Is the Earth old or young?
Is the earth and life billions of years old or not? Learn how the evidence does not support atheistic birth theories or long periods of time
If we had to name the major cause for people’s abandonment of God, one of the causes could include the ideas of an old Earth and excessively long time periods. Many believe that an ancient planet and universe automatically prove evolution. Time enables everything, even a space the size of a pinhead bringing about fish and the ocean around it in the Big Bang. Later, that same fish turns into a frog and then into a human, as proposed by evolution. Long time periods enable such miracles. People don’t question any of this, since these ideas are regarded as scientific. People don’t consider that time in itself – despite there being millions of years – does not prove evolution and disprove creation. On the contrary, the following three points speak for creation:
• Life beginning by itself is an insurmountable problem. The more we have researched it, the more difficult it has become to explain it. The evidence favors a sudden creation.
• Variation only seems to occur within basic kinds. Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species provides good examples of this phenomenon (e.g., finches etc.), but it doesn’t contain any examples of actual species transformations. Cases, which have originally thought to showcase evolution, are limited to the phenomenon of variation. Darwin had to acknowledge this:
I am actually tired of telling people that I do not claim to have any direct evidence of a species having changed into another species and that I believe this view correct mainly because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based on it. (1)
• Intermediate forms aren’t represented in fossil records. People have learnt through education that gradual development from a simple original cell into current forms took place, but this notion has no evidence in the fossil records, which is our only historical source for that era. Atheist paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has stated the following:
The extreme rareness of intermediate forms in fossil material continues to be the trade secret of palaeontologists. The evolution trees appearing in our textbooks include facts only at the heads and folding points of the branches. The rest is reasoning, no matter how reasonable it is, not evidence of fossils –- I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...) (2)
What happens when we discard creation? It is interesting that critics don’t usually aim their criticism towards creation as a whole, but towards recent creation. They cannot accept that life could have appeared on our planet a few millennia ago, instead of hundreds of millions of years ago. Even though they are unable to prove life’s beginning by itself and intermediate forms between fossils, they still remain certain that the universe, the earth and life on it must be billions or hundreds of years old. That is why they reject any ideas of a young earth and life.
Next, we are going to point out some facts that go against hundreds of millions of years. We will start off with two “explosions”, which are the Cambrian explosion and the appearance of humans on the planet. Both of these occurrences go well with the creation model, but not so well with the long gradual development posed by the evolution theory.
The Cambrian explosion and the appearance of humans. One of the problems with evolution is the Cambrian explosion. That is, people believe the majority of current life-forms appeared on earth in a relatively short time period in the evolutionary scale, which is in less than ten million years.
The problem is that these Cambrian fossils are completely fully developed and in their finished form. They resemble our current species, but there aren’t any simpler forms underneath them in the stratum, which should be the case according to evolution. They lack simple ancestors, which clearly points towards creation. These creatures cannot be the result of gradual development.
Even Darwin realized that the Cambrian explosion will pose a problem to his theory. He didn’t take the evidence as it is, unlike the best paleontologists of his time. The situation remains unchanged, as the same problem still troubles researchers today, as illustrated in the latter quotation. It is difficult to explain why the Cambrian organisms are complex, and why there aren’t any simpler forms underneath them:
Darwin: There is another similar difficulty, which is much more serious. What I mean is that species in particular phyla of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known rock kinds that contain fossils. - - I cannot provide a satisfactory answer to the question about why we don’t find many fossil formations that would belong to those earliest periods, earlier than the Cambrian period. - - Currently, we cannot come up with an explanation for the matter, and this fact can be used as substantial evidence against the views that I have posed. - - The sudden way, how different groups of species appear in European formations; thirdly, the almost complete lack of rich fossil formations underneath the strata of the Cambrian period – all these problems are of significant nature. It is thus rightly understandable that the most competent paleontologists, such as Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande, Pictet, Falconer, E. Forbes et al. and our greatest geologists, such as Lyell, Murchison, Sedwick et al. have unanimously, and often vehemently, adhered to the unchanged nature of species. (3)
Harold G. Coffin: If evolution, the progression from simple to complicated, is true, we should find progenitors of these completely developed organisms that lived during the Cambrian period; but they have not been discovered and scientists admit that the possibilities for finding them are very small. Based on facts alone, i.e., based on what really has been discovered from the ground, the theory according to which the main groups of living organisms formed in a sudden creation, is the most probable alternative. (4)
However, the Cambrian explosion is not the only problem with the evolution theory. Similar issues plague the history of man. One of the most peculiar observation is that recorded human history goes only as far as ca. 4000 – 5000 years back. All of a sudden skills associated with humans appeared simultaneously, such as literacy, building, cities, agriculture, culture, sophisticated mathematics, ceramics, making tools, etc. Many scientists prefer talking about the prehistoric times and historic times, but there isn’t any proof that the prehistoric times extended, e.g., 10 000 – 20 000 years back, because we don’t know with certainty any buildings from that time, or anything else that was formerly listed.
It is quite odd to think if humans developed a few million years ago, that their culture suddenly sprung up only a few millennia ago. It would be more appropriate to assume that humans have existed for only a few millennia, and that is why buildings, cities, language, and culture emerged at that time.
The sudden appearance of humans and their culture is, therefore, comparable to the Cambrian explosion -dilemma. Neither of them quite fit into the evolutionary theory. The evidence indicates the sudden appearance of complex life and humans, as suggested by the creation model. Both of these phenomena extend a few millennia back. (Another indication of the Cambrian period not being so old, is the fact that radiocarbon can be found in the Cambrian fossils. Since the half-life of radiocarbon is only ca. 5730 years, there shouldn’t be any remaining after 100 000 years. However, the Cambrian fossils contain radiocarbon, which proves the idea of millions of years wrong.) The following comments from experts, specifically, refer to the sudden appearance of civilization on the planet:
W. F. Libby, the developer of the radiocarbon dating method: Arnold (my co-worker) and I were first shocked when we discovered that history only dates 5,000 years back in time. (...) We had often read about this or that culture or archaeological site being 20,000 years old. We quite quickly learned that these figures and early dates are not accurately known and that the first dynasty of Egypt is, as a matter of fact, the oldest even somehow confirmed historical date. (5)
The earliest notes we have of the history of man date only approximately 5,000 years to the past. (The World Book Encyclopaedia, 1966, volume 6, p. 12)
In the recent excavations, the most surprising issue has been how suddenly civilization appeared in the world. This observation is quite at odds with what had been expected. It had been thought that the older the period in question, the more primitive the excavators would find it, until all the traces of civilization would disappear and the primitive man would appear. This has not been the case neither in Babylon nor in Egypt that are the oldest known human settlements. (6)
Archaeopteryx, the lizard bird. The Archaeopteryx, also known as the lizard bird, is a good landmark for a measure of time, although the bird has been considered as one of the most pivotal evidence for evolution. People believe it represents the intermediate stage between reptiles and birds, and consequently, books about evolution are filled with pictures of this bird.
However, these two issues debunk the Archaeopteryx as a special case of transitional form:
1. Archaeopteryx cannot be the ancestor of birds, because fossils of other birds have been found from strata older than the stratum of the Archaeopteryx. That is, if other birds are older than this lizard bird, it cannot be the intermediate form between reptiles and birds, (Beardsley, T., “Fossil Bird Shakes Evolutionary Hypotheses”, Nature, vol. 322, 21 August 1986, p. 677).
2. The Archaeopteryx cannot be the intermediate form between reptiles and birds, because all its features belong to actual birds and many reptiles lack these features. Its wings are normal bird wings and its other features also suggest that it is an actual bird. If the Archaeopteryx is a bird, therefore, it cannot be a transitional form, and it cannot be half reptile and half bird, contrary to prior suggestions.
The international conference in Eichstätt Germany, held in 1984, addressed this issue. Scientists specializing in bird evolution disagreed nearly about everything relating to the Archaeopteryx, but still largely agreed that it is a bird. Only a minority considered it to be a small lightly built coelurosaurs [a dinosaur].
What about man and the Archaeopteryx? An ancient Mayan relief poses an interesting find. It features a bird, which shares a striking resemblance to the Archaeopteryx. It seems that this bird, which is assumed to have lived during the dinosaur era, coexisted with humans:
Furthermore, an ancient relief by the Mayas has been found that resembles the lizard bird or Archaeopteryx. This means that there is an error of 130 million years in the dating. If the geological series of layers were correct, these two – the Mayas and the Archaeopteryx – could never have met. It is evident that the geological series of layers is wrong. (7)
Trilobite has usually been considered as one of the Cambrian species, which thrived ca. 600 – 250 million years ago. However, trilobite strata have also been home to multiple discoveries of human footprints. A few examples are provided below.
Evolutionists like to believe that there are millions of years between the first appearance of humans and trilobites, but they cannot prove this assumption. Trilobites do not come with age tags. No one can determine their time of extinction only by looking at fossils. Only the geological time chart that was drawn up in the 19th century claims to know it, but it is impossible to prove this view.
It is just as possible that humans and trilobites coexisted, but only in different ecological zones: trilobites at the bottom of the sea, and humans on land. That is why we rarely find their remains in the same strata. However, there are a few discoveries that indicate their coexistence on the planet:
William Meister made a surprising finding on 1 June 1968 in Utah. He found several trilobite fossils inside a fossilized sandal print! However, based on the geological stratigraphic sequence, arranged according to the evolutionary periods, the trilobites became extinct approximately 230 million years before the appearance of man!
(…) Geologist, Doctor Clifford Burdick found evidence to support the idea about humans and the trilobites living at the same time. He found barefooted footprints of a child, one of which contained a flattened trilobite. (8)
What does the order of fossils tell us? One of the underlying assumptions of the theory of evolution is that the age of strata can be determined based on the fossils in them (as noted above, this is disproven by the fact that the strata came into being quickly – like during the Flood). If a stratum includes simple fossils of sea creatures then it is considered old, and if in the stratum there are fossils of mammals that lived on dry land then it is considered not so old. This is why fossils of rabbits could never be found in Precambrian or Cambrian era strata – it is assumed that in those times there was life only in the seas. Richard Dawkins explains in his book The Greatest Show on Earth. The Evidence for Evolution:
Going far enough into the past, all life was in the sea (...) (p. 149)
(...) We don’t need fossils – the case for evolution is watertight without them. So it is paradoxical to use gaps in the fossil record as though they were evidence against evolution. We are, as I say, lucky to have fossils at all.
What would be evidence against evolution, and very strong evidence at that, would be the discovery of even a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum. I have already made this point in Chapter 4. J. B. S. Haldane famously retorted, when asked to name an observation that would disprove the theory of evolution, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!” No such rabbits, no authentically anachronistic fossils of any kind, have ever been found. All the fossils that we have, and there are very, very many indeed, occur, without a single authenticated exception, in the right temporal sequence. Yes, there are gaps, where there are no fossils at all, and that is only to be expected. But not a single solitary fossil has ever been found before it could have evolved. That is a very telling fact (and there is no reason why we should expect it on the creationist theory). As briefly mentioned in Chapter 4, a good theory, a scientific theory, is one that is vulnerable to disproof, but this theory is not disproved. Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil in the wrong chronological order could be found. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours. (p. 135,136)
Richard Dawkins says that evolution could be easily disproven if even a single fossil that is in the wrong chronological order could be found. Well, there are many such fossils. The strata or the fossils based on which the strata are named are often not found in the order required by the theory of evolution but in the reverse order. For example in some geographic areas, Precambrian and Cambrian strata are on the top – with no other strata on top of them. James D. Dana wrote more than a hundred years ago in Manual of Geology (p. 899):
Any stratum of a certain era can rest on top of any other stratum belonging to the entire series below it – a Carbon stratum on top of an archaic Silurian or Devonian stratum; and a Jurassic, Cretaceous or Tertiary stratum on top of older ones with no strata in between. Quaternary strata in America are often on top of archaic rocks, in other cases on top of Silurian or Devonian rocks; in some cases on top of a Cretaceous or a Tertiary stratum.
What about the location of the fossils within the strata? It is amazing how many evolutionists fail to understand a simple fact: ecological compartments. There is a simple explanation why rabbit fossils cannot be found together with Precambrian fossils (i.e. sea animals): rabbits live on dry land. They will immediately drown if they end up in water. Rabbits nowadays do not live in the water: they live on dry land.
Therefore, it need not be a question of rabbits, simple sea creatures, trilobites, dinosaurs or humans being on the Earth at different times; they only lived in different ecological compartments like species do nowadays. They could all have lived at the same time, like stated in Genesis. Fish cannot live on dry land; giraffes, bears and other mammals do not live in the sea. They didn’t then and they don’t now. Only the theory of evolution with its idea of development over millions of years insists that species did not live at the same time.
Dinosaurs. Above, we brought up two important fossils for the evolution theory: Archaeopteryx and trilobite. The former has been regarded as the intermediate form between reptiles and birds, and the latter as one of the most important index fossils of the Cambrian period. These findings, however, suggest they coexisted with humans. They just went extinct, like thousands of other species have over the years. Several species go extinct every year even in our present day. It is not a rare phenomenon.
What about dinosaurs, which also went extinct? Evolutionists like to believe their extinction happened millions of years ago, but it cannot be proved. There are many reasons to believe these large animals (Size is relative, since the blue whale is considered to be the largest animal to have ever lived. It weighs twice as much as the largest dinosaurs.), and small ones, coexisted with mammals and humans. A few observations are provided underneath:
Mammals and dinosaurs. Dinosaur bones have been found amongst other bones that seem to have belonged to a horse, a cow and a sheep. (Anderson, A., Tourism falls victim to tyrannosaurus, Nature, 1989, 338, 289 / Dinosaurus may have died quietly after all, 1984, New Scientist, 104, 9.). From an evolutionary standpoint these kinds of discoveries should not be possible, because mammals are thought to have appeared on the planet only after dinosaurs.
The following comment addresses the issue. Dr. Carl Werner has studied the appearance of current animal and plant species in dinosaur strata. In an interview he tells how many current animals and plants can be found beside dinosaurs. The extinction of dinosaurs cannot be that far in our past:
“We found fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms).
“The vertebrates—animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals—show this same pattern.”
Modern fish, amphibians and reptiles
“Cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays), boney fish (such as sturgeon, paddlefish, salmon, herring, flounder and bowfin) and jawless fish (hagfish and lamprey) have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same as modern forms.
“Modern-looking frogs and salamanders have been found in dinosaur dig sites.
“All of today’s reptile groups have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same or similar to modern forms: Snakes (boa constrictor), lizards (ground lizards and gliding lizards), turtles (box turtles, soft-shelled turtles), and crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles and gavials).”
“Contrary to popular belief, modern types of birds have been found, including: parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc.
(…) “At the dinosaur dig sites, scientists have found many unusual extinct mammal (…) but they have also found fossilized mammals that look like squirrels, possums, Tasmanian devils, hedgehogs, shrews, beavers, primates, and duck-billed platypus. (…) “Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers;(9a) almost as many as the number of dinosaur species.
(…)“In the dinosaur rock layers, we found fossils from every major plant division living today including: flowering plants, ginkgos, cone trees, moss, vascular mosses, cycads, and ferns. Again, if you look at these fossils and compare them to modern forms, you will quickly conclude that the plants have not changed. Fossil sequoias, magnolias, dogwoods, poplars and redwoods, lily pads, cycads, ferns, horsetails etc. have been found at the dinosaur digs.” (9)
Humans and dinosaurs. According to the common evolutionary understanding, dinosaurs and humans never coexisted. However, numerous folk tales describe large dragons and lizards, which seem to fit the description of a dinosaur. These descriptions, which might be based on oral history, can be found among many different nations, in that English, Irish, Danish, Norwegian, German, Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Babylonian literature all have mentions of them. The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265) reports these narrations:
The dragons in legends are, strangely enough, just like real animals that lived in the past. They resemble large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the land long before man is supposed to have appeared. Dragons were generally regarded as bad and destructive. Each nation referred to them in their mythology.
A very interesting comment has come from the late fossil researcher, Stephen Jay Gould, who was a Marxist atheist. He stated that the only animal that fits the description of Behemoth from the Book of Job is the dinosaur. (Pandans Tumme, p. 221, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). As an evolutionist he believed that the writer of the Book of Job must have gathered their information from fossils. However, this Book, which is one of the oldest in the Bible, clearly refers to a living animal (Job 40:15: Behold now behemoth, which I made with you …).
Footprints in strata. Findings of human and dinosaur tracks in the same strata cancel the geological time chart and the non-coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. These kinds of findings have been made in several locations, some of which will be listed below. There is also a mention about drawn images of dinosaurs on the walls of caves and canyons:
Many known scientific facts evoke serious doubts towards geological deformational history of rock units and towards geological periods. One such example could be the discovery of coeval traces of humans and dinosaurs in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois and in other areas of United States. These traces appear in a wide area and they are usually revealed after floods or after earthmoving constructions have taken place. Trustworthy paleontologists have carefully examined them and confirmed their authenticity, and they cannot be passed as fraud. Furthermore, images of dinosaurs drawn by humans have been found on the walls of caves and canyons in Arizona and the in former region of Rhodesia. (10)
Human footprints can not only be found in chalk deposits, but also in strata that are believed to be older than dinosaurs. These bedrocks have been estimated to be whopping 250 million years old, which means that the index fossil method must be hugely mistaken, or in another case, the Carboniferous period took place only some thousands of years ago. Albert C. Ingallis has commented on these discoveries:
If man (...) existed in any form as early on as in the carboniferous period, geological science is so completely wrong that all geologists should give up their jobs and take up truck driving. So, at least for the present, science rejects the tempting alternative of a man having left those footprints. (The Carboniferous Mystery, Scientific Monthly, vol. 162, Jan 1940, p.14)
Well preserved fossils pose a great mystery, provided they are 65-200 million years old. That is because they contain substances that shouldn’t stay preserved in the nature for hundreds of thousands of years, not to mentions millions of years. There have been discoveries, for example, in which a leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus Rex has contained blood cells, and discoveries where blood vessels; proteins, such as collagen, albumin, and osteocalcin; as well as DNA, have been extracted from the bone material of a Tyrannosaurus Rex (Helsingin sanomat, 26/9/1994) and from dinosaur eggs in China (Helsingin sanomat, 17/3/1995). These findings are difficult for evolution, because after 10 000 years there should not be any preserved DNA (Nature, 1 Aug, 1991, vol 352). Yet, we have come across it and other quickly decaying substances in dinosaur fossils. If they are animals that lived millions of years ago, this should be impossible.
On the other hand, it is known that biomolecules cannot be preserved over 100,000 years (Bada, J et al. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 354, ).This is the finding of empirical science. The biomolecule of animal tissue is collagen, which is a typical structural protein, and it can usually be segregated from fossils. It is known that this protein in question decays quickly from bones, and you can detect its remains only after 30,000 years, excluding very dry special circumstances. It undoubtedly rains occasionally in the Hell Creek region. Thus, collagen should not be found from a “68 million” year-old bone, which has been laying around in the soil. (11)
If the observations regarding proteins, such as albumin, collagen, osteocalcin, and DNA, that have been separated from dinosaur bones are true – and we have no reason to doubt the researchers' carefulness – the bones must (based on these results) date back to 40,000- to 50,000 years at most, as this is the highest possible preserving time in nature for such materials. (12)
The geological time chart and man. The method based on the geological time chart and index fossils is pivotal for evolutionary dating. This method is based on the view that was adopted in the 19th century and it presumed the earth has experienced different geological periods, which all had their unique animal and plant life. That is why it is believed the bottom of the sea creature trilobite, dinosaurs and humans existed at different times on the planet. They are the three important index fossils in the geological time chart.
This view does not take into account, however, that in the past we also had different ecological zones (the sea, marshland, highland, and mountains) and each one of them has had their own unique plant and animal life, similarly to our present day. That is why it is possible for the humans, dinosaurs and trilobites to have appeared on the planet simultaneously. They might have coexisted, but only in different ecological zones. That is, we don’t see marine animals walking on dry land, just as we wouldn’t expect land mammals, such as moose, bear, rabbit or humans to live at the bottom of the sea like trilobites. It would be impossible. It is strange that evolutionists have never considered this simple, yet basic observation.
Discoveries of human fossils and man-made objects from strata, which have been estimated to be millions of years old, goes to show how the geological time chart, and the millions of years associated with it, are completely false. For example, a golden chain, iron pot and other items belonging to man and human fossils were found in coal deposits, which were thought to have been 300 million years old (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, ss. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39). These discoveries suggest that humans either lived 250-300 million years ago, or that these periods only took place a few millennia ago.
Another case showing the inaccuracy of the geological time chart is made by the spheres that are 3-5 cm in diameter and made from metal. These man-made spheres have been dug up for decades now from South African mines (in the book “Forbidden Archeology”). From an evolutionary perspective these spheres come from strata that have been estimated to be 2800 million years old.
Furthermore, there have been other discoveries relating to human objects:
In the 19th century excavations and tunnel constructions were carried out by men using pickaxes and shovels. It is no wonder that back then there were plenty of documented human objects found inside coal mass and the excavated rock. For example, a marble mortar and pestle were found during a tunnel construction from a Tuolumne Table mountain’s bedrock, whose age is currently estimated at 33-55 million years. The items were discovered by J.H. Neale in 1877, when he worked about half a kilometer from the tunnel opening and in about 100-meter depth. The mortar had been used to grind spices. There were also arrowheads close to the mortar. (13)
A bronze bell (hand bell), which was about 15 cm long, was found inside mineral coal. The coal from a coal mine operating in West Virginia was also commonly used for the local residents’ heating systems. The pieces of coal that were too big for the oven were broken apart at home with a hammer. It was a huge surprise, when a bronze bell appeared from inside a block of coal. The coal layer, which the mined coal was retrieved from, has been determined to have been formed during the Carboniferous period around 300 million years ago. (14)
A hammer was found inside a boulder from Cretaceous bedrock (London, Texas). The Cretaceous period is placed back between 150-65 million years in the evolutionary charts. The period is also known as the dinosaur era. The handle of the hammer from this time had been fossilized inside the boulder, but the metal part had stayed well preserved. Iron consists of ca. 95 % iron, 2,6 % chlorine, and 0,74 % sulfur. The quality of the iron is equivalent to currently used high-quality metals. It is assumed that the climate was very different during the time the hammer was made, than our climate today… According to evolution, there were only tiny primal mammals living in the shadows of dinosaurs during the Cretaceous period. Based on this discovery we can assume that humans also existed during this time. (15)
Radiometric measures hold a central role in determining the age of our planet. Because of these measures, many are convinced that this earth could be billions of years old. Evolutionists also believe that with enough time life has the ability to begin by itself and that all life-forms can develop from a simple original cell into their current glory. This is what they believe, despite there not being any proof for either of these beliefs. They haven’t been able to prove life’s beginning even in laboratory conditions, nor have they found any fossilized intermediate form. Both dilemmas - issues with life’s beginning and the lack of intermediate forms – rather point towards creation. It is the only rational conclusion based on the evidence.
What is the history behind radioactive methods? Interestingly enough, there is one person behind both the geological time chart and radioactive methods, and he is Arthur Holmes. Because of him, long geological periods became widely accepted estimates. He, for example, estimated the Cambrian period couldn’t extend any further than 600 million years back, which is considered the official estimate even today.
Similarly, Holmes had a great influence on the acceptance of radioactive methods. He had determinedly worked on them so that researchers would begin to use them. J.D. Burchfield describes the situation with dating methods one hundred years ago:
Arthur Holmes was the leading spokesperson and lead architect for the new geological time chart. When he was still a student at Strutt institute, he was left with the task of developing radiometric dating methods, which Rutherford, Strutt and Boltwood had already abandoned... For many years Holmes worked primarily alone on the issues with radiometric dating methods. (16)
Are these radioactive methods reliable? Are they as fallacious as the geological time chart, which was drawn up by Arthur Holmes, and which seems to contradict numerous practical observations? Many evolutionists rely on radiometric methods without a doubt, but these methods hold many uncertainties, like the geological time chart. These uncertainties show us how unreliable these methods can be. The following should be considered:
What is the baseline? The biggest issue with radioactive dating methods is that it is based on assumptions that cannot be verified. Evolutionists believe these methods to be reliable, when, in reality, they have no means of verification. There is no independent verification, which could prove the basic assumptions in the methods.
One such problem is caused by the baseline. Evolutionists like to believe that decay began at year zero, which is purely an assumption, because no one was there to see when a stone began condensing and which kinds of radioactive elements it contained. Those, who highlight the reliability of these methods, often talk about the details, half-lives, mass spectrometers, etc., but they fail to mention this fundamental error.
We could compare this situation to measuring a javelin throw at a sports field, without knowing the exact point of the throw. If the thrower was only 5-10 meters away from the 90 m mark, the measurement becomes invalid. The measurement might have been carefully executed – as radiometric measures usually are – but if we don’t know the exact point of throw, the result is only based on an assumption that cannot be proved. The result can only be considered reliable if there was someone, who saw where the throw took place. This condition is fulfilled in regular javelin competitions, but not so much when it comes to radiometric dating. In the case of radiometric dating, the “point of throw” is unknown, although current dating results are precise and known.
External factors can also obscure the results. Heating and formation of stones (this could easily happen to volcanic rocks, which are subjected to these methods) and also water flow through stones might cause problems. These factors could all cause half-life substances to travel and build up somewhere else, which can change the measurement results. Even the slightest of changes in the ratio of substances can distort the whole measurement. Therefore, it creates a rather unstable basis for these methods.
We could compare the situation to one, where we currently have 5 blue and 9 red balls on the table. However, if someone has removed one type of the colored balls or added some on the table, the ratio of the colored balls has changed. The ratio might have changed, because of an external factor.
The following quotations will illustrate how isotope ratios can change, for example, due to dissolution and heating. These examples show how the concentrations of stones can be precisely measured, but the results might not have anything to do with their age. If we don’t know the initial onset, and there is reason to doubt other fundamental assumptions of radioactive methods, how can we trust these methods:
6.3 Changes in isotope ratio due to dissolution
When he looked for an explanation for the anomalies present in the U-Th-Pb clocks, G.R. Tilton crushed his stone samples and washed them with mild acid. He noticed that the isotope ratio of the washing liquid differed greatly from the isotope ratios of the original stone. For example, the 206Pb/204Pb -ratio of zircon was 64 times greater in the mineral than in the washing liquid, whereas the ratio in monazite was only 0,13 times greater. This is isotopes of the same original material having different reactions, and not chemical separation, which might also occur. These isotopes seem to have different bond strengths depending on the minerals. The effects from a simple wash or from weather are far greater than the effects of radioactive decay. Zhivor et al. have shown that led isotopes also react in the same way.
6.4. Changes in isotope ratios due to heath
Starik et al. demonstrated how isotope ratios might also change due to heath. If the stone is heated and the led is sublimating, led isotopes will move differently. Based on the former, we can also assume that during the slow process of mineral crystallization, isotope separation might also occur. (17)
Eyewitness testimony. Another important reason to take a more skeptical approach towards these stone measurements comes from eyewitness testimonies. There are cases, in which the real age of a stone is known, because it has formed during a historical time, but radiometric measures assign millions if not even billions of years to these stones. There are many reported cases like this. For example, when the Hualalai volcano erupted in 1801, the samples were dated from 140 million to 2960 million years old. The average age was 1410 million years, which means the margin of error in these measures is rather large. If we were to notice similar errors in our watch, where the margin of error reaches 99 %, we would quite certainly throw away such a watch.
These kinds of observations make me wonder, how the measurements can be reliable when the age is not known, but not reliable when we do know the real age? It is not wise to rely on such methods that seem to be so unstable to the core. The following examples will illustrate just how massive errors these methods can produce:
Lava rock that was generated in a volcanic eruption on Hualalai Island approximately 170 years ago was studied, and its age was determined using the new methods. By these “reliable” radiometers, the age of the 170-year-old rock was measured at millions of years, starting at 160 million up to three billion years. The same has happened also with other similar measurements. An attempt to measure the age of the layers of the Grand Canyon with these already mentioned new methods was also made. The researchers were yet again surprised with the results. The age of the “young” basalt rock in the uppermost layers was measured at 270 million years more than “the thousands of millions of years old stone layer” at the bottom of the canyon. After these measurements were taken, some of the ages given to the canyon’s rocks and layers by evolutionists before have been transferred into the group of “old beliefs”. (18)
Indigenous peoples’ folklore mentions the eruption of the Colorado Canyon volcano. The volcano (Uinkaret) lies on top of soil layers. The lava flow moved down to the canyon blocking the Colorado river that was flowing below. Samples were taken from the lava to be measured. Samples were also taken from Cardenas basalt, which is a Precambrian (bedrock) rock and which is estimated to be ca. 550 million years old, according to evolutionary measures. All samples were measured by using different radiometric methods. The results varied for the young volcano. They were mainly over 1.000 million years; the oldest estimate being a whopping 2600 million years. The lowest Cardinal layer resulted to be 715 – 1.100 million years old. These results, once again, demonstrate how we can only measure concentrations with radiometric methods - but not the age. (19)
Radiocarbon dating against other methods. Radiometric measures can be done either directly from fossils with radiocarbon dating, or alternatively the concentration of stones can be measured by other means. It is interesting to note that when measures are done directly from fossils with radiocarbon dating, the results suggest a rather young age. Fossils, which have been previously estimated to be hundreds of millions of years old (according to the geological time chart), like the Cambrian fossils, still contain radiocarbon, whose half-life is only ca. 5730 years. It indicates that these fossils, like the soil layers around them, cannot be millions of years old, not to mention billions of years. Both should be measured only in thousands of years.
In the early years of the invention, it was believed that all the preconditions needed to make accurate age measurements were now present. Researchers gathered all kinds of things to measure: items from the tombs of pharaohs and Neanderthals, teeth of sabre-tooth tigers and mammoths, fossils, crude oil, etc. Radiocarbon was found in all of them. These observations regarding age were published in Radiocarbon magazine. Many of the samples had previously been dated as being millions of years old. (20)
Comparing radiocarbon to other methods will result in another kind of conflict. When radiocarbon method might indicate a fossil and its layers to be some thousand years old, a stone taken from the same layer might be determined as hundreds of millions of years old by using other methods. This shows the contradictory nature of these methods, and how, especially, dating from stones seem to be unreliable. They are incoherent.
We have published detailed reports in which wood found in sandstone that was “250 million years old” or in volcanic rock that was “tens of millions of years old” was dated with radiocarbon as only being a couple of thousands of years old. When (...) geologists take samples of volcanic rock that is known to have come from a specific eruption and send them to a highly respected laboratory doing radiometric dating, the "dating" almost always gives a result of millions of years. This strongly suggests that the assumptions on which the dating method is based are erroneous. (21)
What can be deduce from strata? Millions of years are the basic assumptions in the evolutionary theory. The whole theory falls apart if millions of years prove to be wrong. The years themselves don’t automatically prove evolution, but evolutionists believe that with enough time anything is possible. They believe this, although life’s beginning still remains unsolved and intermediate forms between the basic kinds are still missing.
The same assumption applies to the geological formations on the planet. Evolutionists think that the earth’s formations must have taken a long time to form, and that the oldest strata must be at least hundreds of millions of years old. The oldest strata should be deep inside the earth’s core, whereas the newest should be closer to the surface, which of course, is a logical conclusion.
However, there are many practical observations that go against these conclusions. Such observations prove that strata cannot be that old, they are often in the wrong order in terms of evolution, and they must have formed rather quickly. These observations debunk the notion of millions of years.
Strata cannot be old. The basic assumption in evolution remains that strata formed slowly during millions of years, and that the oldest ones are up to hundreds of millions of years old. The idea of millions of years is pivotal for evolution, but there a few examples that illustrate clearly why strata cannot be as old as required by evolution.
Human objects and fossils in strata. Previously, we mentioned how objects made by humans have been found from coal layers (“300 million years old”), from chalk deposits (the dinosaur era), and even from Precambrian strata. This demonstrates how we should be measuring the age of these strata in thousands of years, instead. That is, evolutionists themselves don’t believe that humans could have lived tens or hundreds of millions of years ago.
Another similar demonstration comes in the form of human fossils, which have been inside bedrocks and coal layers. These layers should be measured in thousands of years.
Coal and diamonds serve as another example. The Carboniferous period is believed to have taken place 300 million years ago and diamonds are said to be one billion to three billion years old. However, both coal samples and diamonds have contained significant amounts of radiocarbon, whose half-life is only ca. 5730 years – there shouldn’t be any remaining after 100 000 years. These kinds of findings demonstrate that Carboniferous strata and strata surrounding diamonds cannot be millions or hundreds of millions of years old. Their age should really be measured in thousands of years. Similar conclusions have been made about coal layers being young by radiohalo methods (Gentry, R. V. et al., ”Radiohalos in Coalified Wood”, Science, 194:315,1976).
Numerous samples of coal from different seams in different parts of the US have been found to contain substantial amounts of 14C, even though, according to the evolutionary time scale, the samples are allegedly between 37 million and 318 million years old. What’s more, the amount of 14C found is of the order of 100 times the sensitivity of the instruments, so it is not simply a minor measurement blip. Some people try to dismiss this as contamination of the sample during processing, but the laboratories that do these measurements have developed sophisticated procedures to make sure that this does not happen. Interestingly, despite the supposed wide range in ages, the age calculated from the 14C measurements for all the coal samples is very similar—about 50,000 years.
(…) Carbon-14 in diamonds is another example of a young age measurement in substances that are ‘supposed to be’ very old. Diamond is the hardest substance on earth, because it’s an extremely rigidly-packed crystal of carbon. Therefore it’s impervious to the alleged possible contamination that has been used to try to dismiss the results for coal, although unreasonably. Yet 14C has been found in diamonds at essentially the same level as in the coal samples even though the diamonds are allegedly 1 to 3 billion years old. (22)
Radiocarbon in Cambrian fossils. Astonishingly, radiocarbon has been found in coal -, peat -, and oil deposits, but also in Cambrian fossils from “600-490 years ago”. This is an issue for the idea of millions of years, because the half-life of radiocarbon is only ca. 5730 years. There should not be any remaining in these strata and fossils if they are as old as evolution assumes they are. They should actually be measured in thousands of years, instead. They cannot be any older than that.
(…) The new technology improved the exactness of measurements between carbon-14 and carbon-12. Before, it was possible to measure a content that was about one per cent of the present carbon-14 content. AMS made it possible to measure a content that was approximately 0.001 per cent of the present carbon content. Theoretically, this lengthened the action-area of carbon-14-method from 40,000 years to approximately 90,000 years. Researchers hoped that this was a method to measure much older samples. Those who wished this encountered something surprising, however.
Doctor John Baumgardner, one of the researchers of the RATE group, states that, “a great surprise was that no fossil material was found in which there was as little (radiocarbon) as 0.001 per cent of the modern value!” 23 This means that carbon-14 atoms can be found even in the fossils of the Cambrian period, which researchers regard as 600 million years old.
Baumgardner gives an incredible example of this:
If we begin from the pure carbon-14 amount of the noticeable universe, after 1.5 million years (a little part of the whole time of evolutionism), there should not be any carbon-14 atoms left! However, 14C/12C proportions that are in the range of 0.1–0.5% are currently routinely observed – a hundred times bigger than the detection limit of the AMS method – in samples that should be tens or hundreds of millions years old. This is a big problem from the uniformaristic viewpoint (the time scale of evolution). 24 (25)
Rate of erosion. Current erosion rates set clear limits to the age of strata. When evolutionists talk about tens and hundreds of millions of years, they don’t take into account the rate of erosion. If continents and their strata really were, e.g., 500 million years old or even older, the strata should have poured into the sea several times already. That is, because at the current rate, it would only take 14 million years for all lands to wash down into the sea (there’s 3,8 kilometers of water in the ocean and the height of continents is only a fifth of that on average). That is why we should doubt the millions of years that have been placed on the strata. Instead, it is far more likely that they are thousands of years old:
On the scale of one human life-span, these rates of erosion are low. But for those who say the continents are billions of years old, the rates are staggering. A height of 150 kilometres (93 miles) of continent would have eroded in 2.5 billion years. It defies common sense. If erosion had been going on for billions of years, no continents would remain on Earth.
This problem has been highlighted by a number of geologists who calculated that North America should have been levelled in 10 million years if erosion has continued at the average rate.6 This is a ridiculously short time compared with the supposed 2.5-billion-year age for the continents. To make matters worse, many rivers erode the height of their basins much faster than average (Table 1). Even at the slowest rate of 1 mm (0.04 inches) reduction in height per 1,000 years, the continents, with an average height of 623 metres (2,000 feet), should have vanished long ago. (26)
Strata formed rapidly. On top of these several aspects suggesting the young age of strata, there is also evidence that they formed rapidly, in a matter of days, weeks or months. The following aspects are supportive of this:
Long fossilized tree trunks, which go through many different strata, show how rapidly the strata has formed. These fossilized tree trunks could not have been formed if they weren’t buried under quickly forming soil layers. This only takes a short while, possibly even days, but not millions of years. For example, an old photo from French Saint-Etienne mine illustrates how all five fossilized tree trunks penetrate approximately ten strata or more. These kinds of discoveries are only possible if the trees have been buried under soil layers in a short amount of time. If long time periods were true, these trees would have decayed before they could have fossilized under layers of soil.
Fossils in soil strata. Another case giving clear evidence for the rapid formation of strata comes from fossils that are in them. Fossils in strata can only be explained by mudslides that have quickly buried an animal or a plant. This also applies for the tree trunk fossils.
This is also the case with well-preserved dinosaur fossils, which might still contain traces of soft tissues and blood vessels. The only way these fossils could have formed is if the animal was quickly buried under layers of soil. These days we don’t really come across such rapid burials anywhere in the world, but a major catastrophe, like the Flood, could cause such a phenomenon.
Strangely enough, dinosaurs are usually found inside hard bedrocks and they must be extracted with a drill. Why is this? How could they have ended up inside such hard rocks? The only rational explanation would be that soft mud has quickly piled up on them and hardened around them. There really is no other way of explaining fossilization in hard rocks. Evolutionists don’t believe in the Flood, but what could have been the catastrophe having a similar effect? It is irrational to try and replace the Flood with other explanations, because many nations have knowledge about the Flood, and it would also account for the rapid accumulation of soil layers.
The following comments refer to the rapid formation of strata, which is the key to fossil formation. We have solid reasons to abandon ideas about strata taking a long time to form:
Vertebrate animals such as fishes, reptiles etc. decompose when their soft parts are removed. They must be buried quickly after death in order to avoid decay and being eaten by other animals. (James Dana, Manual of Geology, p. 141)
It is apparent that if the formation of strata were to take place at such a slow tempo, no fossils could be preserved, since they would not be buried under soil before being decomposed by water acids, or before being destroyed and broken into pieces by rubbing and hitting against the bottom of a shallow sea. They can be covered in sediment only in an accident in which they are buried quickly. (Geochronology or the Age of the Earth on grounds of Sediments and Life, Bulletin of the National Research Council No. 80, Washington D. C., 1931, p. 14)
New strata and canyons. It has also been practically proven that strata can be formed rather quickly. In the eruption of St. Helens volcano in 1980 it only took a few weeks for approximately hundred meters of new layers to form. It did not require millions of years, because different layers mounted on top of each other in a matter of days. Furthermore, less than two years later, canyons were formed in the same area due to land mass moving. This did not take millions of years either.
The next account illustrates how little time it can take to form a canyon. In this example a 2,4-kilometer-long and, at best, 24-meter-deep canyon was formed only in three days. Presumably the majority of canyons and several strata were formed because of the effect of water. This could be explained by the Flood.
Canyon Lake Gorge was formed when Canyon Lake in Texas overflowed five years ago, and a torrent of water cut a gash in the ground of what was a nondescript valley covered in mesquite and oak trees. The overflow was caused when the upper part of the Guadalupe River catchment received nearly 900 mm (35 in) of rain in a week. The runoff poured into an already above-normal Canyon Lake, which caused the spillway to overflow. The discharge at the peak of the flood was about 1,900 m3/s (67,000 ft3/s). The spillway’s normal flow is 9.9 m3/s (350 ft3/s). Over the space of three days the rushing water gouged out a canyon 2.4 km (1.5 mi) long and up to 24 m (80 ft) deep. This canyon now sits behind the emergency spillway of Canyon Lake. (27)
Another example is related to the Surtsey island, which was formed due to an underwater volcanic eruption in 1963. New Scientist magazine reported in January 2006, how this island formed canyons, clefts, and other formations in less than ten years. It did not take millions or even thousands of years:
The canyons, ravines and other forms of the ground, which usually take tens of thousands or millions of years to form, have amazed geological researchers because they were created in less than ten years. (28)
Strata and catastrophes. We listed causes for rapid formation of strata above. Tree trunk fossils, other fossils and practical observations demonstrate, how millions of years are unnecessary for rapid reformation of landmasses. It can only take a few hours, days or weeks.
The lack of erosion between strata also speaks for rapid formation and that the strata are not that old. For example, a heavy rain can cause deep grooves on stratum surface. The fact that strata surfaces are smooth suggests that they were formed rapidly and accumulated on top of each other almost instantly. Moreover, the upper strata must be close to the lower strata in age. It is possible there is only an hour or day difference between the upper and lower strata.
In addition to this, we cannot find any signs of worldwide erosion between different periods, but only worldwide stratification of rock types. So, it seems that the stratification of strata has been a continuous, almost incessant process.
The fact that we cannot find worldwide signs of weathering between strata and see the consuming effects of the forces of nature on the soil over different eras is very significant. This indicates that no erosion of the soil has occurred over “millions” of years. The only explanation for this phenomenon, observed in nature, is quick stratification of the strata on top of each other. (29)
The way these strata were formed also strongly suggests a catastrophe model, a flood in particular, which has caused the layers to pile up on top of each other. Geologists themselves have admitted that layers are best formed in floods and through water flow. What could be a more fitting explanation than a global flood, which would move layers of soil on top of each other in a short period of time? According to the Bible, the earth was under water for 150 days.
There are a few quotations discussing the matter. They illustrate how large-scale natural catastrophes are involved with the formation of coal. Usually, evolutionists say that coal was formed in resting marshlands, as a result of slow processes, but there are a few cases that show water has been responsible for moving plants and animals from their original spot into piles. Flowing water (the Flood) is a far better explanation for the formation of coal and for other types of layers, than stationary wetland. Why else would marine animal -and land vegetation fossils be in the same clutter, as has been discovered in some areas? We wouldn’t see that normally. Evolutionists also like to ignore the fact that many different nations share similar flood stories, and that historian Josephus and Berossus both have mentioned the remains of Noah’s ark. Furthermore, it should be noted that coal can be made from wood and from other materials rich in cellulose in only a few hours. It does not require millions of years.
When forests were for some reason buried in silt, mineral coal strata were generated. Our current machine culture is partially based on these strata. (Mattila Rauno, Teuvo Nyberg & Olavi Vestelin, Koulun biologia 9, p. 91)
Under and above the mineral coal seams there are, as has been said, regular layers of clay stone, and from their structure we can see that they have been stratified from water. (30)
The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that mineral coal was generated quickly when large forests were destroyed, layered and then quickly buried. There are huge lignite strata in Yallourn, Victoria (Australia) that contain plenty of pine tree trunks – trees that do not currently grow on marsh land.
The sorted, thick strata that contain up to 50% of pure pollen and that are spread over a huge area clearly prove that the lignite strata were formed by water. (31)
Children are taught at school that mineral coal is slowly generated from peat even though such generation cannot be seen anywhere in the modern world. With evidence such as the extensive mineral coal fields, the different types of plants and the multilayered tree trunks in upright position, it seems that the mineral coal strata have been generated from huge drifting masses of plants during a very large flood. Plenty of burrows made by marine life forms can also be found inside these carbonized plant fossils. Fossils of marine animals have also been found in mineral coal strata (“A note on the Occurrence of Marine Animal Remains in a Lancashire Carbon Ball”, Geological Magazine, 118:307,1981) (...) Major strata of marine animal shells and fossils of the sea creature Spirorbis have also been found in the mineral coal strata. (Weir, J., ”Recent Studies of Shells of the Carbon Measures”, Science Progress, 38:445, 1950). (32)
Prof. Price presents cases where 50- to100 mineral coal layers are one top of each other and between them there are layers including fossils from deep sea. He deems this piece of evidence so strong and convincing that he has never tried to explain these facts on grounds of Lyell’s uniformity theory. (33)
Observations from the solar system and the night sky. What about other observations relating to the age of our earth and the universe? Many of them are not supportive of millions and billions of years. On the contrary, they favor the idea of a young earth and universe. A few such examples are provided below:
The inner energy of stars, planets and moons. Billions of stars, as well as, planets and moons radiate energy into their surroundings. The older we assume they are (e.g., billions of years old), the more unlikely it would be that they are still radiating. A young world would better explain the ongoing high activity of celestial bodies. Super stars and small moons appear to be extremely problematic. The energy in them suggests our world is still young:
The amount of energy from our Sun is calculated to be equivalent to billion hydrogen bombs exploding each second. Some stars are so enormous and bright they radiate energy hundred thousand million times more than our Sun! These stars cannot contain enough hydrogen to maintain a nuclear fusion process that strong for millions or billions of years, because their original mass should have been impossibly large. Therefore, these stars cannot be billions, or not even millions, of years old, but rather thousands of years old. (34)
Small celestial bodies should have cooled down during billions of years. However, there is still volcanic activity, for example, on the moon of Jupiter, Io. Due to its small size it should be a cold glob. (Life/Eyes on Jupiter, Voyager 1979/NASA).
Saturn’s rings are comprised of different sized and shaped bodies. They still haven’t reached their final order (which would be expected at an old age) to which gravity and centrifugal force are pulling them into. According to scientists this unstable state is caused by the young age of the rings. (35)
Space dust. Both the earth and the moon gather space dust constantly. If these celestial bodies were billions of years old, there should be a lot more space dust on their surface. Neil Armstrong, who was famous for landing on the moon, noted before his moon landing that one of the most challenging aspects of his space trip will be the thick layer of dust on surface of moon. It was estimated that the moon had gathered 50-200 meters of dust in 4,5 billion years. To everybody’s astonishment, there were only a few millimeters of space dust on the moon, signaling that our world is rather young.
Distance between the earth and moon. It has been detected that the distance between the earth and the moon keeps growing, due to tidal friction. Based on calculations, the current distance between the earth and the moon is impossible if they had already existed for 4-5 billion years:
During moon landings, reflective mirrors were installed for a laser-distance measurement that would be carried out from earth. In 1929 Harold Jeffries noted that observations about the growing distance between the earth and the moon from the year 1754 were accurate. This phenomenon is caused by tidal friction.
After the installment of reflective mirrors, we have been able to measure the distance between the earth and the moon to one centimeter. If we take into account the slowing rate of which the distance keeps growing – it has been faster in the past, even 20 meters in a year – we can calculate the average of annual distancing at around 1,2 -1,5 meters. (Ph.D. Donald B. DeYoung/6.1.1989 and Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View/NY 1975.) Based on these calculations we can conclude that 320 million years ago the moon would have been so close to earth that it would have shattered into little fragments due to friction… According to these calculations the moon can only have orbited the earth for 7% of the time that is being stated by the evolutionary theory (4,5 billion years). (36)
Comets. There are comets in the Solar System that are believed to be as old as the System itself. However, comets lose parts of their mass constantly when they orbit around the Sun. If they orbited the Sun for millions and billions of years, they shouldn’t exist anymore. The fact that they still exist, suggests that they are rather young, perhaps some thousand years old. Moreover, there is no evidence of any other source that would generate new comets.
The Sun is shrinking. People have made observations about the Sun for centuries. The first measurements that are being regarded as accurate were made by the French Jean Picard as early as in the 17th century (Science publication Tieteen kuvalehti 2 / 1988). Furthermore, there has been regular observations about the changes in the size of the Sun beginning from the 19th century. These observations indicate that the Sun is getting smaller at least by 10 km per year. It is impossible that this kind of development would have continued for billions or even millions of years. These big numbers suggest that the earth cannot be millions of years old, not to mention billions of years old, because the earth would have been a part of the Sun 11 million years ago, and it would have made life impossible on earth less than a million years ago.
Changes in the size of the Sun have been studied from the year 1836. Arithmetically it’s been concluded that the diameter changes around 16 kilometers every year. Recent highly accurate calculations have confirmed that the Sun truly shrinks in this way. (John A. Eddy/Arm A. Boornazian – Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol 11, No 2/1979) (37)
Atmosphere and helium and its amount in the atmosphere are not suggestive of a very old earth. There is only a fraction of helium to the amount that should be in the atmosphere if the earth was billions of years old. The current small helium amount indicates thousands of years.
The Nobel nominee of the year 1969, professor Melvin Cook, studied helium in the atmosphere and how it increases for many years. Based on his research, he concluded that the relatively small amount of helium 4 in the atmosphere is due to the young age of our planet. Some of the helium (helium-4) in the atmosphere is produced when active isotopes (e.g., uranium) breaks. Helium is generated deep under several rock and soil layers, which it penetrates and then blends with other gases in the atmosphere.
The amount of helium from decay of radioactive substances in the soil has been estimated relatively accurately. However, the atmosphere does not contain it as much as the calculations would indicate. The amount of helium should be approximately a million times greater than it currently is if the earth was 4,5 billion years old. Melvin Cook, already in 1957, asked evolutionists in the magazine Nature: “Where is the helium that was produced from radioactive substances’ decay?”
Helium’s small amount has been significant scientific evidence for the young age of the earth. (38)
1. Darwin, F & Seward A. C. edit. (1903, 1: 184): More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray.
2. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
3. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty
4. Harold G. Coffin: “Evolution or Creation?” Liberty, syys-lokakuu 1975, p. 12
5. Science, 3.3.1961, p. 624
6. P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949
7. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 25
8. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 25
9a. Kielan-Jaworowska, Z., Kielan, Cifelli, R.L., and Luo, Z.X., Mammals from the Age of Dinosaurs: Origins, Evolution and Structure, Columbia University Press, NY, 2004
9. Luominen 11, s. 33,34, http://creation.com/werner-living-fossils, http://creation.com/a/7502, http://creation.com/werner-living-fossils-finnish
10. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 24
11. Pekka Reinikainen: Darwin vai älykäs suunnitelma?, p. 88
12. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu, p. 111
13. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 3, Alusta viimeiseen aikaan, p. 22
14. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 3, Alusta viimeiseen aikaan, p. 23
15. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 3, Alusta viimeiseen aikaan, p. 23
16. J.D. Burchfield: Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth, SHP, New York 1975, p. 190, 198
17. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), s. 307, writer: Hermann Schneider
18. Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 102
19. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 88
20. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 92
21. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 34
22. Luominen, number 11, p. 23, http://creation.com/jim-mason-nuclear-physicist
23. John Baumgardner, ”Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution’s Long Ages”, Impact Article nro 364 (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, lokakuu 2003):ii.
25. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 244, 245
26. Luominen, number 3, p. 17,18, http://luominen.fi/geologia/eroosio-ja-aika
27. Luominen, number 9, p. 28, http://creation.com/a-gorge-in-three-days
28. Pearce, F., The Fire-eater’s island, New Scientist 189 (2536): 48-49, 18 January 2006
29. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 87,88
30. Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 114
31. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 11
32. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 179, 224
33. Wiljam Aittala: Kaikkeuden sanoma, p. 198
34. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 36,37
35. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 97
36. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 97
37. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 97
38. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 147
Fictional History - Why millions of years are not true? Scientists are ignorant of the early stages of the universe and life, as well as their age. There are good reasons why millions and billions of years are fables
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
Fictional History - Why millions of years are not true? Scientists are ignorant of the early stages of the universe and life, as well as their age. There are good reasons why millions and billions of years are fables