From: Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Chapter_10:_Ea?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?rth=2C_Young_or_?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?Old_-_Give_Me_?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?Facts=2C_Not_Ass?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?umptions?= Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:14:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: =?iso-8859-1?Q?http://www.har?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?rypottermagic.?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?org/Evolution%?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?20of%20Creatio?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?nist/Chapter%2?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?010.htm?= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3314.1001 Chapter 10: Earth, Young or Old - Give Me Facts, Not = Assumptions

The Evolution = of a=20 Creationist

10  EARTH: = YOUNG OR OLD=20 -

GIVE ME FACTS, = NOT=20 ASSUMPTIONS

When=20 faced with lack of evidence to support their faith system, the = evolution=20 of molecules to man, the evolutionist will always fall back on = the=20 argument of "time". "Give us enough time," they say, "and = evolution will=20 occur." And so the evolutionists publish dates of billions of = years for=20 the age of the universe. These "billions and billions of years" = are=20 emphasized from our childhood days. As little children, we hear = famous=20 people and "credentialed" science writers in white lab coats = over and=20 over again and again refer to these long ages of time. News = broadcasters=20 and public television nature programs refer to billions of years = as a=20 matter of fact. Repetition is essential to brainwashing; and=20 brainwashing is essential to belief in one-cell-to-man = evolution, since=20 there is no factual science (science not based on assumptions) = to back=20 it up. Most creationists would say that the universe is = somewhere=20 between six and ten thousand years old. A young universe is not = a=20 problem for creationists because our God, the Creator-God of the = Bible,=20 is also the Creator of time. He does not need time. He can and = did=20 create fully mature people, plants and animals.

The=20 evolutionists make major assumptions during the course of = determining a=20 date of several million or billion years for the age of a piece = of rock.=20 If any of their assumptions are invalid, then it is impossible = to use=20 that technique to find a correct age for the rock. Here is how = these=20 dating techniques work: Let us say we find a rock and then want = to=20 determine how old it is. We decide to analyze the rock by = looking for=20 certain elements or compounds which break down over time into = certain=20 other elements or compounds. We might look for a special isotope = of=20 uranium and the element it eventually breaks down (decays) into, = which=20 is a special isotope of lead. In our rock specimen, we find some = of this=20 special uranium and some of the lead it decays into (the = "daughter"=20 element). The lead is called the daughter element because it = comes from=20 the breakdown of its mother element, uranium. We can measure how = much=20 lead is in the rock, and because we think we know how fast (or = slowly)=20 the uranium would decay into the lead, the amount of this = special lead=20 in the rock should then tell us how old the rock is. In other = words, the=20 amount of lead present in the rock would have resulted from a = certain=20 amount of uranium decaying over X number of years into lead. For = all of=20 this to yield a specific time frame in millions or billions of = years,=20 certain assumptions are made.

ASSUMPTION ONE: NO=20 CONTAMINATION

First,=20 it is assumed by the scientist dating the rock that his specimen = of rock=20 had never been contaminated. Nothing could have come into or out = of the=20 rock that could alter the dating technique to give an erroneous = date.=20 This would demand a "closed system" for the rock's = environment. As Dr. Henry Morris says in Scientific=20 Creationism,[1] there=20 is no such thing in nature as a closed system. The closed system = is an=20 ideal concept convenient for analysis, but non-existent in the = real=20 world. Morris mentions that the idea of a system remaining = closed for=20 millions of years becomes an absurdity. Some evolutionists claim = that=20 every molecule in the universe has been in at least four = different=20 substances since the Big Bang. But evolutionists cannot have = both; they=20 cannot have molecules jumping around from one substance to = another and=20 molecules steadfast and immovable, as they would have to be in = the=20 closed system.

Therefore,=20 the first assumption needed to affix old dates to rocks is not = valid.=20 Rocks do get contaminated as things seep into them, and rocks = change=20 their constituents as things leech out of them. A closed system = sounds=20 good and must be assumed to have accuracy in dating rocks, but = it does=20 not occur in nature.

ASSUMPTION TWO: NO DAUGHTER=20 COMPONENT

The=20 second assumption of the rock-dating expert is that the system = must have=20 initially contained none of its daughter component. In order to=20 calculate the age of our rock specimen, for example, there can = be no=20 lead in the original rock. Let us say it takes l,000,000 years = for one=20 milligram of lead to be produced by the decay of uranium. We = then=20 analyze a rock and discover it has one milligram of lead in it. = The=20 article we publish would state, with full conviction, "This rock = was=20 l,000,000 years old as scientifically dated using high-tech = procedures=20 by Dr. Credentials who has a double Ph.D. in rock dating." Who = will=20 doubt how old the rock is? Almost no one. But hold on for a = minute.=20 Suppose God created that rock with some of the lead already in = it. Or=20 suppose some lead leaked into it somehow or was formed by some = other=20 reaction or process. How can the expert differentiate between = the lead=20 that God put there (or was formed in some other way) and the = lead that=20 came from uranium decay? Obviously, no one can know how much = lead was=20 there to begin with. Consequently, for laboratory "accuracy" the = evolutionist must arbitrarily decide, "There was no lead = (daughter=20 element) there to begin with; I can't prove it, but I will = pretend=20 (assume) this to be true."

Every=20 time you are told that a rock is several million or billion or = even tens=20 of thousands of years old, the scientist doing the dating has = assumed no=20 pre-existing daughter compound. This means he guesses every = time. Do we=20 take scientists' guesses as valid fact and then proceed to the = belief=20 that the Bible must be wrong when it talks of 24-hour creation = days=20 about six thousand years ago? Surely not!

ASSUMPTION THREE: CONSTANT DECAY=20 RATE

The third assumption listed by Dr. Henry = Morris=20 (Scientific Creationism, p. 138) is that "The process = rate must=20 have always been the same." If the process rate (the speed at = which the=20 mother element breaks down into the daughter element) has ever = changed=20 since the rock was formed, then the change of rate of decay = would have=20 to be corrected for the age calculation to be accurate. = Scientists now=20 know that process rates can be altered by various factors. Decay = rates=20 can be speeded up or slowed down in certain substances when = subjected to=20 various types of radiation and X-rays. As Dr. Morris states, = every=20 process in nature operates at a rate which is influenced by a = number of=20 different factors (p. 139).

What=20 if radiation bombarded the primitive earth causing the uranium = 238 to=20 speed up its decay process (in other words, its half-life was = shortened=20 due to the radiation energy). How would the scientist know that = the=20 decay process was speeded up during that radiation bombardment = one=20 billion years ago? He couldn't know, could he? This means that = he could=20 not accurately date the rock. What if the radiation caused the = decay=20 rate to speed up, but previous to the x-rays it was twice as = slow as it=20 is today? How would the scientist tell us the age of the rock? = He could=20 not do it. Yet, have we not been told that a massive bombardment = of=20 x-rays hit the primordial ooze of ancient planet earth causing = the=20 "spark" that moved dead chemicals into living cells? The = so-called=20 "punctuated equilibrium" theory would insist there have been = many=20 radiation bombardments over time to cause one kind of animal to = rapidly=20 mutate into a higher form. (Punctuated equilibrium teaches that=20 evolution happens too fast to see, in contrast to Darwinian = evolution=20 which teaches evolution happens too slow to see.)

It=20 seems that the evolutionists cannot have both. If radiation = causes decay=20 rates to speed up or slow down, then the radiation needed to = start life=20 from non-life and mutate (change) old life forms into new ones = would=20 totally invalidate those billion-year dates and their dating = techniques.=20 The atomic clocks would have speeded up or slowed down depending = upon=20 the radiation. Let's also look at this the other way around: if = there=20 were no radiation bombardments, then the third of the three = dating=20 assumptions listed above might even be correct (even though the = other=20 two would of themselves destroy the accuracy of the dating = technique) --=20 but now we don't have the radiation "spark" to get life going = from=20 non-living chemicals and to stimulate the necessary mutations = assumed to=20 improve the organisms! With no radiation, the decay rates may = have=20 remained constant for billions of years, but what energy got = evolution=20 started and kept it going in this case?

As Dr. Morris says, educated guesses are made = to=20 determine apparent ages. But the apparent age may be = completely=20 unrelated to the true age of the rock.

These=20 three assumptions: (l) a closed system, (2) no original daughter = element, and (3) the same decay rate throughout all time -- are = always=20 involved when a scientist dates a rock. None of these = assumptions are=20 valid, and none are able to be subjected to the scientific = method of=20 observation and reproducible experimentation. There is no way to = accurately date anything beyond several thousand years. That = means the=20 earth could be quite young and no scientist can absolutely prove = otherwise!

"...there is certainly no real proof = that the=20 vast evolutionary time scale is valid at all. =

That being true, there is no = compelling reason=20 why we should not seriously consider once again the = possibilities in the=20 relatively short time scale of the creation model.=20

As a matter of fact, the creation = model does=20 not, in its basic form, require a short time = scale. It=20 merely assumes a period of special creation sometime in the = past,=20 without necessarily stating when that was. On the other hand, = the=20 evolution model does require=20 a long time scale. = The=20 creation model is thus free to consider the evidence on its own = merits,=20 whereas the evolution model is forced to reject all evidence = that favors=20 a short time scale.

Although the creation model is not = necessarily=20 linked to a short time scale, as the evolution model is to a = long scale,=20 it is true that it does fit more naturally in a short = chronology.=20 Assuming the Creator had a purpose in His creation, and that = purpose=20 centered primarily in man, it does seem more appropriate that He = would=20 not waste aeons of time in essentially meaningless caretaking of = an=20 incomplete stage or stages of His intended creative=20 work." [2]

The=20 truth is that we have been taught a lie from our earliest school = days.[3] We=20 are taught to believe that the earth is very old even though = there is no=20 factual science (see Chapter 2 "assumptions") to support = aeons of=20 time. But we are not taught the bountiful evidences that lead to = the=20 conclusion that the earth is quite possibly only a few thousand = years=20 old. How many evidences for a young earth can you list right = now? Did=20 you try to think of some? Can you write down even one solid = proof that=20 the earth is young? Most people (including Christians) cannot = think of=20 even one proof of a young age for the earth. You see, we have = been led=20 into one of the lies of Satan's world system -- that the = universe is=20 very old. If a group of Christians were asked, "Do you believe = God=20 created the heavens and the earth?" Every hand would go up = attesting to=20 their sure belief, "Yes, God created the heavens and the earth." = Should=20 a second question be proposed, "Do you believe God used billions = of=20 years of geologic ages and the process of evolution to create?", = some=20 pauses and waffling would occur, and if everyone was being = honest, many=20 hands would go up. Now, a third question is in order, "Do you = believe=20 that God created the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that = is in=20 them in a literal six 24-hour day week? In one evangelical = church in=20 Dallas, Texas, only five hands went up in a class of fifty = people. You=20 say, "They must not have understood the question!" No, they = understood,=20 but only five believed what the Bible says in Genesis 1-11, = Exodus 20,=20 John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, Revelation 4:11, etc. They had = been=20 brainwashed by Satan's world system into thinking there is = plenty of=20 scientific evidence to prove an old, old universe.

Dr. John C. Whitcomb has done us all a great = service=20 with his book, The Early Earth: Revised Edition.  Dr. Whitcomb lists and = discusses=20 many of the evidences for believing the Bible to be true as = written. He=20 contrasts faith in God and His word to faith in evolution and an = old=20 earth:

"...the non-Christian scientist must = acknowledge=20 that he also comes = to the=20 factual, observable phenomenon with a set of basic assumptions = and=20 presuppositions that reflect a profound "faith-commitment." No = scientist=20 in the world today was present when the earth came into = existence, nor=20 do any of us have the privilege of watching worlds being created = today!=20 Therefore, the testimony of an honest evolutionist could be = expressed in=20 terms of ...Hebrews 11:3..., as follows: "By faith, I, an = evolutionist,=20 understand that the worlds were not framed by the word = of any=20 god, so that what is seen has indeed been made out of previously = existing and less complex visible things, by purely natural = processes,=20 through billions of years." Thus it is not a matter of the facts of science = versus the faith of Christians! = The=20 fundamental issue, in the matter of ultimate origins, is whether = one=20 puts his trust in the written Word of the personal and living = God who was there when it all = happened,=20 or else puts his trust in the ability of the human intellect, = unaided by=20 divine revelation to extrapolate presently observed processes of = nature=20 in the eternal past (and future). Which faith is the = most=20 reasonable, fruitful and satisfying? In my own case, while = studying=20 historical geology and paleontology at Princeton University, I = was=20 totally committed to evolutionary perspectives. Since then, = however, I=20 have discovered the biblical concept of ultimate origins to be = far more=20 satisfying in every respect.

Christians who truly desire to honor = God in=20 their thinking, must not come to the first Chapter of Genesis = with=20 preconceived ideas of what could or could not have happened (in = terms of=20 current and changing concepts of uniformitarian scientism). We are not God's = counselors; He is=20 ours! `For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His = counselor?' (Romans 11:34) ...For My thoughts are not your = thoughts,=20 neither are your ways My ways, saith the Lord. For as the = heavens are=20 higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and = my=20 thoughts than your thoughts' (Isa. 55:8-9)." [4]=20

Do=20 we know what we believe as Christians? Are we ready to make a = defense to=20 everyone who ask us to give an account of the hope that is = within us? (I=20 Peter 3:15)

IS EARTH 6 THOUSAND OR 4.5 = BILLION=20 YEARS OLD?

How divergent are these two views (creation = and a=20 young earth versus evolution and an old earth)? The Bible places = the=20 Beginning at about 6,000 years ago. Many evolutionists put the = beginning=20 of earth at about 4 l/2 billion years ago. Dennis Peterson = attempts to=20 help us understand the degree of difference in these two choices = of=20 faith:

"One way to visualize the extremes of = our=20 choices is to equate one year to the thinness of one page from a = typical=20 Bible. If you were to stack up several Bibles to a height about = equal=20 with your knee, you'd have about 6,000 pages before you.=20

Now how many Bibles would you have to = stack up=20 to make four and a half billion pages?

The stack would reach at least a = hundred and=20 fourteen miles high into the stratosphere. =

So, you're standing there between your = two=20 stacks,and you are supposed to choose which one to believe in. = Why is it=20 you are made to feel rather sheepish to admit that you lean = toward the=20 Biblical stack of about 6,000 years? Or why is it that you start = to=20 arrogantly ridicule anyone who would dare to not agree with your = proud=20 billions?" [5]=20

Petersen=20 lists 35 or 40 evidences for a young earth. These are scientific = reasons=20 to believe the universe to be quite young -- on the order of = several=20 thousand rather than several billion years. Petersen = states:=20

"Scientists are aware of over 70 = methods that=20 can give us ideas of Earth's age. We could call these "GEOLOGIC = CLOCKS."=20 All of them are based on the obvious reality that natural = processes=20 occurring steadily through time produce cumulative and often = measurable=20 results. Most of these "clocks" give a relatively young age for = the=20 Earth. Only a few of them yield a conclusion of billions of = years. Those=20 few are loudly publicized to support the commonly held theory of = gradualism." [6]=20

The=20 gravitational fields of the sun and stars pull cosmic dust = toward them.=20 This is known as the Poynting-Robertson effect. Our sun is = estimated to=20 suck in about 100,000 tons of cosmic dust every day. An old sun = should=20 have "pulled in" and destroyed all the particles in our solar = system.=20 Yet, our solar system is full of these particles! The = Poynting-Robertson=20 effect would demand a sun and solar system of less then 10,000 = years of=20 age.[7] Petersen states:

"All stars have a gravitational field = and pull=20 in particles like gas, dust and meteors within their range. = Stars=20 radiating energy 100,000 times faster than our sun have a = spiraling=20 effect, pulling things in all the faster. The unusual thing is = that O=20 and B stars are observed to have huge dust clouds surrounding = them. If=20 they were very old at all, every particle in close range would = have been=20 pulled in by now." [8]=20

Two=20 types of stars have huge dust clouds and, hence, must be quite = young. No=20 one has ever seen the birth of a new star, although some = scientists have=20 postulated through computer simulations and theoretical = mathematics that=20 as many as three new stars should form every year. No scientist = ever=20 has, nor ever will see a star form because the Creator created = all of=20 His stars on the fourth day of the creation week (Genesis = 1:14-19). In=20 the spring of 1992 some scientists claimed to be observing a = star form=20 out in the stellar heavens. They used various mathematical = equations to=20 come to their conclusion. However, if their conclusion is in = direct=20 contradiction to what the Bible says, then their conclusion is = wrong. So=20 we sit back and wait a few months or years and finally some = scientist=20 will sheepishly admit "We are sorry folks, all our meticulously = produced=20 evidence led us to believe a new star was forming, but we now = realize=20 that we made a mistake. We will keep looking for a new star to = form and=20 we will let you know as soon as we find it." God created His = last star=20 out of nothing on the fourth day of the creation week!

   Astronomers may = see stars=20 die since entropy and sin entered the universe, but no = star-birth is=20 possible; God completed His creation of the universe and rested = on the=20 seventh day. If a star (O and B) and/or a solar system (ours) = has=20 significant cosmic dust and meteoroids in the space around it, = it cannot=20 be billions of years old.

LIGHT FROM THE FARTHEST=20 STARS

You=20 might be thinking, "Okay, but what about the speed of light and = the=20 millions of years necessary to get light from the farthest stars = to our=20 solar system?" (This is one of the things I was thinking as I = was=20 "evolving" into a creationist back in the early seventies.) = Well, first=20 of all, how do we know it takes millions of years for light to = travel to=20 earth from the farthest stars? Some evolutionary professor told = us, or=20 some writer told us, or someone like Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather or Carl Sagan = told us.=20 There does seem to be a problem here, doesn't there? What if you = were to=20 discover that light from the farthest star could arrive at earth = instantly (God created the star and the light beams from the = star to the=20 earth. We can't eliminate this possibility. Our God could do = this if He=20 wanted to) or within three days?

Dr. Barry Setterfield has done considerable = work on=20 this problem. His papers can be obtained through the Institute = for=20 Creation Research, Box 1607, El Cajon, CA 92022. Also see I.C.R. = Impact=20 #121, Starlight and the Age of the Universe, by Richard = Niessen.=20 Setterfield and Niessen offer four possible solutions to the = problem of=20 light from the farthest stars. The first possibility is that God = could=20 create the light beam with the appearance of age. A second = possibility=20 is that the distance to these remote stars has not been = calculated=20 correctly. This is very likely when the methods used to measure = great=20 distances in space are closely examined in conjunction with the = basic=20 assumptions of Trigonometry. As I.C.R. Impact #121 states, = "There is no=20 guarantee that actual distances in space are as great as we have = been=20 told." Once you get out of our solar system it is a most = difficult=20 problem to accurately measure distance.

A=20 third consideration is that light may have taken a "shortcut" = through=20 space. Different types of mathematics and different assumptions = and=20 postulates give totally different concepts of space and = distances in=20 space. What we know about space is quite limited. How distances = through=20 space are calculated depends on the calculator's system of math = and his=20 or her basic set of postulates (assumptions).

Outer=20 space may be straight or it may be curved. If you like to think = outer=20 space is a straight line, you will use Euclidean Geometry and = its=20 accompanying assumptions. Euclidean Geometry is used to find = vast=20 distances in space. Its calculations are, for the most part, = straight=20 line calculations.

But=20 what if outer space is not able to be measured with straight = line from=20 here-to-there-type math? That would mean all the farthest stars = could be=20 much closer than the textbooks teach.

NON-EUCLIDEAN = GEOMETRY=20

Another legitimate way to measure = distances in=20 outer space is by using Riemannian math. Riemannian math is = classified=20 as Non-Euclidean Geometry. It assumes outer space to be curved. = Hence=20 Non-Euclidean Geometry produces much smaller distances to the = farthest=20 stars. Niessen (I.C.R. Impact #121) reviewed articles by Harold = Slusher=20 ("Age of the Cosmos" I.C.R. 1980) and Wayne Zage ("The Geometry = of=20 Binocular Visual Space", Mathematics Magazine 53, Nov. = 1980, pp.=20 289-293). Twenty-seven binary star systems were observed, and it = appears=20 that light travels in curved paths in deep space. If you convert = Euclidean straight line math into Riemannian curved math, light = could=20 travel from the farthest stars to earth in, as reported by = Niessen,=20 15.71 years! This is a whole lot less than millions of years, = isn't=20 it?

Is=20 Riemannian Geometry valid if it shows shorter distances to the = stars? H.S.M. Coxeter published a largely ignored book = in 1942=20 entitled Non-Euclidean Geometry. Coxeter stated, "...we = still=20 can't decide whether the real world is approximately Euclidean = or=20 approximately non-Euclidean." [9] The=20 scientists do not know which is the valid way to measure space = as it=20 really is! They are not sure just what outer space really looks = like.=20 They have not been there and do not know what shape it has. = Everything=20 close enough to our solar system to obtain measurements (though = all=20 these contain assumptions) appears to have positive curvature. = That=20 means Riemann's method of figuring distance in space is more = likely to=20 be correct than the Euclidean methods. Niessen, then, has a = better than=20 average chance of being correct when he postulates 15.71 years = for light=20 from the farthest star to reach planet earth.

THE SPEED OF = LIGHT=20

Niessen=20 adds one more factor: the speed of light. Scientists have been = measuring=20 the speed of light for over 300 years, and it is appears to be = slowing=20 down. Using equations to extrapolate backwards, equations that = include=20 the figures observed and registered for the slowing down of the = speed of=20 light (the farther back in time you go the faster the light = travels),=20 light from a five billion light-year away star (assuming stars = are that=20 far away) could arrive on earth in just three days!

What=20 conclusion can we arrive at on the basis of the above? You do = not have=20 to believe it when some textbook or scientist in a white lab = coat tells=20 you that stars are millions of light-years and perhaps trillions = of=20 miles away. There is no hard, irrefutable evidence here = for a 9=20 to 20 billion year old universe.

Where=20 do the 9 to 20 billion years come from? A man named Hubble = (remember=20 "Hubble's telescope" launched into space recently?) came up with = the=20 theoretical, mathematical formula for measuring time back to the = initial=20 "Big Bang". His calculations originally estimated about 18 to 20 = billion=20 years as the age of the universe. Then a few years ago, some = other=20 scientists decided Hubble had made a grievous mistake and was = 50% off in=20 his calculations. Thus, the age of the universe was cut in half = (from 18=20 to 20 billion years to 9 to 10 billion years) by the stroke of = pen. Some=20 scientists still hold to the 20 billion year figure. They = realize that=20 even 20 billion years is statistically not long enough to evolve = the=20 universe.

COMBUSTION ENERGY OF=20 STARS

Now,=20 back to some more evidences for a young earth. Astronomers = calculate=20 that "O" and "B" stars may have surface temperatures of = 90,000=B0F. This is "... more = than 100,000=20 times the energy coming from our sun. Burning down at that rate, = and=20 clocking backward, the entire universe would have been filled = with the=20 mass of these stars just a few thousand years ago!" [10]

Some=20 evolutionists will object, "But you can't take current processes = and=20 extrapolate back like that." Well, what do evolutionists do to = find and=20 publish their old, old dates? The same thing! They evaluate, for = example, present processes such as decay rates (l/2 life), and=20 extrapolate backwards assuming all was the same from the = beginning (II=20 Peter 3).

BRISTLE-CONE PINE = TREES=20

If=20 the Biblical Flood occurred about 5,000 years ago and destroyed = all=20 dry-land plant life, then we would not expect to find plants = that could=20 be accurately dated at older than about 5,000 years. The = bristle-cone=20 pine tree is such a plant. It has been called the oldest living = organism=20 on earth and has been accurately dated at about 5,000 years. = Peterson=20 states, "It's almost as though all these trees were planted on a = virgin=20 Earth just 5,000 years ago." [11]

RIVERS ARE = YOUNG=20

Every=20 year the Mississippi River carries tons and tons of eroded dirt = into the=20 Gulf of Mexico. Scientists have been measuring the growth of the = Mississippi delta for many years.

"At the present rate the entire Mississippi = River delta=20 would have accumulated in only 5,000 years. But science = acknowledges=20 that the river has been even bigger in the past. =

How could this be? Unless of course = the North=20 American continent, and all the other continents for that = matter, just=20 haven't been in their present positions any longer than=20 that." [12]=20

Another=20 river that scientists carefully watch is the Niagara. It also = leads to=20 belief in a young earth.

"Because the rim of the falls is = wearing back at=20 a known rate every year, geologists recognize that is has only = taken=20 about 5,000 years to erode from its original = precipice." [13]=20

Often=20 large chunks of the dirt and rock under water falls, like the = Niagara,=20 will break off, yielding even younger ages. Suppose that 200 = years from=20 now you decided to calculate the age of Niagara Falls, but you = did not=20 know that in 1994 a huge section of rock had broken away from = the edge=20 of the falls. You would assume that it took thousands of years = to wear=20 away all that rock from the falls' edge, but it happened in an = instant.=20 You would date the falls much older than it actually was. This = type of=20 mistake is common when scientists attempt to date things.

THE RECEDING = MOON=20

Adding=20 to the evidence for a young earth is our receding moon. = Scientists know=20 how fast our moon is moving away from earth (about two inches = per=20 year).

Louis B. Slichter, Professor of Geophysics = at M.I.T.,=20 writes:

"The time scale of the earth-moon = system still=20 presents a major problem." [14]=20

Dennis Petersen continues:

"...working it back would mean the = moon and=20 Earth would be touching only two billion years ago. Of course, = that's=20 ridiculous. Another way to look at it is this: At the present = rate and=20 starting from a realistic distance of separation between the = two, if the=20 Earth is five billion years old the moon should be out of sight = by=20 now!" [15]

MOON ROCKS =

When=20 the first moon rocks were dated in the early 1970's, NASA = published the=20 age of the moon rocks at 4 to 4.5 billion years. Several years = and many=20 rocks later, they published a range of dates for the rocks of = our moon=20 at 3 to 4 l/2 billion years. This author called one of the = geologists=20 who dated those rocks and the conversation went something like=20 this:

"I noticed in a recent news release = that the=20 dates of the moon rocks have been adjusted to a range of 1 1/2 = billion=20 years. That's a pretty big difference in the dates! Was the = range any=20 greater than that?"

"Oh yes, the range went from = several thousand=20 years to over 20 billion years."

"Well then, why did NASA only publish = the 1 1/2=20 billion year range, instead of the full 20+ billion year = range?"=20

"We did not want to confuse the = public. We=20 know the moon is about 3 to 4 1/2 billion years old, so we = called the=20 dates outside of that range discordant dates and threw them=20 out."

Apparently,=20 some scientists have pre-decided that the moon is about 3 to 4 = 1/2=20 billion years old. What if, in spite of their presuppositional = belief,=20 the several thousand year dates were correct and not discordant? = Well,=20 that locks in Special Creation and eliminates the possibility of = evolution (which requires millions of years). Apparently = that=20 would be unacceptable to NASA. Or, what if the 20+ billion dates = were=20 correct? That, in effect, demolishes Hubble's math, and the time = of the=20 Big Bang is once again up for grabs. These scientists might = object and=20 say, "But we use a bell-shaped curve to arrive at our dates." = Well, what=20 if the assumptions which are built into their dating system skew = the=20 curve one way or another? We've already seen that the three = major=20 assumptions invariably included when scientists date rocks = (earlier in=20 this chapter) are not valid.

You=20 might ask an astronomer where our moon and its rocks came from. = Some=20 fanciful answers will be forthcoming! Evolutionary scientists do = not=20 know from whence cometh our moon. A creationist believes that = the God of=20 the Bible created the moon, and the sun and stars as well, on = the fourth=20 day of the creation week (Genesis 1:14-19). There is no hard, = factual,=20 scientific information that can refute a young age for the moon. = All old=20 ages given for the moon are not accurate because the assumptions = of the=20 dating techniques do not square with reality.

SHORT-TERM = COMETS=20

From=20 time to time, comets pass by the earth. Not only can scientists = not tell=20 us where our moon came from, they also cannot tell us about the = origin=20 of short-term comets. These are comets that astronomers = calculate have=20 lifetimes of no more than 10,000 years. If the universe is = somewhere=20 between 9 and 20 billion years old, and the astral bodies were = formed at=20 the "Big Bang", evolution is left in the embarrassing dilemma of = having=20 to postulate theories for the origin of short-term comets, which = it=20 cannot prove. You have to admire the imagination of these folks, = though.=20 Some actually believe that Jupiter spits comets out of high = volcanoes.=20 The only problem is that the short-lived comets are not made of = the=20 right stuff to come from Jupiter, and their = orbit is in=20 no way oriented to enable them to refer to Jupiter as "mother". = Scott=20 Huse says:

"Comets journey around the sun and are = assumed=20 to be the same age as the solar system. Each time a comet orbits = the=20 sun, a small part of its mass is `boiled off'. Careful studies = indicate=20 that the effect of this dissolution process on short-term comets = would=20 have totally dissipated them in about 10,000 years. Based on the = fact=20 that there are still numerous comets orbiting the sun with no = source of=20 new comets known to exist, we can deduce that our solar system = cannot be=20 much older than 10,000 years. To date, no satisfactory = explanation has=20 been given to discredit this evidence for a youthful solar=20 system." [16]

EARTH'S MAGNETIC = FIELD=20

An=20 examination of the Earth's magnetic field proves that Earth = cannot be=20 very old, since the Earth's magnetic field is losing its = strength. Dr. Thomas Barnes has done volumes of work on = the=20 depletion of Earth's magnetic field. The conclusion of his work=20 establishes the age of the Earth at less than 10,000 years.[17]=20 Naturally, the evolutionary community has proclaimed Barnes' = work=20 invalid, but Barnes answers their charges quite simply and = effectively=20 in the ICR Impact #122 of August 1983 entitled Earth's = Magnetic Age:=20 The Achilles Heel of Evolution. The earth's magnetic field = is=20 getting measurably weaker. Ten thousand years ago it would have = been too=20 strong to support life. If life could not have existed 10,000 = years ago=20 because of the super-strength of the earth's magnetic field, = then=20 evolution had no time to occur.

OUR SHRINKING = SUN=20

Recently a controversy has arisen over the = shrinking=20 of our sun. If the figures of John Eddy and Adam Boornazian are = correct=20 ("Analysis of Historical Data Suggest the Sun is Shrinking," = Physics=20 Today, Vol. 32 No. 9, September 1979), our sun would have = been too=20 hot for life to exist on Earth even l,000,000 years ago. This = would, in=20 effect, knock out the possibility of the vast expanses of time = required=20 for evolution. Evolutionists and theistic evolutionists have = jumped on=20 this one to prove Eddy was mistaken. Others now claim the = measurements=20 of the planet Mercury crossing in front of the sun each year, = prove the=20 size of the sun has not changed. We will have to wait to see how = this=20 develops.[18]=20

RADIOHALOS =

Irrefutable=20 support for a young earth is offered by Robert V.=20 Gentry through his studies of radiohalos in coalified wood.[19]=20 Evolutionists believe the coal deposits in the Colorado Plateau = to be=20 hundreds of millions of years old. Yet, Gentry's radio-halo = "clock"=20 demands a time period of only a few thousand years.

Gentry=20 discovered microscopic bits of uranium in these coal deposits. = The=20 effect of the radioactive uranium on the coal was to produce = radiation=20 halos in the coal.

"As a radioactive bit decays, = radiation extends=20 in all directions into surrounding coal for a small, yet precise = distance determined by the particle energy of the radiation. = Over time=20 this emitted radiation will change the color of the coal, = forming a=20 distinct sphere around the bit of uranium in the center. These = tiny=20 spheres of discolored rock surrounding a microscopic radioactive = center=20 are termed "radiohalos". Such radiohalos are Robert Gentry's=20 specialty." [20]=20

How does the bit of radioactive uranium get into = the coal=20 to form the halos? Ackerman continues:

"Regarding the radioactive center, a = bit of=20 uranium has, at some time in the past, before the wood material = was=20 hardened into coal, migrated into its present position. As the = uranium=20 bit undergoes radioactive decay, a form of lead is created. Once = the=20 coal has hardened and the uranium bit has been cemented into a = fixed=20 position, this lead isotope begins to accumulate at the = site....=20

Gentry has found that the uranium/lead = ratios in=20 the Colorado Plateau coal formation indicate that this formation = is only=20 a few thousand years old." [21]=20

The=20 halos form around the radioactive particles in the coal and = indicate a=20 young age of only a few thousand years for the coal. The coal of = the=20 Colorado Plateau was probably formed during the Flood judgment = of Noah's=20 day as God was destroying heaven and earth system #1.

Gentry also found halos of Polonium in = Precambrian=20 granite rock. These are supposedly the oldest rocks on earth.=20 Precambrian rock is called the "basement" rock of earth since it = is=20 thought to be more ancient than all other rock. Ackerman reviews = Gentry's work:

"The question Gentry has raised for=20 evolutionists is how the polonium bits and their resulting halos = came to=20 be in the basement granites....

The enigma is this: If the granite is = hardened,=20 the polonium cannot travel to its intrusion location. But if the = granite=20 is not hardened, no halo can form. Therefore, Gentry = argues that=20 the time lapse from a permeable, molten state to the present = rock state=20 for these precambrian granites had to be extremely brief. How = brief? One=20 of the polonium isotopes studies by Gentry has a half-life of = three=20 minutes! Another has a half-life of only 164 microseconds!=20

In the evolutionary model, the time = required for=20 the cooling and solidification of these granites is millions and = millions of years. Gentry believes these halos to constitute = powerful=20 evidence against evolution and its presumed vast time spans. He = believes=20 these halos speak of a very rapid formation of these crustal=20 rocks." [22]=20

Radiohalos in Precambrian basement rock may = indicate a=20 young age for the earth's "oldest" rocks.  Walter T. Brown, Jr., = (In The=20 Beginning), lists about thirty time clocks for the age of = the earth=20 that yield an age of a few thousand years. He mentions that an = analysis=20 of the gases (such as helium) in the atmosphere yields a young = age (few=20 thousand years) for the age of the atmosphere.[23]=20 River sediments and erosion rates indicate that the earth could = not have=20 existed as it is for millions of years.[24]

PLANETARY = RINGS=20

A=20 study of the rings around several planets seems to demand a = young age=20 for our solar system:

"The rings that are orbiting Saturn, = Uranus,=20 Jupiter and Neptune are being rapidly bombarded by meteoroids. = Saturn's=20 rings, for example, should be pulverized and dispersed in about = 10,000=20 years. Since this has not happened, planetary rings are probably = quite=20 young...

Jupiter and Saturn each radiate more = than twice=20 the energy they receive from the sun. Venus also radiates too = much=20 energy. Calculations show it is very unlikely that this energy = comes=20 from nuclear fusion, radioactive decay, gravitational = contraction or=20 phase changes within those planets. The only other conceivable=20 explanation is that these planets have not existed long enough = to cool=20 off." [25]

STAR CLUSTERS =

The=20 existence of star clusters hints at a young universe. Immense = clusters=20 of stars are travelling through space at supersonic speeds. = Scientists=20 believe that gravity holds these fast moving star clusters = together. But=20 scientists do not know how these star clusters could hold = together for=20 millions of years, while travelling at such high speeds. They = should=20 have "unclustered" and moved apart by now. But they are still in = a=20 cluster. The sole answer to this dilemma for the evolutionist = appears to=20 be special creation a few thousand years ago, not a "Big Bang" = billions=20 of years ago.

MOUNT ST. = HELENS=20

When=20 all other evidence fails to prove a very old heaven and earth = system,=20 evolutionists go back to rocks and rock formations, which = supposedly=20 require very long spans of time to form. The eruption of Mount = St.=20 Helens on May 18, 1980, and the rapid formation of geologic = systems=20 around it is challenging the claims of historical geology. Dr. Steve Austin and Institute for Creation = Research=20 staff personnel have been documenting the phenomena of Mount St. = Helens=20 since its initial eruption. Some surprising results of the = volcanic=20 blast are being observed.    =

"Up to 600 feet thickness of strata = have formed=20 since 1980 at Mount St. Helens. These deposits accumulated from = primary=20 air blast, landslide, waves on the lake, pyroclastic flows, mud = flows,=20 air fall and stream water... =20 Mount St. Helens teaches us that the stratified layers = commonly=20 characterizing geological formations can form very rapidly by = flow=20 processes." [26]=20

In=20 other words, what geologists may have thought took thousands or = hundreds=20 of thousands of years to form as a column of rock in fact formed = at=20 Mount St. Helens as the scientists watched, and in less than = eleven=20 years! Perhaps aeons of time are not necessary to form the = layers of=20 rock after all.

One=20 more fascinating phenomenon of the Mount St. Helens cataclysmic=20 explosion is the apparent formation of the beginnings of = polystrate=20 fossils in five years. In 1985, scientists discovered that = water-soaked=20 trees were floating with root end down (toward the bottom of the = lake)=20 in Spirit Lake. These trees:

"...are randomly spaced not clumped = together,=20 over the bottom of the lake, again having the appearance of = being an=20 in situ forest.

Scuba investigation of the upright = deposited=20 trunks shows that some are already solidly buried by = sedimentation, with=20 more than three feet of sediment around their bases. This proved = that=20 the upright trees were deposited at different times, with their = roots=20 buried at different levels. If found buried in the stratigraphic = record=20 (rocks), these trees might be interpreted as multiple forests = which grew=20 on different levels over periods of thousands of years. The = Spirit Lake=20 upright deposited stumps, therefore, have considerable = implications for=20 interpreting "petrified forests" in the stratigraphic=20 record." [27]=20

What=20 does this all mean? There is a bank of polystrata fossils (one = tree goes=20 up through several layers or strata of sedimentary rock) in Nova = Scotia=20 over 2,000 feet thick with trees straight up and down at = different=20 levels up through the rocks. Geologists have claimed that a = formation=20 like the Nova Scotia formation would take hundreds of thousands = of years=20 to form. After observing the Spirit Lake water-soaked trees, = scientists=20 are reconsidering. Perhaps it does not take as long as they = originally=20 thought to form polystrate fossils. Those trees in Spirit Lake = are=20 lining up and getting buried in what should become sedimentary = rock --=20 but less than fourteen years have gone by, not hundreds of = thousands of=20 years!

With=20 the many evidences for a young earth, evidences which can only = be=20 answered with an earth that once was greenhouse warm and = suddenly (at=20 the Flood) became permanently frozen at the poles, why do = evolutionists=20 still cling to their theories? Only one answer seems plausible: = they do=20 not want to submit themselves in humble obedience to their = Creator. They=20 refuse to accept God even though He reveals Himself through His=20 creation. Evolution from one cell to man is a lie and a foolish=20 speculation of men in rebellion against their Creator. =

"For the=20 wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and = unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in = unrighteousness;=20

Because that which may be known of God = is=20 manifest in them; for God hath shewed it to them.=20

For=20 the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are = clearly=20 seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his = eternal=20 power and divine Godhead; so that they are without excuse.=20

Because that, when they knew God, they = glorified=20 him not as God, = neither were=20 thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their = foolish heart=20 was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they = became=20 fools." Romans 1:18-22 (Emphasis added)


[1] Dr. Henry = Morris, Scientific Creationism = (San=20 Diego: Creation-Life Pubs., 1974), Chapter VI.

[2] Dr. Henry = Morris, Scientific = Creationism, p.=20 136.

[3] An = in-depth study of=20 the lies and consequences of evolution is Ken = Ham's=20 book, The Lie: = Evolution (El=20 Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1987).

[4] Dr. John = C.=20 Whitcomb, The Early = Earth:=20 Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: Baber Book House, 1986), p.=20 52.

[5] Petersen, = Unlocking the=20 Mysteries of Creation, Vol. I, p. 34.

[6] Ibid, = Petersen, p.=20 35.

[7] For more = about the=20 Poynting Robertson phenomenon, see: R.L. Wysong,=20 The Creation-Evolution=20 Controversy (Midland, Mich: Inquiry Press, 1981), p. 454ff. = Also:=20 Scott Huse, The = Collapse of=20 Evolution (Baker Books, 1983), p.=20 29.

[8] Ibid, = Petersen, p.=20 44.

[9] "The full = recognition that spherical geometry is itself = a kind of=20 non-Euclidean geometry, without parallels, is due to Riemann=20 (1826-1866). He realized that Saccheri's hypothesis of the = obtuse angle=20 becomes valid as soon as Postulates I,II, and V are modified to=20 read:

   I. Any two points determine = at least=20 one line.

   II. A line is = unbounded.=20

   V. Any two lines in a plane = will=20 meet.

   For a line to be = unbounded=20 and yet of finite length, it merely has to be re-entrant, like a = circle.=20 The great circles on a sphere provide a model for the finite = lines on a=20 finite plane, and, when so interpreted, satisfy the modified = postulates.=20 But if a line and a plane can each be finite and yet unbounded, = why not=20 also an n-dimensional=20 manifold, and in particular the three-dimensional space of the = real=20 world? In Riemann's words of 1854: "The unboundedness of space = possesses=20 a greater empirical certainty = than any=20 external experience. But its infinite extent by no means = follows=20

from this; = on the=20 other hand, if we assume independence of bodies from position, = and=20 therefore ascribe to space constant curvature, it must = necessarily be=20 finite provided this curvature has ever so small a positive = value."=20

   According to the = General=20 Theory of Relativity, astronomical space has positive curvature = locally=20 (wherever there is matter), but we cannot tell whether the = curvature of=20 "empty" space is exactly zero or has a very small positive or = negative=20 value. In other words, we still cannot decide whether the real = world is=20 approximately Euclidean or approximately non-Euclidean." H. S. = M.=20 Coxeter, Non-Euclidean=20 Geometry, 5th ed. (Canada: University of Toronto Press, = 1965), pp.=20 11,12.

[10] Petersen, = p.=20 44.

[11] Ibid, p.=20 38.

[12] Ibid, p.=20 38.

[13] Ibid, p.=20 39.

[14] Louis B. = Slichter,=20 "Secular Effects of Tidal Friction upon = the=20 Earth's Rotation," Journal of=20 Geophysical Research, Vol. 8 No. 14 (1964),=20 4281-4288.

[15] Petersen, = p.=20 43.

[16] Huse, The Collapse of = Evolution, pp.=20 28,29.

[17]=20 For = more see:=20 Origin and Destiny of = the Earth's=20 Magnetic Field, T.G. Barnes, I.C.R. Technical Monograph No. = 4, 1973;=20 also I.C.R. Impact #100, October 1981.

[18] Science = Held Hostage is a book = by three=20 men from Calvin College who appear to be theistic evolutionists. = They do=20 not believe in a young earth. The "evolution/creation in six = days"=20 controversy is not an issue to cause the elect to lose = fellowship with=20 each other. (Howard J. Van Till, Davis A. Young and = Clarence=20 Menninga, = Science Held = Hostage(Downers=20 Grove, Ill: Inter Varsity Press, 1988). Theodore Rybka in his = book,=20 Geophysical and Astronomical Clocks (American Writing and = Publishing Co.: Irvine, CA, 1993) refutes the arguments of Hugh = Ross and=20 Van Till, Young and Menninga by showing that the sun's heat is = generated=20 by gravitational collapse and not nuclear=20 fusion.

[19]=20 Robert V.=20 Gentry, et al., " Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence = Relating to=20 the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification," Science, 194 (October = 15, 1976),=20 315-317.

[20] Paul D. = Ackerman, It's a = Young World=20 After All: Exciting Evidences for Recent Creation (Grand = Rapids:=20 Baker Book House, 1986), pp. 104,105.

[21] Ibid, = Ackerman,p.=20 105.

[22] Ibid, = Ackerman, pp.=20 108-110.

[23] Brown, In the Beginning, p.=20 16.

[24] Ibid, = Brown, p.=20 16.

[25] Ibid, p.=20 18.

[26] Steven A. = Austin,=20 Ph.D., "Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism," ICR Impact #157, = July 1986,=20 p. 1,2. Dr. Austin also has an excellent video on this=20 topic.

[27] Austin, = ICR Impact=20 #157, p. iii.

TOP    NEXT=20 CHAPTER      PREVIOUS=20 CHAPTER     TABLE=20 OF CONTENTS

=

 

 

 

TOP OF = page

SITE=20 MAP * SEARCH * HOME= =20 *  INDEX

FAVORITE LINKS *=20 SPECIAL BOOK OFFERS

E-MAIL- COMMENTS

HARVESTIME BOOKS

PO. BOX 300

ALTAMONT TN. = 37301