., the radiocarbon dates go wild. But, since he assumed earth was millions of years old, he went ahead with his work and ignored the problem.
Lee, Robert E. say, "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. The radiocarbon is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." (Lee, Robert E., Radiocarbon, Ages in Error, Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No.3, 1981, pp.9, 29)
4.4 Problems with All Radiodating Methods
G.T. Emery discovered that long half-life radioactive elements do not have consistent half-lives! This would be like having a clock, with one "sixty minutes" actually eight minutes long, with another two days in duration.
F.B. Jeaneman noted that just one catastrophe, such as a worldwide flood, would throw all the dating clocks off. Immense contamination of all radioactive sources would occur; there would be major shifting of rock pressure and reversals in earth's magnetic core.
All aside from contamination and other problems, everything hinges on unchanging decay rates. But H.C. Dudley noted five ways they could change. Dudley actually changed the decay rates of 14 different radioisotopes by means of pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic fields, and stress in molecular layers. He also cited research by Westinghouse laboratories which changed the rates simply by placing inactive iron next to radioactive lead.
¡@
5. LATEST SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT FOR A YOUNG EARTH
How old is Planet Earth? This is an important question; the evolutionists admit that without long ages their peculiar theories could not succeed. Evolutionists have repeated suggested dates, ranging from a few million years to 5 billion.
In 1862, Thompson said the earth was 20 million years old. In 1897, he doubled it to 40 million. Two years later, J. Joly said it was 90 million. Rayleigh, in 1921, upped it to 1 billion. Eleven years later, W.O. Hotchkiss moved the figure up to 1.6 billion. A Holmes in 1947, decided it was 3.35 billion; and, in 1956, raised it to 4.5 billion. Just now, it stands at 5 billion.
But what do scientific facts tell us? They declare that our planet is only a few thousand years old. The following paragraphs are some of the scientific facts to prove it (Note: Due to limited available cyberspace, I can only list a few of them):
5.1 Evidence From Our Sun
Evidence now exists that even the sun must be quite young obtained from the direct measurement of its diameter. "In 1979 Jack Eddy, of the High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that the sun was shrinking, at such rate that our local star would disappear within a 100,000 years." "Ronald Gilliland's conclusion was that the overall decline in solar diameter of about 0.1 seconds of arc per century since the early 1700's is real." (John Gribbin, The Curious Case of the Shrinking Sun, New Scientist, Vol. 97, March 3, 1983, pp.592-594)
This means that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate. It is occurring fast enough that, as little as 50,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. In far less time in the past (25,000 years or so), all life on earth would have ceased to exist.
5.2 Evidence From Our Own Moon (Moon dust)
Ultraviolet light changes moon rocks into dust. It had long been predicted that a thick layer of dust (20-60 miles [32-96.5 km]), caused by ultraviolet radiation on the moon's 4-billion-year-old surface, must cover the moon's surface. But scientists were astonished to learn that there is not over 2-3 inches [5.08-7.62 cm] of dust. The thickness of moon dust indicates that the moon was only a few thousand years old (Harold S. Slusher, Age of the Cosmos, San Diego, Institute for Creation Research, 1980, p.76).
5.3 Evidence From Earth's Atmosphere (Atmospheric Helium)
Our helium comes from three sources: Radioactive decay of either uranium or thorium produces helium. Helium spewed out by the sun, is pulled in by earth's gravity. Helium is also produced in the upper atmosphere. All of that helium is accumulating, since helium is not able to reach escape velocity and go into outer space. But the amount of helium we have is too small if our world has existed for long ages. Based on all three helium producers, earth's atmospheric age cannot be over 10,000 years. Henry Faul estimated that the age of the atmosphere should be several thousand years (Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, New York: John Wiley, 1954).
5.4 Evidence From the Earth (Magnetic Field Decay)
Earth's magnetic field is slowly, relentlessly lessening. This evidence is found by Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, Professor of Physics at the University of Texas in El Paso (Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field, 2nd Edition, San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1983, pp. 132). He has pointed out that the strength of the magnetic field has been measured carefully for 135 years, and also has shown that it has been decaying exponentially during that period with a most probable half-life of 1400 years. This would mean that the magnetic field was twice as strong 1400 years ago than it is now. Even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it is now. Only 20,000 years ago, enough heat would have been generated to liquefy the planet. Therefore, the earth cannot be over 6,000 years old.
5.5 Evidence From Beneath the Surface of the Earth
5.5.1 Polystrate fossils
The world contains many polystrate (the name "poly-strate" - meaning "many strata") trees in coal mines. Consider an exposed tree trunk extending thirty feet up from the bottom of an ocean. No woody tree can long survive under sea water. Some may grow with their roots in salt water, but when any tree is covered by sea water, it will die. How long would it take that dead tree trunk to rot and fall over? Could it remain upright for millions or for even hundreds of years, while the mud slowly accumulated around it? Obviously not. Some polystrate trees even intersect more than one coal layer! From studying these trees, we can conclude that the length of time for accumulation of the peat (which later turned into coal) and the overlying sediments was less time than it takes for wood to decay. Obviously, wood decays in only a few decades at most, whether in an active ocean environment, standing in air, or buried in sediments. Polystrate trees which extend through more than one layer in effect "tie the layers together" into a short period of time. This period of time is wholly incompatible with the long-age model normally taught.
5.5.2 The formation of an animal's fossilized body
How do fossils form? The bodies of death animals usually float to the surface, although sometimes they sink to the bottom, where, in either case, they are eaten by scavengers or decomposed by bacterial or mechanical action. In no case do they remain for long. Ofter, fossils are even found in "fresh" condition, sometimes giving evidence of having been buried alive. It is suffice to say that in order to be preserved, they must be buried quickly, out of reach of destructive agents. And this is how it is at the Green River Formation. Fossilized catfish are found in abundance, some up to ten inches long, having the skin and soft parts preserved in some cases, obviously buried rapidly (Buchheim, H. Paul and Surdem, Ronald C., Fossil Catfish and the Depositional Environment of the Green River Formation, Wyoming, Geology, Vol. 5, April 1979, p.196). The catfish fossils are found in many orientations, transgressing numerous millimeter-thick laminations. They did not die and lie for hundreds of years on the lake bottom while being slowly covered. Surely the time has come to recognize that this formation, a classic "proof" that the Bible Genesis Flood is wrong, actually supports rapid catastrophism due to the Genesis Flood (Genesis 7:18-24) instead.
5.5.3 The formation of coal
Recent research has shown that coal does not take millions and millions of years of heat and pressure to form as is commonly asserted. In recent years, several laboratory schemes have been devised whereby coal or coal-like substances can be made rapidly, in hours or at the most days. It doesn't even require pressure (Hayatsu, R., et al., Artificial Coalification Study: Preparation and Characterization of Synthetic Materials, Organic Geochemistry, Vol. 6, 1984, pp.463-471).
5.5.4 Oil pressure
When drillers first penetrate into oil, there is a "gusher." This is caused by high pressure in the oil vein. Analysis of surrounding rock permeability reveals that any pressure within the oil bed should have bled off within a few thousand years, but it has not happened. These deep rock formations and their entrapped oil cannot be older than 7,000 to 10,000 years (Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models, London, Max Parrish, 1966).
5.5.5 Volcanic eruptions
There are many extinct volcanoes, but evidence indicates that volcanic activity has only continued a relatively short time since the world began. Otherwise, there would be far more lava than now exists (Stansfield William D., The Science of Evolution, New York: Macmillan, 1977).
5.6 Evidence From on the Surface of the Earth
5.6.1 Meteoritic dust
A tremendous amount of meteoritic material falls each year on the earth. Estimates vary widely, but the most careful studies have been made by Hans Pettersson of the Swedish Oceanographic Institute. Isaac Asimov calculated that 14,300,000 tons of new meteror dust must enter the atmosphere each year. Of course, this goes on year after year, and the earth has been in existence as a solid body for a good long time, for perhaps as long as 5 billion years. If, through all that time, meteror dust had settled to the earth at the same rate it does today, then by now, it would form a layer 54 feet thick cover all the surface of the earth (Isaac Asimov, 14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year, Science Digest, Vol. 45, Jan. 1959, p.34). Obviously, no layer of meteoritic dust of any appreciable thickness is found around the earth's surface.
5.6.2 Niagara falls
The waters of Lake Erie flow over the Niagara Escarpment in spectacular falls which empty into Lake Ontario. The falls are observed to be retreating toward Lake Erie as the cliff is eroded, at a measured rate of 4 or 5 feet per year, forming a long gorge. Since the length of the gorge is about 37,000 feet, the age of the falls would normally be about 5,000 to 9,000 years at the most (Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, 1987, p.81).
5.7 Evidence From the Ocean (Salt Concentration)
We have a good estimate of the amount of various elements and salts in the ocean, and the amount being added each year. Drs. Steven Austin and Russell Humphreys have attempted to identify rates of addition and removal of salt for each mechanism, both in the present and throughout the past. Their analysis provides a strong evidence for a young ocean. On this basis, our world is fairly young (Austin Steven A. and Humphreys Russell D., The Sea's Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, 1991, pp.17-33).
5.8 Evidence From Civilization
5.8.1 Bible records
Bible records carry us back to a Creation date of approximately 4004 B.C., with a Genesis Flood date of about 2459 B.C. (Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1951). Scientific facts point us toward the same dates.
5.8.2 Historical records
If mankind had been living on earth for millions of years, we should find records extending back at least 500,000 years. (Evolutionists claim that man has been here for a million years.) But, instead, records only go back to about 2000-3000 B.C. When writing began, it was fully developed. The earliest dates are Egyptian based on Manetho's king lists (H.R. Hall, Article, Egypt, Archaeology in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956, p.37, Vol. 8).
Studies of ancient agricultures in Europe point to similar conclusion. The main results of the age determinations is that the oldest agricultures in Switzerland (i.e. Older Cortaillod culture) and in Denmark (i.e. younger Ertebolle culture and A-earthen vessel) started almost simultaneously, about 2740 B.C. and 2620 B.C. respectively (J. Troels Smith, Neolithic Period in Switzerland and Denmark, Science, Vol. 124, Nov. 2, 1956, p.879).
The earliest Chinese date which can be assigned with any probability is 2250 B.C., based on an astronomical reference in the Book of History (Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture, New York, Alfred A., Knopf Publishing Company, 1955, p.520).
This is indeed surpassingly strange if men actually have been living throughout the world for millions of years! But on the other hand, if the Biblical records are true, then this is of course exactly the historical evidence we would expect to find.
5.8.3 Population statistics
Ever since the famous studies of Malthus, it has been known that human populations have tended to increase geometrically with time. That is, the world population tends repeatedly to double itself at equal increments of time. This means that, if the time for the population to double itself is called T, then starting from an initial population of 2 people, after T years there would be 4 people, after twice T years there would be 8 people, and so. At any time n(T) after the start of this process, the total population of the world would be 2 multiplied by itself n times or 2 raised to the nth power. The total time required to attain this population is n(T), but this can be determined only if the time increment T and the exponent n are known. The latter is easily found by equating 2 to the nth power to the present world population, which is about 2.5 billion people. This calculation gives a value of n of slightly over 31. Since the value n=1 corresponds to the initial human pair, it is obvious that the starting population of one man and one woman has gone through slightly more than 30 "doublings."
The value of T, the time increment for one doubling, is less certain. But the following data will suggest the most reasonable basis for estimating it:
At the time of the birth of Christ, there were from 250 to 350 million persons on this planet. Some 700 years later, there was about the same number - say 300 million - a long slow decline in total population having been followed by a compensating increase. It took roughly 950 more years, namely, until 1650, for this 300 million to double to 600 million. But then it took only 200 years, from 1650 to 1850, for the next doubling up to 1200 million. From 1850 to 1950, in only 100 years, the earth's population doubled again, to about 2.4 billion (Warren Weaver: People, Energy, and Food, Scientific Monthly, Vol. 78, June 1954, p.359). From 1650 to 1950, therefore, the population increased from 600 million to 2400 million, representing 2 doublings in 300 years, or a value for T of 150 years. One could split the difference between the previous 150-year figure and this 200-year figure and estimate that the most likely value of T is about 175 years. This value, multiplied by the 30 doublings, leads us back to about 3300 B.C. as the time of the birth of Noah's first son! These calculations can say that the earth's population is quite compatible with the Genesis Flood and young earth, and not at all compatible with an old earth.
5.9 Conclusion
Evolutionary estimates of the age of the earth have constantly changed and lengthened with the passing of time (it currently stands at 5 billion years). But the scientific evidence remains constant and, as new authentic evidence emerges, it only fastens down the dates even more firmly. It all points to a beginning for our planet about 6,000 years ago. The evidence points most distinctly toward a date of about 4,000 B.C. for the origin of our planet. The evidence for an early earth is not only solid, it is scientific. Thus we have seen, from a variety of different scientific measurements and techniques, that the geologic and physical evidence of the world is quite compatible with the Biblical doctrine of the young earth.
¡@
6. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER STUDY
The Young Earth, Master Books, Creation-Life Publishers, 1994, by Morris D. John, PhD.
Scientific Creationism, Master Books, Institute for Creation Research, 2nd Edition, 1985, by Morris M. Henry, PhD.
What is Creation Science, Master Books, Creation-Life Publishers, Revised Edition, 1987, by Morris M. Henry and Parker E. Gary.
The Genesis Flood, The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 39th Printing, 1995, by Whitcomb C. John, and Morris M. Henry, PhD.
The World That Perished, Grand Rapids, Baker House, Revised Edition, 1988, by Whitcomb C. John.
The Genesis Record, A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings, Grand Rapids, Baker House, 26th Printing, 1994, by Morris M. Henry, PhD.
¡@
¡@
¡@