How old is it?

How old is it, that is, the age of the Earth and life on Earth? Dozens of facts prove that millions of years cannot be true

Summary

The article analyzes evidence related to the age of the Earth through the following core points: 1. Signs from space: The activity of moons, Earth's magnetic field, the short lifespan of comets, and solar characteristics suggest thousands of years instead of billions. 2. Human presence: The history of human civilization, agriculture, and population growth extends back only a few millennia, contradicting the naturalistic timeline. 3. Reliability of dating methods: Radioactive methods are based on assumptions that cannot be historically verified, such as the initial conditions. 4. Conflicting results: Age determinations obtained from the same object often differ by millions of years, raising questions about the accuracy of the methods. 5. Indicators of a young Earth: Many natural processes, such as the salination of the oceans, continental erosion, and the weakening of the magnetic field, limit the Earth's age to much shorter than billions of years. 6. Geological timescale and strata: The rapid formation of layers through catastrophes challenges the traditional slow geological pillar. 7. Index fossils and ecological niches: The discovery of fossils in different layers is explained by ecological niches and animal habitats during the Flood, not by millions of years of evolution. 8. Observation vs. Assumption: The writing demonstrates that when naturalistic assumptions are set aside, many observations support the young timescale revealed in the Bible.

Frequently Asked Questions

What signs of a young age are found in the solar system?      

The geological activity of many small moons suggests that they could not have cooled for billions of years. The weakening of Earth's magnetic field and the short-lived characteristics of comets and the sun also support a young age.

Why does human history point to a young Earth?      

Reliable written human history, the emergence of civilizations, and the statistical growth of the population all begin only about 6,000 years ago. If humans had lived for hundreds of thousands of years, the Earth would have been overpopulated long ago.

On what are radioactive dating methods based?      

They are based on the assumption that in the beginning there were only parent elements, that the decay rate of parent nuclei into daughter nuclei has remained constant, and that the system has remained closed. If these assumptions are wrong, the dating yields incorrect results.

Why is the salinity of the oceans evidence of a young Earth?      

Every year, vast amounts of salt are washed into the oceans, but salt leaves them slowly. If the sea were billions of years old, it would be significantly saltier than what is observed today.

What is meant by conflicting dating results?      

For example, rocks from historically recent volcanic eruptions have been radiometrically dated to be hundreds of thousands or even millions of years old, even though their true age is known.

Is the geological timescale proven by observations?      

The geological timescale is often a theoretical construct. Observations show that large strata can form very rapidly and that species used as index fossils are often found at "wrong" levels or as living fossils today.

How do ecological niches explain the fossil order?      

The location of fossils does not represent eras, but rather habitats and the Flood. As the Flood waters rose, seabed organisms were buried first, then coastal animals, and finally inland mammals and humans. This explains the order of the layers without evolution.

1. Signs in space

• The active, volcanic activity of the planets' moons proves billions of years to be a lie.

• The rate at which the Moon is receding from Earth indicates that the Moon must have been attached to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago. This refutes the idea that the Solar System is 4-5 billion years old

• The Sun's current rate of shrinkage suggests that the Sun cannot be billions of years old

• The small amount of space- or meteorite dust on the surface of the moon and earth indicates short periods of time, not billions of years

• Age of comets. Comets are constantly losing some of their mass as they orbit the Sun, and there is no reliable evidence of new comets being created. They cannot be hundreds of millions of years old.

• Earth's magnetic field is constantly weakening, losing half its strength every 1400 years. 28,000 years ago, the magnetic field strength should have been a million times greater than it is today.

• The small amount of helium in the atmosphere is not consistent with billions of years

2. Man’s appearance on the Earth

• The rate of population growth refers to a few thousand years at most, as the Bible shows. For example, America and other areas were very sparsely populated as late as the 18th century. On the other hand, if the current rate of population growth had continued for 20,000 years, there would be thousands of billions of people on Earth instead of the current eight billion.

• The proven history of humanity only goes back a few millennia. Building, farming, and writing emerged simultaneously about 6,000 years ago.

3. Why the radioactive measurements are unreliable?

• In radioactive measurements, the initial situation, i.e. the initial concentrations of the substances, is not known. The amount of daughter and parent elements is not known. It is comparable to throwing a javelin, but the throwing position is not known. Measurements can be made, but the initial situation must be known.

• It has been repeatedly observed that volcanic rocks formed in modern times have been measured to be millions or hundreds of millions of years old in radioactivity measurements, even though they crystallized only a few decades ago.

• The carbon-14 method measures the age of organic samples, but if the Earth's magnetic field was stronger in the past, the samples will appear older than they actually are.

• Rapidly decaying radioactive elements, such as polonium, point to the rapid formation of the Earth, not its slow cooling over millions of years, as has been assumed.

4. Signs on the Earth

• Sediment accumulation, mineral flow into the seas, and erosion rates suggest short time periods

5. The geological time chart is wrong

• The geological time table cannot be correct because radioactive carbon occurs in many fossils and in coal, peat and oil deposits that have been considered tens or hundreds of millions of years old 

• The layers required by the geological time table are incomplete or in the wrong order

6. The strata have formed quickly

• The rapid formation of the strata is indicated by the presence of long tree trunk fossils, the occurrence of fossils in soil layers, the lack of erosion between the strata, and the fact that in modern times thick strata have formed in a few hours, days, or weeks. 

7. Why the index fossil method is wrong?

• The index fossil method is flawed, for example, because human footprints have been found in strata that are “a couple of hundred million years old” or that man-made objects have been found in strata that are “300 million years old.”

8. Evolution or ecological compartments?

Evidence for the theory of evolution has included the fact that trilobites (seabed animals) are not found in dinosaur strata. This is thought to prove that at first there was only marine life and later land life appeared. However, a better explanation is ecological compartments. Seabed animals such as trilobites would not live in the same areas as, for example, elephants or humans today. They can live and have lived at the same time, but only in different ecological compartments.

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 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 the birth of life by itself has not been proved, and even though intermediate forms are still missing between the most important groups. The problems that occur in the theory of evolution may have been simply explained by the fact that time makes everything possible and anything can happen over millions of years.

   It could be compared to the fact that if a girl in a fairy tale kisses a frog and the frog suddenly becomes a prince, then it is considered just a fairy tale. However, the same thing immediately turns into science, as long as enough time is allocated for it, i.e. 300 million years, because in that time scientists believe that the frog turned into a human. Time is believed to make everything possible, even if it is contrary to practical observations.

    In this article 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.   

1. Signs in space

When it comes to the age of the earth and the universe, the option that they are ancient - usually at least 4.5 to 15 billion years old - has often been presented. They are thought to have started sometime around this time, and that there is almost nothing that points to a young universe. It is also interesting that the idea of the high age of the universe and the earth has spread mainly at the same pace as the idea of evolution. When Darwin's theory won the field, people began to believe in an older and older universe, because evolution was believed to need time.

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

    In the following lines, we are going to examine the supposed high age of the universe and whether or not the idea stands on solid ground. This issue is considered in this chapter from the point of view of what the signs in near space indicate. The topics covered are:

• Moons of planets

• Moon is getting further away from the Earth

• 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

The active, volcanic activity of the planets' moons proves billions of years to be a lie.

If we assume that the solar system was born approx. 4.5 billion years ago, one problem for this theory is the moons of the planets. Many of these small celestial bodies are too active to be billions of years old. Here are some examples:

• Jupiter's moon Io has strong fiery activity. The amount of heat produced by its volcanoes has been a surprise to scientists. Powerful processes cannot continue in the same way for billions of years. The moon Io would have to be a cold celestial body if it really were billions of years old (Life/Eyes on Jupiter, Voyager 1979/NASA).

• Saturn's moon Titan has a denser atmosphere than Earth, containing nitrogen and other gases such as methane, ethane and acetylene.

    The problem in Titan's gas atmosphere is especially the presence of methane. Scientists have calculated that it should have been depleted in tens of millions of years and there should be none left (Mitri, G., Showman, A.P., Lunine, J.I. and Lorenz, R.D., Hydrocarbon Lakes on Titan, Icarus 186:385-394 , 2007). The reason for this is that many chemical reactions consume methane from Titan's atmosphere and it is likely that some of it escapes into space as well. The presence of methane in Titan's gas atmosphere suggests that this moon's age is only a fraction of the estimated 4.5 billion years.

The rate at which the Moon is receding from Earth indicates that the Moon must have been attached to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago. This refutes the idea that the Solar System is 4-5 billion years old.

The moon drifting away from the earth is something that proves against billions of years. It has been noticed that it constantly escapes away from the earth at a rate of approx. 4.5 cm per year (science magazine Tieteen kuvalehti 5 / 1991). The drifting away should be due to the earth's tidal phenomenon.

    In addition, it has been calculated that the moon's escape velocity from the earth should have been higher the closer it orbited the earth. According to these calculations, the moon should have even touched the earth 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 it would have been difficult for life to thrive. (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.

   In addition, it has been calculated that if the moon had been only one-fifth closer to the earth than it is now (the moon's distance from the earth is now 384,000 km, one-fifth of that is approx. 77,000 km), the continents would have been completely covered under the tides twice a day. That too would have been a big problem in terms of life. If there had been life on the continents at that time, it could not have survived because the water would have drowned it.

The Sun's current rate of shrinkage suggests that the Sun cannot be billions of years old. 

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. The Earth and the rest of the solar system are believed to have been born around the same time, i.e. around 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 e.g. 1 (0.3 inch) or 10 centimeters every day for 5 billion years, it would lead to the following numbers:

 • 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 a science magazine (Tieteen kuvalehti 2 / 1988) addresses the same topic. According to the magazine, if the precise astronomical observations made by the Frenchman Jean Picard in the 17th century are used as help, the sun's diameter would have been 4000 kilometers (2,485.4847689 miles) larger at that time than it is today. It means that if 4000 is divided by 400 years, it also becomes a contraction speed of at least 10 km per year.

   Such large numbers show that the Earth cannot be millions of years old, let alone billions of years, because the Earth would have been part of the Sun already 11 million years ago, and because it would have made life on Earth as it is now impossible already less than a million years ago. 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.

The small amount of space- or meteorite dust on the surface of the moon and earth indicates short periods of time, not billions of years.

Continuing to deal with near-space and time, the small amount of meteorite dust from space on the surface of both the moon and the earth is some indication that these celestial bodies cannot be very old. 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. Its annual amount that comes to earth has been calculated to be approx. 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 sweep of the finger along the shiny surface of the table tells you how much dust has accumulated. We all know that the amount of dust acts as a kind of clock that indicates the length of time between cleanings.

    This dust clock gives the correct time if we know how much dust accumulates on average per day, per week, etc. The correct time estimate is further confirmed if the dust deposition is constantly the same amount.

  …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 believed 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.

    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 required the moon to be less than 10,000 years old... (3)

Age of comets. Comets are constantly losing some of their mass as they orbit the Sun, and there is no reliable evidence of new comets being created. They cannot be hundreds of millions of years old. 

The orbs that move in the solar system also include comets that revolve around the Sun. They are very long-tailed – the largest measured tail is 320 million km – and sparsely structured phenomena that orbit in oval orbits around the solar system. In general, they can be observed with the naked eye about once every five years, but with a telescope it is possible to see about seven comets every 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, although it has been explained that they were born in some icy storage outside the solar system (the so-called Ort cloud), from which they would then set off.

   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.

   Second, even if such a place existed, how could these objects start moving away from there? By themselves, they could not move anywhere, but would stay in place the whole time. Only a visiting star could move them, but since the orbits of comets do not extend very far outside the solar system, this too is impossible.

   The most logical conclusion is that the current movement of comets would not be possible if the solar system were 5 billion years old. They only have to be a few thousand 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) 

Earth's magnetic field is constantly weakening, losing half its strength every 1400 years. 28,000 years ago, the magnetic field strength should have been a million times greater than it is today.

One indication of the earth's young age is the decisive weakening of its magnetic field. Earth's magnetic field, which reaches further than the orbit of the Moon, has been found to lose half its strength every 1,400 years; that is, 1400 years ago the earth's magnetic field had to be 2 times stronger than today. Observations of the change in the magnetic field are based on precise measurements that have been made for almost 170 years. For example, in the Uusi Suomi magazine article entitled "Maan magneettikenttä pienenee jatkuvasti" ("The Earth's magnetic field is constantly decreasing"), 26 February 1990, it is stated as follows:

In 1200, the magnetic field strength was 1.4, and a couple of hundred years later it was 0.8. The findings also show that the decline has continued over the past hundred years... The decrease has been less than 1 per mille per year, it has varied between 0.7 and 0.5...".

If conclusions are drawn about the rapid weakening of the earth's magnetic field, they bring interesting results. Because if the field has weakened all the time at the same pace and at the same speed, it would mean the following types of field strengths in the past. These figures indicate that the Earth cannot be hundreds of thousands of years old, not to mention millions or billions of years. The figures 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

The small amount of helium in the atmosphere is not consistent with billions of years.

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 is made even bigger by the fact that some of it may be original or entered 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: The study shows that helium does not escape to the atmosphere in significant quantities. Another surprise: Helium does not rise into the atmosphere, but is distributed evenly in the atmosphere. Atmospheric scientist Larry Vardiman (coordinator of the RATE group) has shown that the atmosphere contains only 0.04% of the helium it should contain if the Earth were billions of years old. Vardiman writes:

If there was no helium in the Earth's atmosphere when it was formed, the currently measured helium density ... would have been reached in about 2 million years. This is more than 2,500 times shorter than the assumed age of the Earth. Atmospheric physicists who believe in long ages such as [J.C.G.] Walker state that "...the amount of helium in the atmosphere seems to be the problem". [J.W.] Chamberlain states that this helium escape problem “…does not seem to be going away but remains unsolved”. (6)

Vardiman's comment that atmospheric helium "would have been produced in about 2 million years" does not mean that he believes the Earth is 2 million years old. He points to a problem with the evolutionary timescale. Two million years is an insignificant amount of time in terms of evolution. That's roughly the time it allegedly took for 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 it comes to human history, we often read in textbooks and books about evolution how the first humans walked the earth already hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago. Humans are thought to have descended from some lower animals, and of course that takes time. It would be strange if the development had taken place in a short time, and therefore hundreds of thousands, even millions or billions of years have been taken to help.

    However, it is good to note that observations about population growth and human historical time do not refer to long periods of time. On the contrary, based on them, it can be concluded that man has appeared on Earth for less than 10,000 years: 

The rate of population growth refers to a few thousand years at most.

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  rate 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 count backwards from today's figures and take the current reproduction rate of 1.6% as annual growth, 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 an absolutely absurd number compared to the current 6 billion (= 6,000,000 000) in comparison, and shows that people could not have existed at that time. It shows that the origin of humanity must be much closer, only a couple of thousand years in the past.

• The current population growth rate on Earth is approx. 1.7% per year, and if the same growth rate had continued for only 1300 years, it would have been enough to achieve the current number of 6 billion people. This shows that the Earth can be inhabited in a short time, and it doesn't even take tens of thousands of years as has been suggested.

The proven history of humanity only goes back a few millennia. Building, farming, and writing emerged simultaneously about 6,000 years ago.

The beginning of mankind is something that has been tried to be moved earlier than it really is. There has been talk of tens and hundreds of thousands of years and a "prehistoric era" when man walked the earth. It is believed that science would have been able to prove the early existence of man and the inheritance from lower life forms.

   However, the fact is that we only know about the history of mankind for a few millennia. The earliest records only go back about 5,000 years to the ruling families of Egypt, and even in them there can be big mistakes. 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 idea of a long history of mankind either, and long periods of time are only needed to support another theory, the theory of evolution. It is also interesting to note that when archeological and other discoveries are used as help, the following things have appeared in the world almost simultaneously, i.e. about 4000 to 5000 years ago. It is likely that if humans had already existed a million years ago, they would have appeared already then, but this has not happened:

• Construction of buildings and cities. This 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:

W.F. Libby: "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 time of the First Dynasty of Egypt is in reality the oldest historical point of time confirmed with some certainty." (9)

"The earliest notes we have of human history go back only about 5000 years." (World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, 6th volume, p. 12)

In the recent excavations, the most surprising thing 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 diggers 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)

But then why did the previous things appear so late and almost simultaneously? Is there a reasonable explanation for that?

    The answer, of course, is that people simply did not exist before and did not inhabit the earth. Already in the previous paragraphs, it was stated how the population has gradually increased, and that, for example, 2000 years ago (the time of the Roman Empire) there were far fewer people than now, and in 2000 BC even fewer than during the Roman Empire. In fact, if we go back only a few millennia, we will very soon come across a zero point, when there were no humans on earth. It is the only reasonable conclusion if we accept the late appearance of civilization on the earth and the gradual growth of the population.

    In addition, it is good to note that when the settlement has originally left the Middle East to spread elsewhere and when the population has grown (Gen 1:28: Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."), such places as the North and South America and Australia became mainly populated only after the 18th century, when they gained inhabitants due to migration. The fact that the earth was filled with inhabitants only this late shows that the beginning of humanity cannot be more than a few millennia behind.

The dynasties of Egypt and history.

When prof. Libby refers to the dynasties of Egypt (See back!), so it must be said that even the information about their dating is not necessarily correct. Often, in chronology, great value has been placed on these ruler genealogies.

    However, the Egyptians themselves had no such lists, but were all compiled centuries later by others (Manethon c. 285 BC).

    In addition, Herodotus has mentioned that there have been at least 12 kings in Egypt at one time. If true, that alone makes the lists of rulers very uncertain and leads to many rulers being assumed to have lived earlier than they actually did. The margin of error in these lists can be centuries.

    The 3-part series "Pharaohs and Kings" shown on Finnish TV in November-December 1996 also gives an idea of how uncertain the lists are, and how they can contain errors of even centuries. 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 dating methods, the most important of them are radioactive measurements, which have been used to calculate the ages of both the Earth and the animals and people who lived on it. These methods have generally given ages of millions of years, especially when it has been a question of the Earth's rocks and elements. They are based on the fact that radioactive substances should have a certain time in which they change and decay into other elements. For example, in the uranium / lead method, the uranium should change completely into lead always according to the same speed and within a certain time.

   So what is the basis of 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 compiled in the 1800s before radioactivity measurements were even known and it dictates how the samples are interpreted. In accordance with it, methods have been introduced that automatically and invariably give long ages to rock samples. Measurements are usually not made directly from fossils, which would be a much better and more reliable way (and would also give significantly smaller ages), but is usually carried out from volcanic rocks. The geological time chart drawn in the 19th century usually regulates how samples are interpreted. A professor familiar with dating describes the situation:

If the interpolation based on the maximum layer thickness were stopped, chaos would arise. Then it would no longer be certain that, for example, the coal deposits would be younger than the Devonian or Silurian strata. The order can be maintained only by giving the layer order an absolute priority over radioactive measurements. One knowledgeable geochronologist told me about timing results that don't fit 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.

… Radiometry only gives an apparent age. To qualify as a "correct age" or "accepted age", it must fall within a pre-determined point on the geological timescale. The real absolute is not a measurement or evaluation result, but an existing geological time chart. As long as the geological time chart decides the validity of the measurement, the measurements cannot decide the correctness of the geological time chart.

    When you ask the actual reason why the geological time chart  with its hundreds of millions of years is adhered to, it turns out that the reason is not the geologists. This is solely due to evolution theorists... The demonstrably incorrect timings given by young rocks show that the interpretation of isotope concentrations gives not only uncertain, but completely unusable results. In my opinion, the conditions for the correctness of methods measuring young age are significantly better. For the sake of truth, I believe that we must demand that considerably smaller ages be included in the examination and that extensive measurements be taken directly from the fossils. A great service would be done to science if we gave up the forced commitment to the geological time chart. (11)

In radioactive measurements, the initial situation, i.e. the initial concentrations of the substances, is not known. The amount of daughter and parent elements is not known.

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 basic assumptions in 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, as far as the previous assumptions are concerned, they are not provable. Among other things, we encounter the following problems in 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 quite strange if, in the initial state, all the elements had appeared one hundred percent pure and without their daughter elements, although the latter are widely present in the earth's crust. The perception of their original relationship is based only on assumption and guesswork, which cannot be proven.

    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. It's certainly impossible if we haven't been there to check the situation in the first place. We need to know the original situation on the table - just like in radioactive measurements we need to know the amounts of substances - otherwise there is no reliable basis for the measurements:

The history of the dating of KBS ashstone reveals that no matter how carefully the researcher selected his stone samples or how accurately he carried out his laboratory work, he can always be accused of using contaminated material or incorrect metho-dology if the timing result is "wrong". There is no need to prove the charges. Incorrect age is enough proof. The literature suggests that even if radiometric timings are valid in principle (which they are not), the selection of a demonstrably pure and non-contaminated rock sample requires omniscience that is inaccessible to mortal humans. Radioactive dating methods are a classic example of self-deception and circular reasoning. They are the myth of human evolution. Naeser and his colleagues ¹² have expressed 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)

External factors are another possible factor that can confuse the calculations. Problematic issues may include heating and molding of the stones (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 entire age determination. It is then not on a reliable basis:

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)

It has been repeatedly observed that volcanic rocks formed in modern times have been measured to be millions or hundreds of millions of years old in radioactivity measurements, even though they crystallized only a few decades ago.

An indication of the ambiguity of radioactive methods is the fact that the results have been contradictory and have varied a great deal, as is to be expected for rocks and samples found in the ground. Their concentrations, i.e. the assumed ages, have varied widely and the following observations have been made. They show that the concentrations of stones can be measured, but determining their age is questionable. If we see similar throws in our own watch, with a margin of error greater than 99%, we would reject it immediately.

   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 observations of eyewitnesses.

    Samples of these rocks were sent for dating to one of the most respected commercial dating laboratories (Geochron Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts). The results, which contradict the practical observations, can be seen in the following account:

Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory whose P-Ar laboratory director has done a dissertation on P-Ar dating. The laboratory was not informed of the exact collection location of the samples or their assumed age. However, they were reported to be likely young and that there were very little argon in them. This ensured that the analytical work would be particularly careful.

   The "ages" obtained from the P-Ar analyzes are listed in Table 1. The "ages" of the rocks range from <270,000 years to 3.5 (+- 0.2) million years, although they have been found to have cooled from lava 25–50 years ago. One sample from each flow gave an “age” of <270,000 years or <290,000 years, while all other samples gave an “age” of millions of years. The laboratory processed the samples with a low "age" in the same batch, which indicated a systematic error in the laboratory. So the lab manager checked his equipment again. The results were similar. This ruled out a systematic error by the laboratory and confirmed that the low results were correct. Furthermore, repeated measurements of samples already analyzed (A#2 and B#2 in Table 1) did not yield similar results, but given the analytical uncertainties associated with low argon concentrations, this was not surprising. Clearly, the argon content varies in these rocks. Some geochronologists may say that <270,000 years is indeed the correct "age" for these samples, but how would they know that 3.5 million years would not be the correct "age" unless they already knew that the lava flows were recent ?!

... We know the true ages of the rocks because, according to observations, they had formed less than 50 years before the age determination. Still, their "age" was estimated at up to 3.5 million years. Ages are therefore incorrect. How can we trust this 'age-determination method' when it is used for rocks whose age we do not know? If the method fails to determine the age of rocks, the genesis of which we have an unbiased eyewitness description, why should we rely on it when it comes to rocks whose age we cannot independently verify from history? (15)

Other examples illustrate the problems of radioactive dating. Again, they show how concentrations can be measured in rocks, but they don't have to have anything to do with actual age. It has happened, as shown in the following example from the Grand Canyon, that the top layer is "hundreds or tens of millions of years" older than the bottom layer. Of course, that can't be true, and that's why such age determinations belong only to science fiction:

The lava rock created in the volcanic eruption on Hualalai Island about 170 years ago was studied and its age was determined using new methods. With these "reliable" radiation meters, the age of the 170-year-old rock was estimated to be millions of years, from 160 million to 3 billion years. The same has happened in other similar measurements. Attempts were also made to measure the age of the layers of the Grand Canyon using these mentioned new methods. The results again surprised the researchers. The "young" basalt rock of the uppermost layers was 270 million years older than the "thousands of millions of years old rock layer" at the bottom of the canyon. After these measurements, the time estimates previously given by evolutionists for the rocks and deposits in the canyon have been partially transferred to the "old beliefs". (16)

The potassium-argon method can theoretically be used to determine the age of younger rocks, but it also cannot be used to determine the age of the fossil itself. The ancient "1470 man" discovered by Richard Leakey was determined to be 2.6 million years old using this method. The age was determined by Professor E.T. Hall, who told that analysis of the first rock sample yielded an impossible age of 220 million years. This result was rejected because it did not fit the evolutionary framework, and thus another sample had to be analyzed, which gave a reasonable age of 2.6 million years. Later age determinations of the same discovery have ranged from 290,000 to 19,500,000 years. The potassium-argon method therefore does not seem particularly reliable, nor does the way evolutionists interpret the results. (17)

Carbon-14 method.

One radioactive method for age determination is the carbon-14 method. It differs from other radioactivity methods in that its half-life is only about 5,700 years and that it only measures the age of organic samples. In this method, the chances of making mistakes are much smaller than in other radioactivity methods, but it also has its problems, of which the following can be mentioned:

The carbon-14 method measures the age of organic samples, but if the Earth's magnetic field was stronger in the past, the samples will appear older than they actually are.

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 of the magnetic field has also affected the amount of radiocarbon formation:

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 seen, for example, in the fact that more carbon-14 is formed." (…) (Magazine Uusi Suomi, article 26 February, 1990, Maan magneettikenttä pienenee jatkuvasti, “Magnetic Field of Earth Continuously Weakening)

Thus, when 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 it was formed much less than now or perhaps not at all.

    In other words, the former means that today, when we examine samples from earlier times, they look significantly older than they really are. They can look centuries or even thousands of years older than their own age, because in the earliest times radiocarbon could hardly form due to the stronger magnetic field. If the decisive weakening of the magnetic field is not taken into account, then even long periods of time can be mistaken in determining the age. The samples look much older than they actually are:

If the amount of carbon-14 has been lower in the past because there has been more magnetic protection against cosmic rays, then 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 method 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 method. However; completely undisputed 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 method 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 of the C-14 method are samples taken from 11 prehistoric villages in northern Iraq. C-14 showed that the samples dated back 6000 years, although based on all archaeological evidence, the village had only been inhabited for 500 years.

Rapidly decaying radioactive elements, such as polonium, point to the rapid formation of the Earth, not its slow cooling over millions of years, as has been assumed.

Usually, methods have been used for age determination in which the half-lives of radioactive substances are enormous.

   However, there are elements in the soil whose half-lives are only fractions of the previous methods. Especially polonium 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.

   Thus, when it comes to the birth of the Earth, it is usually explained that it would have initially had a glowing hot and molten surface, which would have 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 the blink of an eye simultaneously with the formation of polonium, because the existence of radio halos cannot be explained any other way.

It is interesting that in some types of bedrock rocks, 'halos' (a kind of "bubbles") formed by certain, very quickly decomposing polonium isotopes can be observed, which tell that the bedrock has formed in the blink of an eye. The situation is the same as if you tried to capture the bubbles of the effervescent tablet by deep freezing the bubbling water glass in a split second. (18)

Pleochroic halos are disturbances, color changes in the crystals of some types of rocks 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) contained in the mica crystals, from which alpha radiation has been emitted... These halos, which can be found in Precambrian solidified rock types, can have been born only if the Earth has been created instantaneously.  If their formation (cooling, solidification) had occurred slowly, these halos could not have been born because of the high dissipation speed of polonium minerals. Gentry concludes that the pleochroic halos of polonium refer to creation in a moment and very much call into question radiometric dating (except for radiocarbon dating) in general. (19) 

One clear evidence of the rapid stratification of soil layers is the fossils in them. For when there are fossils in the strata, their origin can only be explained by mud and mudslides having buried an animal or plant very quickly. This holds true also for all index fossils and the tree trunk fossils mentioned above.

 In fact, whenever we meet fossils, they prove that some plant or animal has been buried very quickly under mud and earth masses and then soon turned into a fossil (The petrification event itself does not have to take long, because petrified wood has been produced in laboratory conditions in just a couple of days.). If burial had not occurred, the animals and plants would otherwise have quickly rotted or been eaten by other animals.

    Thus, when we find fossils today, they only prove that the strata in which they are found must have formed in a short moment, only a few days and weeks, and not over millions of years. They have been buried in the strata quickly, because otherwise no fossils could have remained of them. Millions of years would not help their creation at all. Many scientists themselves admit that many deposits and fossils are best explained by rapid catastrophes. Fossils cannot be created in any other way. This kind of silt and mud deposits around plants and animals can best be explained by a flood of destruction, such as 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 evident that if the formation of deposits were to take place at such a slow pace, no fossils might preserve, since they would not be buried in sediments before decomposition by the acids of the water, or before they would be destroyed and shattered into pieces as they rubbed and struck the bottom of the shallow seas. They can only become covered in sediments in an accident, where they are suddenly buried. (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)

The lack of erosion between the layers suggests that they were formed quickly.

If the strata were formed slowly over millions of years, there should be clear signs of erosion between them. However, when different strata have been studied worldwide, these signs cannot be found between them - neither in the famous Grand Canyon nor anywhere else. On the contrary, it seems that the strata are quite uniformly related to each other and have formed on top of each other without breaks:

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, that is, they must have accumulated almost immediately on top of the previous ones. This is also evidenced by tree trunk fossils, which may pass through 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. Thirdly, the formation of the strata strongly suggests a catastrophe model, a flood that has piled the strata on top of each other. Geologists themselves admit that the best way to create strata is through floods and water. What better alternative to this than a global flood that would move strata of earth on top of each other in a short time? According to the Bible, the waters reigned over the earth for 150 days.

    A quote from the school textbook (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 176,177) refers to the same issue. It talks about the birth of coal, which is supposed to have happened during a special Carboniferous period, when forests were covered by water and silt. However, a more likely explanation is the Flood where exactly the same thing happened. It would also explain the existence of fossils, since they can only be created by rapid burial:

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.

In modern times, thick deposits have formed in a matter of hours, days, or weeks. St. Helena is one example.

It has also been proven in practice that strata can form quickly. In connection with the eruption of the Mount Saint Helens volcano in 1980, a series of overlapping strata with a thickness of almost two hundred meters was formed, and in just a few weeks. So it didn't take millions of years, but in just a few days strata of different quality piled up on top of each other.

    In addition, it is worth noting that less than 2 years later, after the movement of land masses, canyons were formed in the same area, where water began to flow. 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 a quote that illustrates the point. It first talks about how an overlapping series of several strata with a thickness of tens of meters was formed in the Mount Saint Helens area. But in addition, it is told about how a canyon was later formed in the same area, where the water started to flow. The process did not take millions of years, as evolutionists would have assumed, but everything happened in 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 new surface strata began to move. They formed a huge stream of mud, which irresistibly set off towards the lower regions. The mud stream took everything away. The trees stood upright in the stream with their roots. Houses and bridges did not cause any problems 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 were simultaneously 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. Within a few years, the strata created under the influence of the eruption, over hundred meters thick, hardened and began to turn into a rock-like shape. 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 finds support these basic assumptions of evolution. On the contrary, according to some finds, 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 finds and other finds 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 finds. 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 finds, 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 man having left those footprints. (The Carboniferous Mystery, Scientific Monthly, vol. 162, Jan 1940, p.14)

The following description from 1938 also tells how traces that look like human footprints have been found in strata "more than 200 million" years old, i.e. long before the supposed era of the dinosaurs. It has been difficult for researchers to understand how they can exist in such "old" strata. The conclusion from the text is that man must have already lived in the carbon age 250 million years ago or the geological time chart with millions of years has been mistaken. Certainly the latter option is more likely because no one believes that man lived that long ago. Conclusions such as these can be made if we stick tightly to the geological time chart and the millions of years:

The human-like footprints in the rock are a puzzle to scientists. They can't be human because they're far too old - but what strange, bipedal, amphibious animal could have made them?

    What is it that lived 250 million years ago and walked on its hind legs with 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 foot prints were found by Dr. G. Wilbur, a professor of geology in the University of Berea, and Mr. William Finnell.

    Recently prof. Burroughs was visited by some Kentucky mountain men who took him to 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. (...)

    The footprints are extremely strange. They are just the right size to be human - nine or ten inches tall - and almost the right shape. Almost everyone who sees them first thinks that they are made by a human foot and it is almost impossible to convince someone that they are not human...

    But even the boldest estimates of human presence on earth are only a million years - and these traces are 250 times that old...

    Such is the riddle. A quarter of a billion years ago, this human-like animal left footprints in a wide spread of sand, which time hardened into rock. Then he disappeared. And now scientists are scratching their heads. (Science News Letter 34, 278, 1938)

Trilobites and man.

According to the current understanding, trilobites were supposed to live long before dinosaurs, let alone humans. However, discoveries have been made that suggest the simultaneity of man and trilobite on Earth. According to the evolutionary view, such finds could not be possible, since there should be more than 200 million years between trilobites and man. Such discoveries once again prove the unreliability of the index fossil method. It also shows how humans, trilobites and other organisms classified as index fossils could have lived simultaneously, but only in different ecological zones. Sometimes they are found buried in the same strata, even though they have appeared in different zones:

William Meister made an amazing discovery on June 1, 1968 in Utah. He found several trilobite fossils in a fossilized human sandal print! But according to evolutionary periods, arranged on the basis of geological strata, trilobites became extinct about 230 million years before man appeared!

    … Geologist Dr. Clifford Burdick found further evidence to support the hypothesis of human and trilobite coexistence. He found the footprints of a barefoot child, one of which contained a flattened trilobite. (34)

Objects made by human in strata dating back 300 million years.

Another example of inconsistencies in current dating systems is finds of goods belonging to man, or even human fossils in "ancient" strata. For example, coal layers dating back ”300 million years” have yielded finds, 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 take these finds as such, then man must have lived 300 million years ago, or else the age of these carbon deposits will be measured in just thousands of years. Certainly, the latter option is true, because no one believes that man lived 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 finds, 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."  But the finds did not stop there.  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 finds suggest the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs on the planet.

Many well-known scientific facts raise serious doubts about the geological series of layers and geological eras. One such example could be the discovery of simultaneous human and dinosaur traces in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois, and elsewhere in the United States. These traces appear over a wide area and are usually only revealed after flooding or by earthmoving machines. They have been carefully examined by reliable paleontologists and verified their authenticity, and they cannot be dismissed as frauds. In addition, human-drawn images of dinosaurs have been found in Arizona and the territory of the former Rhodesia on the walls of caves and canyons. (35)

4,000 year-old pollen in a Precambrian stratum.

The oldest period or the Precambrian period should have existed on the Earth 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 finds favor the idea of a young Earth and strata.

Finds from the Cambrian Period point to diverse life from the beginning.

What about discoveries from the Cambrian period? It is assumed that this 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 finds 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 finds suggest that the whole chart is wrong.

An illustration of a lizard bird in Mayan art.

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)

The so-called living fossils that have been discovered show how one can be mistaken over millions of years. 

When referring to the extinction of the dinosaurs and other species, periods of tens of millions of years are usually mentioned. 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 general 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 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 gave birth to fossils in the soil.

   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, called the "living fossil", was thought to have long become extinct until it was caught in a fisherman's net off the coast of South Africa 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. "The first time was like seeing a UFO without taking a picture of it," Venter said.

   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 news reports  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 found was made, when the researchers were fishing arctic chars for genetic research. The crustaceans had been eaten by fish.

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

https://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