Nature

Main page | Jari's writings

How old is it?

 

 

How old is it, that is, the age of the earth and life on earth? Dozens of facts point to millions of years as lies

 

 

Foreword

 

If we were to mention the biggest reason why people do not believe in God and creation, it is probably the theory of evolution – the idea that became well-known through the deeds of Charles Darwin in the 19th century. His theory is based on the viewpoint that present organisms were not created by God, but that they evolved from simpler forms of life over a long period of time. All present life forms – animals and plants -- arose through evolutionary events. Factors such as natural selection and mutations supposedly caused changes in species.

   However, it is important to note that the main factor in evolutionist thinking is time: millions and billions of years. It is supposed that the universe and the Earth are billions of years old, and that the old Earth automatically proves the theory of evolution to be correct. This is supposed even though it has been impossible to prove the spontaneous birth of life, and even though intermediate forms are still missing between the most important groups. One can try to solve the problems appearing in the theory of evolution simply by crediting time for making all things possible: over the course of millions of years anything can happen.

   One can compare this to a fairytale: a girl kisses a frog and the frog suddenly changes into a prince. This is deemed a mere fairy tale. However, the same fairy tale can become fact if allowed enough time, i.e., 300 million years. Some scientists believe that is how long it took for a frog to change into a man. Time makes all things possible, even if they go against practical observations.

   In this section we are going to study the age of the Earth and the universe. Are they on such a firm foundation, after all? Our goal is to clarify whether or not they are as old as supposed. We start the study from the space near us.  

 

Sisällys:
1. Signs in space
2. Man’s appearance on the Earth
3. Why the radioactive measurements are unreliable?
4. Signs on the Earth
5. The geological time chart is wrong
6. The strata have formed quickly
7. Why the index fossil method is wrong?
8. Evolution or ecological compartments?
 

 

1. Signs in space

  

Regarding the age of the Earth and the universe, it is often estimated that they are very old – at least 4.5–15 billion years old. It is assumed that they came into existence somewhere around that long ago; nothing refers to the universe being young. Interestingly enough, this view that the Earth and the universe are ancient began to spread at about the same time as the theory of evolution. As Darwin’s theory gained ground people began to believe the universe to be older and older because it was believed that evolution takes time.

   However, we may well ask if this is true. Are the Earth and the universe as old as claimed? 

   Next we are going to study the supposed old age of the universe and consider whether or not the idea stands on solid ground. We are going to study this subject mainly by looking at what the signs in near space indicate. The subjects considered in this chapter are:

 

• Moons of planets

- Growing away of the Moon

- Contraction of the Sun

- Space dust on the surface of the Moon and the Earth

- The age of the comets

- Weakening of the Earth's magnetic field

- Helium in the atmosphere

 

Moons of planets. If the assumption is that the Solar System was born 4,5 billion years ago, planets’ moons will pose an issue. Many of these small celestial bodies are too active to be billions of years old. Some examples are provided below:

 

• Jupiter’s moon Io exhibits intense volcanic activity. The amount of heath its volcanos produce has surprised researchers. These kinds of intense processes cannot go on unchanged for billions of years. The moon Io should be a cold celestial body if it truly was billions of years old (Life/Eyes on Jupiter, Voyager 1979/NASA).

 

• Enceladus, the moon of Saturn, is only 500 kilometers in diameter, but appears to contain powerful geysers. Water vapor and ice particles are shot into space up to hundreds of kilometers. If Enceladus truly was billions of years old, it should be frozen solid and geologically inactive. James Roberts and Francis Nimmo from the Californian University have calculated that Enceladus would have become frozen after 30 million years of its formation, which is only 1 % of its assumed age. (Schirber, M., Frigid future for ocean in Saturn’s moon, Astrobiology Magazine, space.com/scienceastronomy/080619-am-enceladus-ocean.html, June 2008.)

 

Saturn’s moon Titan has a denser atmosphere than the Earth, and it contains nitrogen and other gases like methane, ethane, and acetylene.

The problem with Titan’s atmosphere is caused, especially, by the existence of methane. Researchers have calculated that it should have run out in tens of millions of years, and that there shouldn’t be any left (Mitri, G., Showman, A.P., Lunine, J.I. and Lorenz, R.D., Hydrocarbon Lakes on Titan, Icarus 186:385-394, 2007). It is because many chemical reactions consume methane in the atmosphere of Titan, and it is likely that some of it escapes into space as well. The appearance of methane in the atmosphere of Titan suggests that the age of this moon is only a fraction of the assumed approximate 4,5 billion years.

 

Growing away of the Moon. Firstly, the Moon’s growing away from the Earth is a subject that does not support the notion that our universe is billions of years old. It has been discovered that every year the Moon’s distance from the Earth increases by about 4.5 centimeters (1.7 inches) (science magazine Tieteen kuvalehti 5 / 1991). The reason for this should mainly be the tide phenomenon on Earth.

   In addition, it has been calculated that the speed at which the Moon and Earth are separating should have been higher in the past, because the Moon would have been closer to the Earth. According to such calculations, the Moon would have originally been attached to the Earth approximately 1.4 billion years ago:

 

(…) but this causes the fact that over a long period of time, the rotation time of the Earth will be the same as the Moon’s rotation time around the Earth. The rotation energy that is thus released from the Earth changes into kinetic energy of the Moon and as a consequence of this, the Moon is drawing away from the Earth by approximately 4.5 centimeters in a year. (1)

 

The Moon is drawing away from the Earth at a speed of approximately 4.5 centimeters a year. This is caused by tide friction, for example. The friction would have been higher when the Moon has been closer, and so have also been the effects of the tides. We should also note that the speed at which the Moon is drawing away would have been the higher the closer to the Earth the Moon had been revolving, so that “1.4 billions of years ago”, the Moon would have touched the Earth! (2)

 

Based on the figures above, we should question the geological time chart and its five billion- year timeframe. They cannot be true, because if the Moon had been very close to the Earth or even attached to it (1.4 billion years ago), the entire crust of the Earth could have melted and there would have been problems with life! (The idea about melting of the Earth’s crust was presented in the book Maapallo ja avaruus, p. 47. According to the book, the crust of the Earth could not have remained solid if the Moon had been close enough to the Earth.) From the geological time chart, by which are usually determined periods of the Earth, we should take away at least 3-4 billions years. There is not any other possibility.

   Furthermore, it has been calculated that if the Moon had been only a fifth closer to the Earth than nowadays (the distance of the Moon from the Earth is now 384,000 km. A fifth of this would be approximately 77,000 km), the continents would have been covered by the planetary ocean’s tide twice a day. This would also have presented a major problem for life. If there had been life on the continents at that time, it could not have survived because the water would have drowned all the living organisms.

 

contraction of THE sun. Secondly, it is good to consider the Sun, because it has a great effect on our lives. It was noted before that life on Earth cannot be eternal because the second main rule of thermodynamics and the limited existence of the Sun place their own limitations on life. They indicate that there must have been a moment when the Sun began to shine on the Earth and when life began.

   As far as the age of the Sun is concerned, it has often been stated that the Sun is almost five billion years old. It is thought that the Sun was born at that time and began to spread warmth and light into space. It is also believed that the Earth and other solar systems were born around the same time, i.e., approximately 4.5 - 5 billion years ago.

   However, some observations – those regarding contraction of the Sun, for example - do not support the idea of the Sun being ancient. If the contraction speed has been, for example, one centimeter (0.3 inch) each day over a period of five billion years, we would end up with the following figures:

 

 - If the Sun had contracted one centimeter (0.3 inch) each day for five billion years, it would originally have been 18.25 million kilometers (19,958.4426947 yards) closer to the Earth than now (the distance between the Sun and the Earth is 150 million kilometers (164,041.9947507 yards).

 

 - If the Sun had contracted 10 centimeters (3.9 inches) each day, the Earth would already be a part of the Sun.

 

However, the Sun does not contract that slowly. Instead, it contracts by as much as several meters per day. According to the meridian observations of the Greenwich Observatory (Lubkin, G.B. , Analysis of Historical Data Suggest Sun is Shrinking, Physics Today, September 1979, pp. 17–19), the sun’s contraction speed has been approximately 0.1% per century or almost 38 meters (41.5 yards) per day or 13 kilometers a year!

   An article in Science magazine (Tieteen kuvalehti 2 / 1988) addresses the same topic. According to the magazine, if we use astronomical observations made by Jean Picard in the 1600s and that are considered to be very accurate, we will find that the diameter of the Sun back then would have been 4,000 kilometers (2,485.4847689 miles) more than at present. If we divide 4,000 km by 400 years, we also come to a contraction speed of at least 10 kilometers a year.

   Large figures like these indicate that the Earth cannot be millions of years old, let alone billions of years, because the Earth would have been part of the Sun 11 million years ago, and this would have made life on Earth impossible. If we rely on these observations, we might conclude that the Sun is only a couple of thousand years old, not billions of years old.

   The next quote from a science book (Iain Nicolson and Patriot Moore, Tieteen maailma: aurinkokunta, p. 100, the original work: The Solar System) addresses the same subject. The text refers to the shrinking of the Sun and notes how it does not fit together with the supposed long periods of time:

 

Based on an analysis of the diameter of the Sun based on daily observed changes from the year 1836 to the year 1954, American astrophysicist John Eddy presented a theory according to which the Sun is shrinking at a surprising speed: 0.1% a century. This phenomenon cannot be invariable, because it would mean that 100,000 years ago, the Sun was double in size compared to the present time and that 100,000 years from now, it will be the size of a pinhead.

 

Space dust on THE surface of THE moon and THE Earth. When we continue to study the near space and time, we find another indication of how these orbs cannot be very old: the small amount of meteorite dust that comes from space to the surface of the Moon and the Earth. The dust that comes on the surface of these orbs contains a large amount of nickel and iron (the dust contains approximately 300 times more nickel than the soil), so it should be easy to distinguish it from other soil materials. The annual amount of dust falling onto the Earth has been calculated at approximately 14 million tons.

   However, it is a surprise that there are no thick layers of meteorite dust on the surface of the Earth and the Moon. If this nickel-ferrous dust had continued to land on the Moon and the Earth for about 5 billion years, there should be about 50–200 meters (54–218 yards) of it on their surfaces, but nothing of the sort has been found. There is only about 3 millimeters of dust on the surface of the Moon (0.1 inch), not tens of meters. These small amounts are not consistent with long periods of time.

   We can note the same observation in the following quote. The text reveals that the small amount of space dust was one of the greatest surprises on the journey to the Moon. It was assumed beforehand that the dust would be one of the major problems during the journey:

 

A light wipe with a finger on a glossy surface of a bureau tells how much dust there is. All we know is that the quantity of dust acts as some kind of a clock that tells the time that has passed since the last time the bureau was cleaned.

   This “dust clock” gives the right time if we know how much dust accumulates in average in one day, in a week and so on.

   …Since the middle of the 1960s, the scientists of NASA used all their energy trying to anticipate the conditions on the surface of the Moon. The surface of the Moon is dead. There is no water or wind to move the space dust accumulating there. Researchers who believe in the theory of evolution calculated that there is a layer of space dust 50-200 meters (54–218 yards) thick on the surface of the Moon, and the spacecraft would sink into this layer. This is why large landing feet were constructed for the lunar vehicle, for example. Astronaut Neil Armstrong publicly stated that the amount of space dust will be one of the most difficult problems on the journey to the Moon and it is the issue he fears the most.

   The broadcast all over the world showed what took place when the spacecraft landed on the Moon.

   On 20 July 1969, Neil Armstrong set his foot onto the surface of the Moon. His foot touched a hard, solid surface that only had a layer of a couple of centimeters of space dust (0.1 inches).

   The experts proceeded with their calculations. The amount of dust suggested the age of the Moon to be less than 10,000 years (...) (3)

 

THE Age of THE comets. The orbs that move in the solar system also include comets that revolve around the Sun. They are very long-tailed – the longest measured tail was 320 million km – and sparse phenomena that move along very elliptical tracks around the solar system. Usually, a comet can be observed with the naked eye approximately once every five years, but with a telescope it is possible to see about seven comets a year.

   However, one should note that the comets cannot be ancient, because each time these comets complete one round of their orbit, they lose a part of their mass because of their vicinity to the Sun. It has been calculated that most of the comets – it is known that there were many more of them in the past – crumble into dust in approximately 10,000 years. Comets could not even exist if they were hundreds of thousands or even millions of years old, not to mention billions of years old. Their time of birth must be much nearer the present time:

 

Every time a comet passes the Sun, it loses a part of its mass. According to some calculations, a comet loses a layer that is one to three meters thick during every round. Therefore, a comet cannot bear more than a couple of thousand rotations before disintegrating. (4)

 

Regarding the birth of new comets, there is no clear evidence, even though new comets are thought to have been born in an icy place (the so-called Ort Cloud) somewhere outside the solar system, from which they then start to move.

   A reason to doubt the existence of such a place is that there is no proof of it. There are only theories, according to which the universe is millions or billions of years old.

   Even if such a store existed, how could these objects start moving away from there? It is certain that they could not move by themselves; they would remain in place. Only a visiting star could move them, but because the orbits of comets do not extend very far outside the solar system this is impossible, as well.

   The only sensible conclusion is that comets’ movement is impossible if the solar system is really five billion years old. The comets and the solar system must be only some thousands of years old:

 

Another well-known researcher, Harold Slusher, stated that from the dust part of a comet, researchers can conclude its age to be less than 10,000 years. In examining large dust occurrences and the intensity of the radiation of stars in their range, outside our solar system, they have come to the same conclusion. Space is very young. The composition of space dust and the number of short-lived comets are an excellent clock that gives exact times for researchers. (5) 

 

Weakening of THE earth' s magnetic field. Returning to the vicinity of the Earth, one indication of the Earth’s young age is the decisive weakening of its magnetic field. The Earth's magnetic field that reaches further than the orbit of the Moon has been observed to lose half of its strength every 1,400 years. In other words, 1,400 years ago the magnetic field of the Earth was twice as powerful as it is now. These observations regarding change in the magnetic field are based on very accurate measurements that have been taken for almost 170 years. An article called Maan magneettikenttä pienenee jatkuvasti (“Magnetic Field of Earth Continuously Decreasing”) in magazine Uusi Suomi on 26 February 1990 states the following:

 

In the year 1200, the strength of the magnetic field was 1.4 and two hundred years later 0.8. The observations also indicate that the decrease has continued in the past hundred years. (...) The decrease per year has been less than .0001, it has varied between 0.7 and 0.5 (…)

 

If we draw conclusions from the rapid weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field, we get interesting results. If the magnetic field has weakened at the same speed, it means that the strength of the field at various points of time in the past would have been those listed below. These figures indicate that the Earth cannot be hundreds of thousands of years old, not to mention millions or billions of years. They also show that if the Earth had existed only 10,000 years ago, for example, it would have been like a magnetic star, and 50,000 years ago the strength of the magnetic field would have been similar to that of a white dwarf star (Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field, 1973, p. 7 pp. 23; same ”Earth’s Magnetic Field”, The Challenge of Design, The Sixth National Creation Science Conference, Wichita, Kansas, 1978, p.98). These figures set their own limitations to the age of the Earth:

 

1,400 years  ago - twice compared to now

2,800 years  ago - four times                  

4,200 years  ago - eight times                    

5,600 years  ago - sixteen times                     

7,000 years  ago - thirty-two times 

14,000 years  ago - 1,024 times

28,000 years  ago - 1,048,576

50,400 years  ago - 68,719,400,000 times

 

Helium in the atmosphere. The Earth’s magnetic field suggests a young age, as does helium in the atmosphere. Helium enters the atmosphere all the time by means of radioactive disintegration but the problem is that there is only a fraction of the supposed amount of it in the atmosphere (1/2500). The problem becomes even bigger because a part of it can be original or come to the atmosphere from outer space. Therefore, the amount of helium in the atmosphere does not fit with the geological time chart of billions of years:

 

The first surprise: Examination indicates that helium does not escape into the atmosphere to a great extent. The second surprise: helium does not rise into the atmosphere but divides evenly into it. Atmospheric researcher Larry Vardiman (the coordinator of the RATE Group) has proved that in the atmosphere, there is only 0.04% of the helium that should be in it if the Earth were billions of years old. Vardiman writes:

 

If there were no helium when the Earth was formed, the density of helium measured at the present time (…) would have been reached in about two million years. This is over 2,500 times shorter a time than the assumed age of the Earth. The atmospheric physicists who believe in the long age, such as [J.C.G.] Walker, state that “…the amount of helium in the atmosphere seems to be a problem”. [J.W.] Charberlain states that this problem of helium escape “does not seem to disappear but remains unsolved”. (6)

 

The comment made by Vardiman that the helium of the atmosphere ”would have been produced in about 2 million years” does not mean that he believes the Earth to be 2 million years old. He refers to a problem in the time scale of evolution. Two million years is an insignificant time from the viewpoint of evolution. It is approximately the time that it is claimed to take Homo erectus to evolve into Homo sapiens. Vardiman believes that the helium of the atmosphere is almost wholly original. In other words, it was a part of the original creation of the Earth, and very little of it is a result of radioactive disintegration. (7)

 

 

 

 

2. Man’s appearance on the Earth

 

When reading about the history of mankind, we are often told by authors of textbooks and books about evolution that the first men lived on the Earth hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago. It has been theorized that men are descendants of some lower-form animals and it, of course, needs time. Indeed, it would be strange to claim that evolution took place over a short time; therefore, this idea has been supported by a time span of hundreds of thousands, millions or billions of years.

   We should note, however, that observations regarding the increase in population and the history of mankind do not point to the passage of long periods of time. On the contrary, based on them one can only conclude that humans have existed on the Earth for less than 10,000 years.

 

The rate at which population increases contradicts the notion that mankind began in the distant past. We can see it from the next examples:

 

- According to calculations, the population doubles every 400 years. (Shorter times for this doubling have also been mentioned. We must also note that abortions and contraception were not possible in the past as they are nowadays.) If we use this doubling factor and assume that humans existed 16,000 years ago then our current population should be more than one trillion people (1,099,510,000,000) -- almost 200 times greater than it is, in fact. It is such a huge figure that such a population could not even exist on Earth. This also suggests that the beginning of mankind cannot be pushed too far into the past. Otherwise the surface of the Earth would have filled up with dead bodies and the present population would be many times larger:

 

The total population of six billion mentioned in the beginning will be reached in 1999. Thus, there has been an increase of five billions in less than 200 years. A hundred years ago, scientists estimated that the Earth will not be able to carry a population of more than six billion. In 1950, the population was only about 2.5 billions, but the limit of five billion was already exceeded in 1987. Only 11 years was needed for the last increase of one billion. For the sake of comparison, one can calculate that the present speed of population increase will lead to people filling up the entire surface of the Earth in the year 3530, and in 6826 all the people will not fit in the entire known universe.

   If we go backwards from the figures of today and assume the annual growth at the current speed or 1.6%, we will come to the conclusion of the first family living in 625 A.D. or 1,375 years ago.

   The supporters of the theory of evolution are not wiling to calculate figures connected to the increase of the population, because over a period of time of millions of years, the figures become so huge that the situation becomes impossible. After hundreds of millions of years, the crust of the Earth would in practice be covered by dead animals and the remains of humans, and this number of people alone would fill the entire known universe. However, the theory of evolution requires long periods of time. According to the theory, the Homo erectus who lived 1.6 million years ago, for example, was long and muscular, almost like a modern man, and certainly very reproductive as well. (8) 

 

- If we use the speed of doubling mentioned above as the basis (the population doubling every 400 years) and go back 4,000 years in time, there should have been more than 1,000 times less people than nowadays or only about 5 million people. This seems to be a plausible estimate and fits together with the idea that the first people lived on Earth only a couple of thousand years ago and that from them have come all the present people. The matter is mentioned also in Genesis (Gen. 10:32: These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.)

 

- If there had been only two persons 100,000 years ago, and the population doubled once every thousand years, the current population should be 2,535, 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. This is quite an absurd figure compared to the current 6 billion (= 6,000,000,000), and indicates that people cannot have existed at that time. It indicates that the beginning of mankind must be much more recent, only a couple of thousand years in the past.

 

 - The current rate of population growth on the Earth is about 1.7 percent per year. If this same rate had continued for only 1,300 years it would be enough to bring about the current number of 6 billion people. This suggests that the Earth could have been populated quite quickly and that tens of thousands of years are not needed, as claimed.

 

THE HISTORY OF MANKIND. Regarding the starting point of mankind, people have often tried to place it at a point in time much earlier than the actual starting point. People have spoken about tens and hundreds of thousands of years and “the prehistoric period” when man lived on the Earth. It is believed that science can prove the early existence of man and that man is a descendant of lower forms of life.

   However, the fact is that our knowledge about the history of mankind extends only a couple of thousand years into the past. The earliest notes date back only about 5,000 years to the dynasties of Egypt, and there may be also huge mistakes in them. The margin of error in them can be hundreds of years. (Please see below: The dynasties of Egypt.)

   The oldest found manuscripts do not support the notion that mankind’s development took a long time. This claim that human development required long periods of time is only needed to support another theory: evolution. It is also interesting to note that when archaeological and other findings are used as assistance, the issues mentioned below appeared in the world almost at the same time, about 4000 - 5000 years ago. It is likely that if there had been people already a million years ago, these developments would have already appeared, but this is not the case:

 

- Construction of buildings and cities. They began to take place only a few millennia ago. (Cf. Gen 4:17: Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.)

- Use of metals (Cf. Gen 4:22: Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah.)

- Creation and use of ceramics

- Ability to write

- Development of agriculture is also a relatively new practice. (Cf. Gen 3:23:So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.)

 

Next, we will study some quotes referring to the same subject. They show that civilization suddenly appeared in the world only a couple of thousand years ago. The first statement is by Professor W. F. Libby, the developer of the radiocarbon dating method, who stated in Science magazine on 3 March 1961 (p. 624) that the verifiable history reaches only about as far as 5,000 years back in time. He referred to the dynasties of Egypt:

 

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. (9)  

 

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. (10)

 

Why, then, did these things appear so late and almost simultaneously? Is there any reasonable explanation?

   The answer, of course, is that earlier there simply were no people populating the Earth. In previous chapters we noted how the population has increased gradually and that, for example, 2,000 years ago (the age of the Roman empire) there were many fewer people than now, and in 2000 B.C. even fewer than during the Roman era. Actually, if we go backwards only a couple of thousand years, we will inevitably be faced with the zero point, when there were no humans on Earth. It is the only reasonable conclusion, if we accept the late appearance of civilization into the world and the gradual growth of population.

   We should also note that as settlement started spreading from the Middle East, and as the population grew (Gen 1:28: Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."), places like North and South America and Australia were mainly inhabited just after the 1700s, when people began immigrating there. The fact that the Earth was filled with people this late, thus, indicates that the starting point of mankind cannot be more distant than a couple of millennia.

 

The dynasties of Egypt. Professor Libby refers to the dynasties of Egypt (see above); when it comes to them we must note that even their dating is not necessarily correct. Often when dating historical events a lot of weight is placed on these ruler genealogies.

   However, the Egyptians themselves did not record any such genealogies. They were all recorded centuries later by other people (Manethon ca. 285 B.C.).

   Herodotos mentioned that at one point there were at least twelve kings in Egypt. If this is true, the timeline of Egyptian rulers stands on very uncertain ground; it points to the likelihood that many rulers lived earlier than their genealogies suggests. The margin of error in these genealogies might be centuries.

   This uncertainty about genealogies’ accuracy, and that error margins might be a matter of centuries, have been documented in a three-part Finnish television series called "Pharaohs and Kings" (Nov., Dec. 1996). The series’ writers show that the information about reigns of Egyptian kings lies on uncertain ground, and that they may have lived later than is generally believed.

 

 

 

3. Why the radioactive measurements are unreliable?

 

When it comes to determining the age of something, radioactive measurements are regarded as one of the most important methods. With these measurements, attempts to calculate both the age of the Earth and the age of animals and humans on the Earth have been made, and these methods have usually given the age as millions of years, especially when it is a question of rock types and elements. The measuring principle is based on radioactive materials generally having a certain time in which they change and decompose into other elements. For example, the basic idea of uranium/lead dating is that uranium should change entirely into lead always with the same speed and over a certain time.

   What is the basis for radioactive methods? It is important to note that they are based mainly on the geological time chart, in which the age of the Earth is supposed to be billions of years. This chart was drawn up in the 19th century, before radioactive measurements, and it has greatly exaggerated the age of stones. According to it, people have taken into use methods that automatically and without exception give long ages to stone samples. Measurements are usually not done using fossils, which would be a better and more reliable manner (and would give notably lower ages); it is usually done using volcanic rocks. The geological time chart drawn in the 19th century usually regulates how samples are interpreted. A professor familiar with these kinds of dating methods gives us an illustrative example of the situation:

 

If people were to stop using interpolation based on maximal thickness of a stratum, chaos would occur. Then, people could no longer be sure of, for example, that the coal strata are younger than the Devon or Silurian strata. The order can be maintained only by giving the stratum sequence an absolute priority over radioactive measurements. An expert geochronologist said to me about dating results that do not fit with the geological time chart:

 

Results that do not fit the time chart stay in a desk drawer – you must not, naturally, lay yourself open to ridicule. (…) It is pointless to do a simple dating only. You must keep in mind the big picture and always bear in mind the geological time chart or otherwise everything will go wrong.

 

(…) The radioactive measurements give only an apparent age. To go as the ”right age” or ”accepted age”, it must fit with the geological time chart. The real absolute is not a measuring or estimation result but the geological time chart. As long as the geological time chart determines the correctness of a measurement, the measurements cannot solve the correctness of the geological time chart.

   When enquiring about the real reason why people are stuck with the geological time chart of hundreds of millions of years, one can see that the reason does not seem to be the geologists. The reason are the evolution theorists. (…) One can prove that erroneous dating given by young rocks indicate that the interpretation of isotope contents do not give only unsure but fully useless results. I think that the methods measuring young age lie on a considerably better foundation. For the sake truthfulness, we must demand that considerably less ages are taken along for examination and that large measurements are taken straight from fossils. We would do science a great service if we gave up the compulsive engagement to the geological time chart. (11)

 

Starting point and other preconditions. Radioactive measurements are based on an idea that in rock types there are mother elements and daughter elements, and the age of a rock type can be determined on grounds of their relations. The less mother elements there are left in a rock type, the older the rock type is deemed, while the more there are these elements, the younger it must be.

   In addition to this, there are three important axioms of radioactive measurements. They are:

 

1. There have not been any daughter elements in a stone in its initial state, there have only been mother elements. The disintegration must have begun from a point zero.

 

2. Nothing may have been taken away or added to the stone. 

 

3. The disintegration rate has always remained the same.

 

However, these hypotheses cannot be proven true. We are faced with the subsequent issues, among other problems, within these assumptions, when using radioactive methods:

   The first problem is the starting point. How could we know what the rock was like in the first place? It would be very strange if all the elements were perfectly virgin and without their daughter elements in the initial state, even though the latter ones are found widely in the crust of the Earth. The idea of their original relation is based on a mere supposition that cannot be proven true.

   This is similar to there being seven pieces of cake and five biscuits on a table, and somebody asking us to tell them how many there were originally. This would certainly be impossible, unless we had been there in the first place to check the number. We must know the original situation on the table – as in radioactive measurements we must know the amounts of materials present – otherwise, we do not have any reliable ground for measurements:

 

The dating history of KBS tuff reveals that regardless of how carefully a researcher selects his rock sample or how accurately he performs his laboratory work, he can always be blamed for using blended materials or erroneous methods if the results of the dating are “wrong”. Proving the accusations is not necessary. The wrong age is a sufficient proof. The literature indicates that even if the radioactive measurements were qualified in principle (which they are not), it is a fact that choosing a pure and unblended rock sample requires omniscience that is impossible for mortal men. Radioactive dating methods are a classic example of self-deception and a vicious circle. They are a part of man’s evolution myth. Naeser with his co-workers12 have specified the problem well:

 

The accuracy of all dating results can only be guessed because we do not know the real age of any geological sample. We can only try to obtain the best consistence between P-Ar and other dating methods. (13)

 

The outside factors are another possible factor that can confuse the calculations. Problematic issues may include heating and formations of stone (this can easily occur with volcanic rocks from which the measurements are taken) and flowing of water through stone. All of these events may cause the mother and daughter elements to be driven and accumulated elsewhere, and this may change the contents of materials and the measuring results. If only a minor change in the proportions occurs, it may distort the whole dating. Thus, the dating will not lie on reliable grounds:

 

However, this is not the only problem with the method. If sand is added into an hourglass or sand leaks from the upper or lower part of the hourglass, the accuracy of the method is worthless. It is impossible for us to know whether uranium or lead has dissolved from the stone over the supposed period of thousands or millions of years or whether more of one of the elements has been accumulated in the stone. The method is useless if we do not know this for certain. It has been estimated that 10,000–50,000 tons of this kind of uranium that has dissolved and disintegrated from stone is washed into the seas annually. (14)

 

Contradictory results. An indication of the ambiguity of radioactive methods is the fact that the results have been contradictory and have varied a great deal, which is what one might assume when dealing with stones and samples found in the ground. Their contents, i.e., assumed ages have varied from one extreme to the other and the following observations have been made. They indicate that the contents in stones can very well be measured, but dating based on the results is very dubious. If we observe similar problems with our watch – the margin of error more than 99% – we would quickly throw away the watch.

   The first example is about volcanic stones (Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand) that were surely known to have been crystallized from lava only 25 - 50 years ago as a consequence of a volcanic eruption. This information was based on the recollections of eyewitnesses.

   Samples from these stones were sent to a laboratory for dating. It is one of the most appreciated commercial dating laboratories (Geochron Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts). The results that are in conflict with the observations in practice are evident in this story:

 

Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory, the K–Ar lab manager having a Ph.D. in K–Ar dating. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory. However, the samples were described as probably young with very little argon in them so as to ensure extra care was taken during the analytical work.

   The ‘dates’ obtained from the K–Ar analyses are listed in Table 1.7 The ‘ages’ range from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25–50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded ‘ages’ of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ‘ages’ of millions of years. The low ‘age’ samples were all processed by the laboratory in the same batch, suggesting a systematic lab problem. So the lab manager kindly re-checked his equipment and re-ran several of the samples, producing similar results. This ruled out a systematic lab error and confirmed that the low results were real. Furthermore, repeat measurements on samples already analyzed (A#2 and B#2 in Table 1) did not reproduce the same results, but this was not surprising given the analytical uncertainties at such low levels of argon. Clearly, the argon content varies greatly within these rocks. Some geochronologists would say <0.27 million years is actually the correct ‘date’, but how would they know that 3.5 million years was not in fact the correct ‘age’ if they did not already know the lava flows were recent?!

   (…) We know the true ages of the rocks because they were observed to form less than 50 years ago. Yet they yield ‘ages’ up to 3.5 million years which are thus false. How can we trust the use of this same ‘dating’ method on rocks whose ages we don’t know? If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks? (15)

 

Other examples describe problems with radioactive dating. They also indicate how the contents of stones are measured but they are necessarily not connected with the real age. This has occurred, as the next example from Grand Canyon indicates, that the uppermost stratum is “hundreds or tens of millions years” older than the lowest stratum. This cannot be true, of course, and therefore dating like this belongs only to the group of sci-fi stories.

 

Lava rock that was born in a volcanic eruption on Island Hualalai 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”. (16)

 

In theory, the potassium-argon method can be used to date younger stones, but not even this method can be used for dating fossils themselves. The ancient “1470 Man” discovered by Richard Leakey was determined to be 2.6 million years old by this method. Professor E. T. Hall, who determined the age, told that the first analysis of the stone sample gave the impossible result of 220 million years. This result was rejected, because it did not fit in with the evolution theory, and therefore another sample was analyzed. The result of the second analysis was a "suitable" 2.6 million years. The ages dated for samples of the same finding later on have varied between 290,000 and 19,500,000 years. Therefore, the potassium-argon method does not seem to be especially reliable, and neither does the way researchers of evolution interpret the results. (17)

 

Carbon-14 dating. One radioactive method of dating is carbon-14 dating. It differs from other radioactive methods in that its half-life is considered at approximately 5,700 years and that it is only used to measure the age of organic samples. The margin of error for this method is much smaller than for the other radioactive methods, but there are problems with it, as well. These are discussed below:

 

Weakening of the Earth's magnetic field is one factor that has an essential impact on radiocarbon measurements. As we stated before, the Earth's magnetic field has not remained the same; instead, it has continuously weakened so that the halflife is now approximately 1,400 years. The weakening has also affected the amount of radiocarbon being formed:

 

The Earth's magnetic field is weakening. This weakening is very slight, but the decrease has been observed for a long time (...) since the situation is this, a little more cosmic rays come through. The influence of these cosmic rays can be observed in that more carbon-14 is formed, for example (…) (Magazine Uusi Suomi, article 26 February 1990, Maan magneettikenttä pienenee jatkuvasti, “Magnetic Field of Earth Continuously Weakening)

 

So, as the magnetic field was much more powerful some centuries ago – even tens of times more powerful than now – it has also had an effect on the formation of radiocarbon: formerly there was much less of it, or perhaps none at all.

   This means that when we examine samples from earlier times, they may seem considerably older than they really are. They may seem centuries or even thousands of years older than they really are, because radiocarbon could not be formed in the early times due to the powerful magnetic field. If we do not take this essential issue into account when taking the measurements, the results may be up to millennia from the reality:

 

If there has been less of carbon-14 in the past because of the more powerful magnetic protection against cosmic rays, we have estimated the time passed after the life of these organisms as too long. (Science Digest, December 1960, p. 19)

 

Vague results. Even though the possibilities for errors when using carbon-14 dating are much smaller than with the other methods, this method is not always accurate. Generally, errors in this method produce age estimates that are older than their actual age because of the weakening in the magnetic field, as mentioned above. The following kinds of mistakes have been noted:

 

 - The measured age for living slugs has been 2,300 years (Keith and Anderson, Radiocarbon dating: Fictitious results with mollusk shells, Science, Vol. 141, 1963, p. 111).

 

- Living trees have been measured to be 10,000 years old (Huber, B., Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions, The physiology of Forest Trees, Ronald Publishers, New York, 1958.). Thus, the margin of error was 10,000 years.

 

 - In Durrington Walls of England, an old structure was dated at 2620–2630 B.C. using carbon-14 dating. However; completely infallible archaeological evidence indicates the structure to be approximately a thousand years younger (The Genesis Flood, Henry M. Morris and John C. Witcomb, p. 43).

 

 - A living mollusk was dated as 3,000 years old (Creation Research Society Journal, June 1970).

 

- C. A. Reed points out a good example of the uncertainty with carbon-14 dating in the Science magazine (11 December 1959). The error made in the example was thousands of years and contradicted undisputed archaeological evidence:

 

A classic example of the uncertainty with carbon-14 dating is eleven samples that were taken from a prehistoric village in North Iraq. C-14 indicated that the samples were 6,000 years old, even though the archaeological evidence indicated that the village had been inhabited for only 500 years.

 

 - There have also been many fossil samples that have been supposed to be millions of years old but that have contained significant amounts of the C-14 isotope. It is possible that the other methods give results quite the opposite of that given by carbon-14 dating. The other methods may indicate that some layers are millions of years old, but carbon-14 dating only a couple of thousand years. These kinds of contradictions would not appear if methods were reliable.

 

Quickly decomposing radioactive elements. In dating, methods in which the half-lives of radioactive substances are enormous have usually been used.

   However, there are elements in soil whose half-lives are only fractions of those given by the previous methods. Polonium in particular is an interesting substance. Experiments made with it have indicated how ideas of a red-hot beginning of the Earth and billions of years are questionable.

   So, when talking about the birth of the Earth, it has usually been explained that the surface was blazing hot and molten at first, and the crust then gradually solidified. More than 4,000 million years ago, the Earth is believed to have been like a boiling boiler, in which there were no possibilities for life. From that began a slow solidification that took up to millions of years.

   However, some methods based on radioactivity, like the radio halos of polonium, do not refer to slow solidification. Instead, they refer to quick forming of the Earth. These radio halos of polonium have been found all over the world in granite. These halos should not even be there if the stone formations had actually slowly solidified over the course of thousands of years. This is because of a simple reason: in order to remain detectable, these halos cannot have been formed in stone that is under 300 degree Celsius (!), and secondly because the half-life of polonium 218 is only 3 minutes (!), way too short for slow solidification. (Gentry, R.V., Radio halos in a radio chronological and cosmological perspective. Science, 5 April 1974, vol. 184, pp. 62–66). Both of these facts indicate that the common idea of slow solidification of the Earth during millions of years cannot be true. The only possibility is that the bedrock has crystallized in a second at the same time with the forming of polonium, because the existence of radio halos cannot be explained any other way. Seuraavat lainaukset liittyvät aiheeseen:

 

It is interesting that halos (sort of "bubbles") formed by extremely quickly decomposing polonium isotopes can be found in some stones in the bedrock. These show that the bedrock has been formed suddenly. It is like you tried to capture the fizz created by an effervescent tablet by deep freezing the bubbling water glass in a split second. (18)

 

Pleochroic halos are disturbances, discolorations in crystals of some rock types, caused by radioactive radiation. These ring-like halos have been caused especially by the radioactive particles of uranium, thorium and polonium (Po, atomic number 84), included in micaceous crystals, from which alpha radiation has been created. (…) These halos that can be found in Precambrian solidified rock types, can have been born only if the Earth has been created instantaneously. If they had been formed (cooled, solidified) slowly, these halos could not have been created because of the high dissipation speed of polonium minerals. Gentry concludes that the pleochroic halos of polonium refer to creation in a moment and that they clearly challenge the radioactive dating methods as a whole (except for radiocarbon dating). (19)

 

 

 

4. Signs on the Earth

 

When talking about dating methods, radioactive measurements are often mentioned first, although they give very indefinite results, as shown above. When trying to determine the age of something, they are almost always mentioned first.

   However, there are many other methods, i.e., methods based on practical observations in nature, whose results are usually only fractions of the ages given by radioactive measurements. These methods based on practical observations were used for a long time before radioactive measuring but they were rejected very soon after the new methods appeared. This was a major mistake because most of the methods were based on practical observations.

   Furthermore, one should note that if we use these methods as a criterion, they give only fractions of the ages given by the geological time chart and many radioactive methods. Billions or hundreds of millions of years must be deducted in order for the geological time chart to be consistent with these methods. A Finnish geologist mentions in his book, how methods that were based on practicality, were abandoned with the arrival of radioactive dating:

 

Arthur Holmes (1896–1965) dealt with dating of different periods of the history of the Earth, and for the largest part of his life, he worked with this problem. In addition to this, he had time to write an excellent textbook of geology. It was Holmes who made the first age tables for the various geological periods. As the radioactive measurements came into being, rocks started to grow old very quickly. All the other dating methods were quickly rejected, even though several new problems arose, such as the question of where sodium disappeared, since it had been driven into the sea over period of billions of years, and the sea – according to Joly – should have reached its present salinity in 90 million years. (Nils Edelman, Viisaita ja veijareita geologian maailmassa, p. 218)

 

THE accumulation of sediments, THE flow of minerals into sea and THE speed of erosion. As stated, before the use of radioactive methods, other means of dating were in use. For example, such as the accumulation of sediments, the flow of minerals into the sea, and the speed of erosion. All of these methods are based on the current accumulation and erosion speeds in observed areas. They are based on a principle made known by Charles Lyell: the present time is the key to the past.

      What results do these methods yield? Interestingly, the results from these methods are far younger than results obtained using radioactive methods. Furthermore, if speeds were greater in the past, due to, for example, catastrophes (the Flood?), it would reduce the numbers even more. In that case, the determined ages might lose most of their zeros:

 

The accumulation of sediments onto river deltas is one way to measure time. It is based on knowing the total number of deltas and dividing it by the current annual accumulation speed: the result will be the age of the delta.

   What about the results of this method? It is rather interesting that the ages of deltas range from a few thousand years to about 13 -14 million years. For example, the Mississippi delta, to which the Mississippi River annually brings about 230 million cubic meters of sediment, has been calculated to be only 4,000 years old. (Wysong, R. L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 163). However, if early transportation speed was greater, the age of this delta would be younger. The following concrete example suggests the same. It indicates how quickly the layers can be formed and how many samples were estimated to be older than they actually are. It is unlikely that the same processes would have continued for millions or billions of years:

 

An example of how huge mistakes can be made in estimating the accumulation speed of sediments is the following case: remains of an Indian were found close to New Orleans from the layers of the Mississippi Delta, and Dr. B. Dowler estimated the remains to be 57,000 years old. After a while, from the layers of the same delta and even deeper, in Fort Jackson, a piece of a tree was found and proven to originate from a Kentucky riverboat. Because of this, 57,000 years were reduced to 200 years at most. Dr. Dowler had estimated the accumulation speed of sediment in this delta as much slower than it actually had been. If the mistakes as comes to the accumulation speed of sediment are generally so huge, the estimates presented by us concerning the age of continental banks and oceans are more than 100 times too high. (20)

 

The flow of minerals into the seas. Examining the flow of minerals into the seas showed the oceans to be only 100- to 260,000,000 years old. (Dudley J. Whitney: The face of the Deep [New York, Vantage Press 1955] / Chemical Oceanography . Es, by J.P. Riley and G. Skirrow [New York Academic Press, Vol. 1, 1965] p. 164. See also Harold Camping, "Let the Oceans Speak", Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 11, [June, 1974], pp. 39-45). The calculations were based on observation of such elements as sodium, nickel, magnesium, silicon, potassium, copper, gold, silver, mercury, lead, tin, aluminium, and many other agents. When movement of these minerals and their current speed is measured, and when the current mineral content in the seas is known, then the result is a time that is many times less than the generally presented age of the oceans.

   What is the meaning of these results? It means that we must take away from the geological time chart at least 4 billion years so that it can be consistent with these methods. Moreover, it is not taken into consideration that the current might have been many times stronger at times – for example, because of the Flood mentioned in the Bible – and that some of the minerals may have already been in the oceans in the beginning.

 

The speed of erosion. Many evolutionists highlight that the same processes of the nature have gone on unchanged for millions and billions of years. They still think like this, despite, many practical observations contradicting excessively long time periods.

   A problem being connected with long periods is also erosion. Evolutionists assume continents to be billions of years old, but if erosion has progressed at the same rate the whole time, the continents would have worn away a long time ago.

   For if we use current erosion and weathering speeds as our basis, then we come to the conclusion that all the continents will be washed away into the oceans in about 14 million years. For example, on the European Alps, the surface of the Earth is estimated to wear away and be lowered by approximately one meter in 1,500–4,000 years (Charles Schuchert, Geochronology, or the Age of the Earth on Grounds of Sediments and Life). If the mountains were tens- or hundreds of millions of years old they should have already been worn away several times:

  

With the present erosion speed, all the present continents or at least the sedimentary rocks would be washed away into the oceans as sand in approximately 14 million years. The rivers of the Earth take approximately 40 billion cubic meters of water into the oceans in a year. At the same time, a part of each continent flows into the sea: 15–20 billion tons as solid matter and approximately four billion tons dissolved. The erosion speed is so high that North America, for example, would erode away in 10 million years (Creation ex nihilo, 3-5/2000) (…) The same goes for volcanic basalt in Parana, Brazil and Etendeka, Namibia. Wouldn’t the erosion of 65 million years have already worn away the sedimentary rocks? (21)

 

The European Alps have mainly formed from Mesozoic (Jurassic and Cretaceous periods) and Tertiary rock types, of which the latter are in the valleys, and the former on higher mountains (!). These Mesozoic layers must have been worn by erosion at least from the beginning of the Tertiary period, i.e., for approximately 60 million years according to radioactive measurements. If the average speed of erosion has been one meter in 2,000 years on the Alps (in our time, one meter in 1,500–4,000 years), approximately 30 km of the layers older than Tertiary period should have been worn away during that time. The fact that the speed of erosion has changed does not change the sheer scale of this figure. The fact that a large part of the Mesozoic rock types are still left on the Alps is an indisputable piece of evidence against the results of radioactive measurements. (22) 

 

 

 

5. The geological time chart is wrong

 

Geological dating. Almost as important as radioactive dating is dating by means of geological strata and index fossils. In this method the history of the Earth is divided into a group of long geological periods (Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devon, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Perm, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, Quaternary). We should find corresponding strata in the same order in nature. The length of the periods can vary from millions of years to hundreds of millions of years. The following points are the basic presuppositions of this method:

 

- Firstly, slowly and over the course of millions of years, strata have formed and accumulated on top of each other. The lowest of these strata can be up to tens or hundreds of millions of years older than the more recent top strata.

 

- Secondly, there are special fossils or index fossils that, at their time, were very rife. A geological time scale or a so-called geological column has also been compiled of these index fossils, and this column should show us when they have existed.

   If a layperson were to find a trilobite in any given place, according to this approach, the fossil must be at least 200 million years old because the trilobite is thought to have become extinct back then.

   When dinosaur bones are found in a stratum, both the bones and the stratum should be 65 million to120 million years old, because it is generally assumed that dinosaurs lived that long ago.

   Correspondingly, if a stratum contains human fossils, the stratum cannot be more than a few million years old, because it is assumed that people have lived on Earth for that length of time.

 

 - Thirdly, when fossils are found in strata, the most primitive and oldest organisms should always be situated further down. This is because people assume that life evolved from primitive forms to their current forms.

 

WHY IS THE geological time chart ERRONEOUS? Evidence that the geological time chart with its hundreds of millions of years is badly erroneous can be found in many places. In textbooks, problems connected with it are seldom mentioned; instead, the chart is presented as a scientific truth. But in fact, this chart drawn up in the 19th century is far from accurate. For example, the next points are problematic:

 

The age of the oldest strata. If the geological time chart that describes hundreds of millions of years is true, it means that the oldest geological periods should be hundreds of millions of years old. For example, the Precambrian period would have to have occurred 4,600 to 600 million years ago, the Cambrian period 600 to 490 million years ago, and the Carboniferous period 350 to 290 million years ago.

   A surprising observation, however, is that the fossils in these oldest strata contain radiocarbon that should not appear at all if they were so old. This is because the half-life of radiocarbon is only 5,600 years; it cannot appear at all in samples that are millions of years old. This is impossible.

   However, the fact is that radiocarbon appears in many fossils, as well as in coal, peat and oil deposits that have been regarded as tens of millions or hundreds of millions years old. This means that these strata with their fossils cannot be millions or hundreds of millions years old but at most tens of thousands of years. The appearance of radiocarbon makes the long periods of time impossible. Also, graphite and anthracite that are “hundreds of millions years old” have been measured to be 40,000 to 60,000 years old (Junker, R., Scherer, S., ”Entstehung und Geschichte der Lebewesen”, Weyel Biologie, 1988, p. 160).

   The next quote clearly shows that the age of the oldest strata is in reality measured only in thousands of years because of the radiocarbon appearing in them. As it appears repeatedly even in fossils of the Cambrian period, the long periods of the geological time chart cannot be true:

 

(…) 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!”  This means that carbon-14 atoms can be found even in the fossils of the Cambrian period, which researchers regard as 600 millions 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

 

Baumgardner also sent a diamond to a carbon-14 laboratory for measurement. This had never been done before because the act of measurement was regarded as absurd – shear madness. A diamond that was formed deep in Precambrian rocks is as old as the Earth itself. In addition, links between a diamond’s crystals are very strong, so biological contamination cannot enter a diamond. Therefore, it was thought that attempts to date diamonds using carbon-14 dating methods were useless. However, the lab returned a surprising report: The diamond was approximately 58,000 years old! (25)

 

Deficiencies in strata. A view we can often read in textbooks is that we can find perfect geological stratigraphic sequences around the Earth, in which all the strata of the geological time chart are perfectly in order on top of each other. This should be the case if the supposed evolution during millions and billions of years were true.

   The fact is, however, that perfect geological stratigraphic sequences have not been found anywhere. Only fractions of them have been found. Between these strata, periods of "tens of millions" or "hundreds of millions” of years are often missing. In the famous Grand Canyon – which is often used as a perfect example – only five of the twelve most important strata have been found. The geological chart there, as elsewhere, is incomplete and does not correspond to the view presented in books. The perfect stratigraphic sequence exists only on paper and in textbooks. It does not exist in nature. It is exceptional to find even three or four of the twelve (or thirteen) strata on top of each other.

   Furthermore, the original geological chart was based on a very small area that does not correspond to other areas of Earth. This, together with the deficiencies of the strata, makes the use of the chart problematic:

 

A student, when first encountering this chart, naturally believes that geologists have found the different rock strata in the correct order in one cycle where each stratum follows the former in a regular order, and all of these in a place where the rock has been formed in the way indicated on the chart. But nothing is further away from the truth: no series of the sort has been found anywhere on the Earth. (26)

 

The history of the normal distribution of the Earth's crust was created in Central and Western Europe. German mineralogist Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749–1817) can be deemed as the initiator of this distribution. However, it is clear that the order of the strata on the Earth created by Werner is untrue in most parts of the world, and actually, it does not fit in anywhere. He constructed a theory concerning the entire Earth, based on research on a small area only. However, there are mountains only a few kilometers from his home that, based on their formation, are in total conflict with his dogma.

   One must truly wonder how researchers of our time have without bias adopted these hypotheses that are almost 200 years old. (…) The artificial division of the entire history of the Earth into a series of long-term geological periods is more than dubious. If this theory were true, long periods of time must have passed in some places on the Earth without any signs of erosion or strata. There are cases where the so-called more recent strata are located immediately on top of the oldest ones. (27)

 

Disorder in strata. In addition to the fact that the strata are imperfect around the Earth, they also appear in disorder or contrary to the geological time chart. It means that the strata, which have been regarded as the oldest, are on the uppermost layer, while younger strata have been found beneath them. Such inconsistencies appear around the Earth, which indicates the error of the geological time chart. Some examples follow:

 

- Precambrian and Cambrian strata that should include the lowest and simplest forms of life are located on the uppermost layers in many areas on the Earth. According to the evolutionary view, they should be millions of years old.

 

- Fossil species, such as ammonites, have been found on mountain slopes at an altitude of several kilometers. These fossils should have lived in the earliest times and thus be – according to the geological order – at the bottom. Nevertheless, they have been found in the topmost layers on mountain slopes, in other words, in a totally wrong place from the point of view of the geological chart.

 

- In the salt ridges of Pakistan, the main parts of a mountain are Cambrian  ("500 million years old"), but under these layers there are Tertiary strata (“less than 60 million years old”).

 

- Rocks from the Tertiary period have been found in the Alps on the peak of Mt. Muthen (less than 60 million years old) under rocks from the Triassic period (200 million years old). Also, in the mountains of Switzerland to the east of Lake Lucerne, a stratum of the Cretaceous period is on the top. Below this stratum there is limestone from the Jurassic period and at the bottom Tertiary rocks, even though these should be on top of the others.

 

- In Glacier National Park in North America, there is Precambrian limestone ("1,000 million years old") on top of a slate formation from the Cretaceous period (“100 million years old”).

 

The next citations refer also to the same subject of disorder in strata. They indicate that places can be found around the world can in which old and young strata are in reverse order or contradict the geological time chart. They show that the order of the geological time chart is true only on paper, not in nature:

 

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. (Researcher James D. Dana in his book Manual of Geology p. 899) (28)

 

When a geologist finds strata so that the one deemed the oldest is on the top, we must forgive him if he is not sure whether he is standing on his head or his feet. There are extensive areas in South Alberta, a national park in the United States, Canada, Germany, Russia, and in the Alps where the order of the strata is quite the opposite and also in many other places the strata are quite disorderly. (Sir Archibald Geikie, the former leader of the British Geological Research Society) (29)

 

 

 

6. The strata have formed quickly

  

One axiom of geological dating is that the strata formed slowly over hundreds of millions of years. It has been assumed that they accumulated on top of each other so that the lowest of these strata can be up to tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years older than the more recent top layers. This so-called geological column is believed to describe the order in which the strata appear in the ground.

   However, there are many points against so long periods. It was stated earlier that the appearance of radiocarbon in fossils of Cambrian period and in other old strata points to periods of thousands, not millions, of years. Radiocarbon could not appear if the fossils and strata were hundreds of millions of years old.

   Next we will consider other evidence that contradicts the notion that strata have formed over a period of millions of years. The evidence is based on the following:

 

- Long trunk fossils in strata

- Fossils in strata

- No erosion

- Fast creation of strata at St. Helens during our time

 

Long trunk fossils in strata contradict the notion that strata were formed slowly over a period of millions of years. Fossils of tree trunks extending through several strata have been found in different parts of the world. For example, an old photo taken at Saint-Etienne coal mine (in France) shows how each of five separate fossilized trunks go through approximately ten strata or even more. According to the evolutionary view, the strata should be millions of years old, yet all the trunks extend through them.

  Are the trees millions of years old, or did strata form very quickly? Both cannot be true. The latter alternative is certainly more probable, since trunk fossils cannot be created in any other way than by being buried quickly:

 

Many signs refer to several overlapping strata being formed as a consequence of a continuous and world-wide process, since the fossils of many plants and large animals in an upright position penetrate several different strata without any signs of being exposed to erosion over thousands of years at their upper or lower end. Therefore, a trunk has remained in an upright position in the middle of quickly accumulating layers of sediment. Large dinosaurs have also been found in similar positions. A 24-metre-tall tree trunk going through more than ten strata was found near Edinburgh, and everything indicated that the trunk had been quickly carried in place. Neither have any signs indicating erosion between various geological periods been found between the different strata. (30)

 

Thick trunks that have remained in an upright position pierce through dozens of meters of soil indicating how quickly everything has happened. The strata cannot be a result of slow formation of peat, as the supporters of evolution claim. (31)

 

Fossils in strata. One of the most glaring pieces of evidence of a fast stratification of the strata is the fossils inside the layers of soil. The fossils inside the strata can only have been created by mud and sludge slides burying an animal or plant very quickly. This holds true also for all index fossils and the trunk fossils mentioned above.

   Actually, whenever we find fossils, they indicate that a plant or an animal has been rapidly buried under sludge and land, and then soon transformed into a fossil. (The fossilization event itself does not even have to take a long time: fossilized trees have been prepared in just a few days under laboratory conditions.) If the plant or animal had not been quickly buried, it would have quickly decayed or been eaten by other animals.

   Thus, the fossils found these days only indicate that the stratum where they were found must have been born over a short period of time or within a couple of days or weeks, and not over a period of millions of years. They were rapidly buried in the soil, as they could not otherwise have become fossils. Millions of years would not help the birth process. Many researchers also admit that several strata and fossils can be created only due to quickly occurring catastrophes. They cannot have been formed any other way. The best way to explain such sludge and mud strata that have buried plants and animals is the Flood mentioned in the Bible.

   The next comments also refer to the fast stratification that enabled creation of fossils. They show that the strata were not born as a consequence of long and slow processes:

 

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)

 

No erosion. If the strata were born slowly over a period of millions of years, we should see very clear signs of erosion between the strata. However, as different strata have been examined globally, it has been impossible to find these signs between the strata – they have not been found even in the famous Grand Canyon. On the contrary, it seems more likely that the strata are quite uniformly connected to each other and that they were formed continually on top of each other:

 

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. (32)

 

The lack of erosion between the strata suggests three points:

 

1. It has not taken millions of years for the strata to be formed; rather, they were formed in quite a short time, perhaps in a couple of days or weeks.

 

 2. The topmost strata are almost the same age as the lower strata, suggesting that they quickly accumulated over the lower strata. Previously mentioned trunk fossils are a clear indication of this, since they penetrate more than ten strata. The difference in time between the uppermost and the lowermost stratum is not necessarily more than a few hours or days.

 

3. The birth of strata very strongly suggests a catastrophe model: a flood piled strata on top of each other. Even geologists admit that strata are best formed by floods and water, so what could be a better alternative than a world-wide flood that moved the strata upon each other over a very short period of time? In the Biblical record of the Great Flood, waters flooded the Earth for 150 days.

   The next quotation from a school biology textbook (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 176,177) refers to the same issue. The text refers to the creation of mineral coal that is assumed to have occurred in the Carboniferous period when forests were left under layers of water and sludge. However, a more probable explanation is the Flood, during which the very same events occurred. The Flood would also explain the existence of fossils, because they can be created only by being buried quickly:

 

The most significant mineral coal deposits of the Earth were created approximately 300 million years ago. This time is called the Carboniferous period. During this period, the climate was warm and damp. Vegetation was more luxuriant than ever in history, at least in low swamp areas. It is assumed that the atmosphere contained more carbon dioxide than nowadays. Treelike ferns, horsetails, and club mosses grew into forests. Mineral coal was created when these forests – as the climate sometimes became warmer and the ice sheets melted – were buried by water and silt.

 

Mount Saint Helens, new strata and canyons. It has been shown that strata can be created very quickly. At the time of the volcanic eruption of Mount Saint Helens in 1980, a series of overlapping strata were formed. These strata were more than a hundred meters thick at most – and were created over a period of just a few weeks. Millions of years were not required: different kinds of strata accumulated atop one another in a few days.

  About two years later, after some landslides had taken their toll, canyons were formed in the same area and water soon began to flow in the canyons. These canyons did not form gradually over a period of millions of years as a result of flowing water – as the birth of Grand Canyon has been explained – but were formed quickly, and water started to flow in them very soon afterwards. It is probable that other large canyons were born in the same way. Let’s look at the following quote that describes the issue well. First, the text describes how a series of overlapping strata were formed in the Mount Saint Helens area. The text also describes how a canyon later formed in the same area and water started to flow in the canyon. This process did not take millions of years, as evolutionists would have expected.All of it took place over a short period of time:

 

In some places, the ground was now covered by a new multiple-layer surface that was almost 200 meters thick. Over a million tree trunks, without branches or bark, lay on large areas and covered the surface of a lake that once was so beautiful. All vegetation had disappeared. The view was like from a dead planet. (…)

   This is real evidence of how strata can be born in just a few moments. But more evidence supplied by nature was on its way. Less than two years after the explosion, in March 1982, the surface strata that had been formed again started to move. They formed an enormous mudslide, which irresistibly made its way towards the lower areas. The mudslide destroyed everything in its path. Trees stood in the slide with their roots pointing up. Houses and bridges were no problem for the mudslide. New strata were created again, but now they were lower than the previous destruction area. However, what interested researchers the most was what was left over in the previous destruction area. Only a part of the layers had started to move. Now there were huge canyons whose walls were in places more than 50 meters tall. In photographs, this area now looked exactly like the Grand Canyon in Colorado.

   Researchers, who had for decades studied the birth of the Grand Canyon and the composition of its strata, were extremely grateful. The natural forces had, in a startling way, supported their catastrophe theories. (…)

   The strata of the canyon formed without interruption by the powerful movement of water and volcanic eruptions. The strata had simultaneously been soft and covered by water. When the water then flowed away, during the following years, several collapses in the area took place – extensive mudflows that, as watery landslides, formed large canyon areas. Only the strata that had solidified enough to become hard were left. In the case of St Helens, this theory was supported by actual evidence. In a couple of years, over a hundred meters of strata that were formed in the eruption hardened and started to transform to stone. Some of the strata contained materials whose hardening resembled that of concrete. Small streams were formed onto the bottom of the canyon, and then grew into rivers. The picture was now even more complete: the water streams did not form canyons. Instead, the bottoms of the canyons were well suited as beds for the flows. The theory of the birth of canyons over millions of years created by Darwin was proven incorrect by nature itself. (33)

 

 

 

 

7. Why the index fossil method is wrong?

 

Next, we are going to study the index fossil method. It is a method based on the idea that there are special fossils, so-called index fossils. They lived only for a short period of time and were widespread. A geological time scale or so-called geological column was compiled with these fossils. Location in this column should indicate when they existed. According to this theory, the trilobites, the dinosaurs, and humans existed in the following periods:

 

 - Trilobites should always be at least 200 million years old, because they are believed to have become extinct at that time. It is believed that trilobites lived 570- to 200 million years ago.

 

 - Bones and fossils of dinosaurs should always be 65- to 120 million years old, because it is believed that they lived at that time.

 

 - A stratum including human fossils may not be older than a couple of million years, since it is believed that people have inhabited the Earth for this period of time.

 

HUMANS LIVED BEFORE DINOSAURS? Even though the index fossil theory states that trilobites lived tens of millions of years before the dinosaurs, and dinosaurs lived tens of millions of years before humans, not all findings support these axioms of the theory of evolution. On the contrary, according to some findings, humans lived long before dinosaurs, i.e., at the same time as the trilobites. We already discussed in the previous chapters how Lady Guadeloupe and the Calaveras skull were found in strata that are 25- to 28 million years old, but human remains referring to periods ten times as long have also been found. Let’s study some of these findings and other findings connected to this subject:

 

The footprints of humans on rocks 250 million years old. Human footprints on rocks found in Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico, Kentucky, and some other states are very puzzling findings. These rocks are supposed to be as old as 250 million years. Either the index fossil method is faulty, or the coal period was only a couple of thousand years ago. Regarding these findings, Albert C. Ingallis stated:

 

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)

 

The following text dating back to the year 1938 also depicts footprints, resembling those of a human that were found in strata “more than 200 million years old” or dating back to long before the supposed era of the dinosaurs. Researchers have had difficulties trying to understand how these prints can even exist in strata that “old”. The conclusion from the text is that humans must have lived already in the Carboniferous period 250 million years ago, or that the geological time chart with its reflection of hundreds of millions of years is wrong. Certainly the last alternative is more probable because nobody believes that humans have been around so long ago. Conclusions such as these can be made if we stick tightly to the geological time chart and the millions of years:

 

Human-like prints on rock are a mystery to scientists. They cannot belong to a man, since they are too old – but what kind of an odd, two-footed, amphibious animal could have made them?

   What is this animal that lived 250 million years ago and walked on its hind legs that had human-like feet?

   (...) This is a mystery of science to which the answer is yet to be found. Not that science would stop trying. (...) But for now, all that has been seen are 12 footprints that peculiarly resemble those left by human feet, each 9 ½ " long and 6" wide at the widest point, where the toes spread. The prints were found in a sandstone formation about 12 miles from Berea that is known to date back to the Carboniferous period. These prints were uncovered by Dr. G. Wilbur, a professor of geology in the University of Berea, and Mr. William Finnell.

   A few men from the Kentucky mountains recently visited Professor Burroughs. They took him into their hills and showed him another place where there were many footprints. This mountain seems to have been an "old Kentucky home" for an entire family of mysterious animals, since Professor Burroughs tells that the prints varied in size from small 4½" long ones to the previously described footprints that were almost 10" long. (...)

   These footprints are extremely peculiar. They are just the right size to be human – being nine or ten inches in length – and almost the right shape. Almost anyone seeing them will at first think that they have been made by human feet and it is almost impossible to try to convince anyone to the contrary. (...)

   But even the boldest estimations regarding the appearance of man on the Earth refer to a million years – and these prints are 250 times as old. (...)

   Such is the mystery. A quarter of a billion years ago this animal, walking like a man, left footprints on the widespread sand that hardened into rock over time. Then he disappeared. And now the scientists are scratching their heads." (Science News Letter 34, 278, 1938)

 

Trilobites and man. According to the present idea, trilobites lived long before dinosaurs, not to mention humans. However, findings referring to humans and the trilobites existing on the Earth at the same time have been made. According to the evolutionary view, such findings are not possible, since there should be over 200 million years between man and the trilobite. These kinds of discoveries indicate again the unreliability of the index fossil method. It also shows how humans, the trilobites and other organisms can have lived at the same time, but in different ecological zones. Sometimes they are found buried in the same strata, even though they have appeared in different zones:

 

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. (34)

 

Human objects in strata dating back 300 million years. Another example of the discrepancies in our current dating systems is findings of human objects and human fossils in “ancient” strata. For example, coal layers dating back ”300 million years” have yielded discoveries, such as a gold chain, an iron pot, and other objects that belonged to a human. Human fossils have also been found in similar strata (Glashouver, W. J. J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 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). ). If we accept these findings as they appear, we’ll accept that humans lived 300 million years ago, or alternatively, we should determine the age of these coal layers in thousands of years. The latter must be true, since no one believes people could have existed 300 million years ago.

  

Footprints of humans and dinosaurs and a charred branch. In Glenn Ross, Texas, distinct footprints of both dinosaurs and humans were found in the same chalk layer; and as the clay was moved away, the human footprints were found to continue below the ground level. (It is true that all researchers do not accept these findings, but this may be because of their preconceptions.) Roland T. Bird, a representative of the American Museum of Natural History, commented about these human footprints: "They were the most remarkable thing I have ever seen: on the ground there were footprints that looked like that of a human, perfect to every detail."  These were not the last findings, however. Only 200 meters from the footprints mentioned above, a two meters long charred branch was found inside a chalkstone and by means of radiocarbon dating, this branch was determined to be only 12,800 years old! If we draw a conclusion based on the charred branch, it means that the Cretaceous period when the dinosaurs lived occurred in the immediate past, only a couple of thousand years ago.

    The next comment will follow up on the topic. It addresses how discoveries of human footprints in dinosaur strata have been made in various areas around the world. These kinds of discoveries should not exist, if the geological time chart and its millions of years are accurate. These findings suggest the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs on the planet.

 

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. (35)

 

4,000 year-old pollen in a Precambrian stratum. The oldest period or the Precambrian period should have existed on the Earth only 7/8 of the entire time the Earth has been in existence, i.e., we are talking about an era that took place 4,500- to 600 million years ago. At that time, there should have been only the very simplest of life in the seas. However, it is rather strange that coal (Manusco, J.J., Seavoy, R.E., Precambrian Coal or Anthraxolite: A Source for Graphite in High-Grade Schists and Gneisses, Economic Geology, 76:951,1981), pollen from conifers and broad-leaved trees as well as wood have been found from the very same stratum. The wood has been dated at 4,000 years old by means of radiocarbon dating. (Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models, London, Max Parrish, 1966). The existence of these kinds of discoveries would again suggest that the Earth and its strata cannot be hundreds of millions or billions of years old. These findings favor the idea of a young Earth and strata.

 

Findings of the Cambrian period. What about discoveries from the Cambrian period? It is assumed the period began 600 million years ago and that life only existed in the sea. Interestingly enough, spores of over 60 tree species, pollen, and pieces of wood have been found in the lowest parts of the Cambrian strata. These findings indicate that life was versatile on the ground and not just in seas during the Cambrian period. This should not be possible according to the geological time chart but hundreds of similar findings suggest that the whole chart is wrong.

 

An illustration of a lizard bird. A bird that very much resembles an Archaeopteryx or a lizard bird was found in an ancient Maya relief. According to the traditional point of view, this bird and humans could not have lived at the same time on the Earth, because the lizard bird is deemed a contemporary of the dinosaurs. These kinds of discoveries, however, suggest the coexistence of the lizard bird (Archaeopteryx) and 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. (36)

 

Living fossils. When referring to the extinction of the dinosaurs and other species, the period of time usually mentioned is tens of millions of years. This is said even though several species disappeared from the Earth during the last centuries. Extinction is quite common.

   One good example of how it is possible to err by tens of millions of years when determining the extinction times of some organisms are the so-called living fossils that still exist on the Earth. They are species that were supposed to have become extinct ages ago, but that still live on the Earth in the very same form as their fossilized forefathers. These animals prove that the geological chart with its millions of years and the common view of evolution are not necessarily true. They also indicate that these species, like the already extinct species – such as the trilobites and the dinosaurs – may have lived only a couple of thousand years ago. It is indeed probable that several of these species were destroyed in the Flood mentioned in the Bible that piled up the strata of the Earth's crust and at the same time trapped them to be fossilized in the ground.

   Next, we will study some fossils that still live today, even though they were supposed to have become extinct way back in the past. They prove how one can err by tens of millions of years:

 

Lobed-finned fish coelacanth, deemed one of the important links in evolution, was believed to have become extinct as early as 70 million years ago. However, living specimens quite similar to their fossilized progenitors have been discovered. The newspaper article below discusses this issue:

 

Ancient Fish Spotted on Coast of South Africa

 

On Friday, South African divers told about having seen a 400 million year-old fish species, coelacanth that is a member of the crossopterygians or lobed-finned bony fish, on the east coast of South Africa. This fish, a "living fossil," was thought to have become extinct a long time ago until one was caught in a fishnet in the South African coast in 1938.

   Diver Pieter Venter told about having seen three coelacanths in October near Sodwana Bay at a depth of 104 meters. Venter is the first diver not inside a diving bell to see a coelacanth in its natural environment.

   Last Monday, Venter's diving team came across three coelacanth again 115 meters below the surface, and this time they were able to capture the fish on film. "After the first time, I felt like I’d seen a UFO and neglected to take a photo," said Venter.

   One of the divers, 34-year-old Dennis Harding, died after having come to the surface, apparently because of a clot in his brain resulting from insufficient pressure balancing. Apparently he had assisted another diver, who had lost his consciousness, back to the surface. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 2 December 2000)

 

Tuatara, a saurischian lizard that can grow up to half a meter tall, was believed to have become extinct 135 million years ago. However, this lizard still lives in New Zealand and looks the same as before.

 

A mollusk called Neopalina galathea was believed to have become extinct 280 million years ago. Yet, the mollusk has been alive all this time in the waters of Central America.

 

Sea lily. In 1986, a living sea lily was found in the waters of New Caledonia. It was believed that this plant became extinct 140 million years ago, but it has also remained the same all these "140 million years."

 

Five-toed llamas were believed to have become extinct 30 million years ago. However, ceramics in which five-toed llamas are depicted have been discovered. Their skeletons have also been found amidst the remains of the Tiahuanaco culture.

 

The case of a crustacean species. A rather new magazine publication reports the case of a crustacean species, which should have gone extinct 250 million years ago. The article once again illustrates how millions of years and extinction dates lack a reliable foundation. We might actually only be dealing with hundreds and thousands of years.  If scientists were honest, they should admit that they don’t know these things:

 

Living fossil found in Tunturijärvi

 

Researchers have found a living fossil from a lake in Enontekiö. The crustacean species in question has not been detected in decades.

Researchers from the University of Helsinki and the Finnish Forest Administration found the species in mid-August from Somasjärvi, which is located near the Halti fell at the border between Finland and Norway.

The discovery was made, when the researchers were fishing Arctic chars for genetic research. The crustaceans had been eaten by fish.

The discovered tadpole shrimps are living fossils that have stayed structurally unchanged for 250 million years. (Etelä-Suomen sanomat, 27/8/2013)

 

 

 

8. Evolution or ecological compartments?

 

One of the axioms of the theory of evolution is that fossils should always appear so that the oldest and more primitive organisms are farther down in the strata. For example, the trilobite is said to have lived 200- to 570 millions years ago and is considered primitive; therefore, it should always be farther down in the strata than human beings or dinosaurs. Similarly, other Cambrian organisms should also be located farther down than humans or dinosaurs. (As regards the “primitiveness” of the trilobite, we can note that the eye of a trilobite is more sophisticated than that of any other known living organism.) Generally, it is presumed that the oldest strata include only the remains of marine organisms, whereas the more recent strata also include the remains of land organisms. This is because it is believed that life was born in the sea, developed there, and gradually moved onto dry land.

    Therefore, it is assumed that evolution – and the order of fossils in strata – have progressed according to this model:

 

 - Organisms of the Cambrian period, such as the trilobite that lived on silt bottoms of the sea and generally marine invertebrates. It is believed that all of the animals of the Cambrian period, and also the plants of the period lived in the seas. It is believed that the Cambrian period began 600 million years ago.

- Fish that lived in the seas. They are believed to have appeared 430 million years ago.

- Amphibians that lived on the shores of the seas. They are believed to have evolved from the fish and laid their eggs in the water.

- Reptiles that are believed to have evolved from the amphibians. Their eggs can develop also in a dry environment, because their eggs are different in structure from those of the amphibians.

- Birds and mammals that appeared last on the Earth.

 

Why are trilobites not found in upper strata, and bears and other mammals in cambrian strata? A book asks why certain fossils do not regularly appear in all the strata, and why no quadrupeds can be found in the oldest strata (Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Permian – these are deemed the oldest periods, when life is believed to have appeared only in the seas). This is regarded as a good demonstration of evolution:

 

Lister’s fellow countryman John Woodward (1622–1722) noted that certain fossils appear in certain strata groups and not irregularly spread into all the strata. Neither he nor anyone else, for that matter, was able to draw any conclusions based on this fact.

   (…) Lyell denied evolution, even though he himself had divided the Tertiary period into smaller parts on the grounds of the abundance of fossils belonging both to extinct and also currently living species. Now, he tried to explain the lack of quadruped fossils from the oldest sediment layers by stating that these fossils had been destroyed over time. It is true that the fossils of land animals appear mainly in continental sediments and that they are under a large risk of being exposed to erosion and destruction, but this fact can hardly explain the fact that the fossils of higher animals are completely missing in the old sediment layers. (37)

 

However, there is a much more logical explanation for the previous observations: ecological zones. The fact that trilobites that lived on the silt sea bottom and other marine organisms are not found in the uppermost strata, and quadruped fossils in the lower ones, is simply because the former are marine and the latter are land animals. In no way does this prove that the trilobites lived in a different era than the other organisms. Neither does it mean that mammals lived in a different era than amphibians; even now, there are separate ecological zones or marine, swamp, highland, mountain, etc. zones.

   Of the animal species mentioned below (trilobites, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals), fish would also swim now above the trilobites, amphibians would exist at the water’s edge and thus above the fish, more reptiles would be found on dry land above frogs, and mammals (bears, lions, giraffes, elephants, etc) would be higher up on dry land and in forests. It would be more of a surprise if trilobites and other marine animals were found only in the upper layers – for example, above the mammals – and not in the lower layers. This would certainly be impossible, because the trilobites were marine animals, and as such, they would always be buried first and be the lowest, while the animals living on dry land would be buried later.

    We could also ask whether bears, cows, and lions could even have been able to live amidst the Cambrian organisms or in the sea. Would that not have been impossible, since they are land animals and could not survive in the sea? Therefore, there is no need to be surprised when the fossils are now found in different layers, even though they might indeed have lived at the same time.

   So, all of these animals may have lived at the same time, only in different ecological zones. There is necessarily no difference in the time when they appeared on the Earth. For example, the three important index fossils – the trilobite, the dinosaurs, and human beings – might have lived simultaneously on Earth, but in different zones. They are usually not found in the same strata, but this is only because the trilobites were marine animals, the dinosaurs land animals (mainly living in coastal areas and in flat country), and it is not likely that people would have lived in close vicinity to the dinosaurs. Only the supposed idea of evolution can lead us to think that they lived at different times:

                                                     

The trilobites of the Cambrian period are usually not found together with the dinosaurs of the Cretaceous period. Why is this? According to the theory of evolution, this is due to the fact that the trilobites became extinct millions of years before the dinosaurs developed. However, there is a much more plausible explanation: if trilobites and dinosaurs lived nowadays, it is not likely that they could be found in the same place. This is because they would live in different ecological zones. The dinosaurs are land animals, while the trilobites are inhabitants of the sea bed. (…) Therefore, there is no reason to reject the idea that all life forms buried in the strata lived almost at the same time but in different ecological zones. Catastrophism could be the explanation for the entire geological stratigraphic sequence, just as the founders of geology supposed. (38)

 

 

 

 

References:

 

1. Iain Nicolson ja Patriot Moore: Tieteen maailma: aurinkokunta, p. 69, (The Solar System)

2. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 382

3. Kimmo Pälikkö / Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 86,87

4. Iain Nicolson ja Patriot Moore: Tieteen maailma: aurinkokunta, p. 89, (The Solar System)

5. Kimmo Pälikkö / Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 91

6. Larry Vardiman: The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1990), 28.

7. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 245,246

8. Kimmo Pälikkö / Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 144,145

9. Science, 3.3.1961, s. 624 - Cit. from: Onko ihmimen kehityksen vai luomisen tulos

10. P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, s. 28. Cit from Onko ihminen kehityksen vai luomisen tulos

11. Hermann Schneiderin writing in Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 300,308,309

12. Naeser, Hurford, Gleadow, lukijakirje, Nature 267 (16. 6. 1977): 649

13. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 293

14. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 82

15. Andrew A. Snelling: Radioaktiivisen iänmäärityksen epäonnistuminen, Luominen-magazine nro 3, p. 34,35,

http://luominen.fi/ajoitusmenetelmat/_radioaktiivisen-ianmaarityksen-epaonnistuminen

16. Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 102

17. Sylvia Baker: Kehitysoppi ja Raamatun arvovalta, suomeksi toimittanut Pekka Reinikainen, p. 104,105

18. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu, p. 111

19. Uuras Saarnivaara: Voiko Raamattuun luottaa?, p. 134

20. Uuras Saarnivaara: Kaikkeuden synty, p. 122

21. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu, p. 103

22. Uuras Saarnivaara: Kaikkeuden synty, p. 125

23. John Baumgardner, ”Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution’s Long Ages”, Impact Article nro 364 (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, lokakuu 2003):ii.

24. same

25. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p.244, 245

26. A.M. Rehwinkel: The Flood, Saint Louis, Mo. 1951, s. 265 - Cit. from "Kehitysoppi ja uskon kriisi", Wiljam Aittala, p. 38

27. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 80

28. Cit. from: Kaikkeuden synty, Uuras Saarnivaara, p. 60,61.

29. Toivo Seljavaara: Oliko vedenpaisumus ja Nooan arkki mahdollinen, p. 28.

30. Sylvia Baker: Kehitysoppi ja Raamatun arvovalta, p. 121, suomeksi toimittanut Pekka Reinikainen

31. Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 124,125

32. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 87,88

33. Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 116 – 119

34. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 25

35. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 24

36. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 25

37. Nils Edelman: Viisaita ja veijareita geologian maailmassa, p. 55,237,238

38. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 173, 184

 

 

 

More on this topic:

 

When did the Dinosaurs Live? Learn why dinosaurs lived in the recent past, at the same time as humans. Millions of years are easy to question in light of the evidence

 

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

 

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

 

Slowly or quickly? Nature programs often tell about processes over millions of years. However, several facts are against millions of years

 

How does the eye see? - Do we see things as they are or as they were? We are told that we see from space and stars only past, not the present. However, this view is easy to question

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life

 

 

  

 

Grap to eternal life!

 

More on this topic:

 

When did the Dinosaurs Live? Learn why dinosaurs lived in the recent past, at the same time as humans. Millions of years are easy to question in light of the evidence

 

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

 

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

 

Slowly or quickly? Nature programs often tell about processes over millions of years. However, several facts are against millions of years

 

How does the eye see? - Do we see things as they are or as they were? We are told that we see from space and stars only past, not the present. However, this view is easy to question