Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
Why-Most Scientists Believe the World is Old
“There is a little-known irony in the controversy between creationists and evolutionists about the age or the world. The majority of scientists - the evolutionists - rely on the minority of the relevant data. Yet an minority of scientists - the creationists – use the majority of the relevant data: Adding to the irony is the public's wrong impression that it is the other way a round. Therefore, many ask, “If the evidence is so strong for a young earth, why do most scientists believe otherwise?' The answer is simple: Most scientists believe the earth is old because they believe most other scientists believe the earth is old." R Humphreys, Ph.D. See also Geologist Tas Walker's website. Another big misconception today is a faulty idea science proves the earth is very old. All we hear about is evidence that seems to suggest an old world, yet the vast majority scientific processes point the other way.
“I estimate that there are probably several hundred processes that one could use to get an idea of the age of the earth. Only a few dozen, at most, of these processes seem to give you billions of years. The other 90 per cent of those processes give you ages much less than billions of years.” - Dr. Russell Humphreys.
Eg, some evidence for a young earth -
(1) The continents are eroding too quickly.
(2) Not enough helium in the atmosphere.
(3) Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly,
(4) Many processes, claimed to take millions of years, don't need such time-spans.
(5) Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
(6) Comets disintegrate too quickly.
(7) Not enough mud on the sea floor.
(8) Not enough sodium in the sea.
(9) The earth's magnetic field decaying too fast.
(10) Many strata too tightly bent.
(11) Injected sandstone shortens geologic "ages."
(12) Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
(13) Helium in the wrong places, In Zircon crystals in deep granite indicates an age of 5,680 + 2,000 years.
(14) Not enough stone-age skeletons.
(15) Agriculture is too recent.
(16) History is too short, Oldest civilizations are estimated to be 4-4600 years old.
(17) Moon's magnetic field.
(18) Unfossilized dinosaur (T-Rex) bones discovered with blood cells and DNA.
(19) Unfossilized dinosaur bones discovered with protein preserved in the bones. Neither could last 75 or even half a million years.
(20) Oldest living trees are estimated 4-5000 years.
(21) Not enough Stage 3 supernova’s.
(22) Earth’s magnetic field decays too fast. Could not be more than 10,000 years old.
(23) Time to produce today’s human population, estimated 4,000 years.
(24) Invasive species have only just started arriving in many places worldwide, if the earth is millions of years old, why has it taken them so long?
Darwinian evolution dates are based on assumptions and guesses and governed by the theory. The age old Darwinian mantra of ‘millions of years’ or ‘billions of years’ is only in the minds of those who religiously believe it. Demanded by a philosophical theory that needs billions of years for chance to seem plausible. These billions of years are simply NOT scientific fact. So say scientific experts:-
(1) "Thousand… Not Millions" (Dr D DeYoung –Physics Professor)
(2) "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" (Dr L Vardiman Dr. A Snelling Dr E.F. Chaffin)
(3) "The Great Divide - Christianity or Evolution" (G Berghoff L.Dekoster. A scriptural study showing the of millions of years to be unscriptural)
(4) "It’s a Young World After All – Exciting Evidences for Recent Creation" (Dr P.D Ackerman)
(5) "15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History" (Dr D. Batten Dr J. Sarfati.)
(6) "The Origin of the Universe" (Dr. H.S Slusher)
(7) "Age of the Cosmos" (Dr. H.S Slusher)
(8) "Star Light and Time" (Dr R. Humphreys. Else where mentions there's as much as 200 scientific evidences for a young earth)
(9) "Dismantling the Big Bang" (A Williams Dr. J Hartnett)
(10) "Refuting Compromise" (Dr. J Sarfati).
(11) "The Answers Book" ('Creation Ministries' scientists)
(12) "In the Minds of Men" (Dr. I T Taylor)
(13) "Flood Geology" (Dr. J Woodmorappe)
(14) "The Young Earth" (Dr J.D. Morris)
(15) "The Annals of The World" (J. Ussher)
(16) "After The Flood" (B Cooper)
(17) "The Genesis Flood" (Dr. J.C Whitcomb Dr. H. Morris)
(18) "Evolutions' Achilles' Heels" (9 PhD Scientists)
Also biblically the chronological data provided in the Old Testament indicate Adam was created about 4,000 years before Jesus Christ: Genesis 5: from Adam to the Noah Flood = 1656 years
Genesis 11-12: from the Flood to the arrival of Abram in Canaan = 427 years
Exodus 12: from Canaan to the Exodus from Egypt = 430 years
1 Kings 6: from the Exodus to the building of King Solomon’s Temple = 480 years
1 and 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Jeremiah: the kings of Judah and captivity in Babylon = 496 years
Daniel 9: from Judah’s captivity to the arrival of the Messiah = 483 years
Best known estimate date of Creation, based on biblical data, is 4004 BC, computed by the distinguished scholar Archbishop James Usher (1581-1656).
Many others have Dated Creation (BC).
Alfonso X-Spain, (1200s) .................6984
Diogenes (3rd C Greece) .................6138
Josephus (1st C Judaea)..................5555
India (-3000BC) ............................5369
Bede (England - 700AD)..................5199
Playfair & Walker...........................4008
Cornelius a Lapide.........................3951
Rabbi Lipman (1600)......................3616
(Hales, Wm. 'A New Analysis of Chronology & Geography, History & Prophecy' 2nd edn. 1830)
Dr James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, and a non-believer in Genesis, wrote: “…probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story”
Only since James Hutton and Charles Lyell (during 1790s & 1820s) were long ages suggested. They first proposed uniformity in science, with the desire to minimize the bible in society. They set about to marshal evidence for slow and gradual processes over time and so prove scripture wrong. This same method is used today and it works.
In the late 1700's the earth was believed to be about 75,000 years old.
In 1862, calculations changed that belief to between 20 to 400 million years. Then it was changed to 56 million years. In 1897 it went back to 40 million, then later to 80 to 100 million years.
When radiometric dating was invented that changed the belief to between 250 million to 1.3 billion years. In 1927 that was changed again to 1.6 to 3.0 billion years.
However, "modern" dating methods changed the belief once again to around 4.53 to 4.58 billion years. Modern folks tend to forget that all past dating methods were thought around the time they were done, to be "modern."
It time, future "modern" dating methods will no doubt change the date once again, and when that happens, the faithful will believe they have the truth. This is because they have unquestioning faith in what they are told" (R. Comfort).
Get This !!! -
In time, the age of the earth went to 20 billion, then back to 12-14 billion. It all depends on which evolutionist is talking and what they want to believe. But don't worry, the age of the rocks can be interpreted to fit any date. With rocks of a known age - radioisotope dating doesn't work. Well, it does work, they don't test them, for the results are the same as those of an unknown age. With rocks of unknown ages - radioisotope dating is assumed to work. Yet it does not take millions of years for rocks to form. Just as it does not take millions of years for petrified wood to form.
Radioisotope testing measures a trace element in a rock and gives a percentage. A percentage gives a ratio, but ratio is not a date. In order to estimate a date one needs to make some guesses based on assumptions. The rate of decay is assumed to be constant. Its unknown if the trace element for some reason has been added, or removed. Its unknown how much was in the rock to start with, but it certainly was there to start with. Not only but also, for example, the half-life of Uranium-238 to lead-206 is about "4.5 million years". But if we take a single U-238 atom then no one can say exactly when it will decay. In the next few seconds, 28 days or 4.5 million years. Rocks assumed to be millions of years old are not tested for Carbon 14, as this only lasts in the thousands of years, and assumed there's no Carbon 14. Yet every diamond [assumed to be millions of years old] that has ever been tested has tested positive for Carbon 14. Men make diamonds today, used in industry, they don't take millions of years.
Welcome to the radiometric dating game and a game is exactly what it is. One can select or ignore any data they like to prove anything they wish.
"...the fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do, they make up an assumed geological history for rock depending on the numbers that come from the geochronology lab" (Dr Tas Walker - Geologist)
Fossil bearing rocks are dated by the fossils they contain. 'Index fossils' are dated by the false assumptions of evolution. If an Index fossil (according to Darwinian evolution theory) is said to be a life form existing 350 million years ago, then the rock is claimed to be 350 million years old, because after all, evolution is true isn't it? Yet fossils don't take millions of years to form. In fact to form they must be buried quickly and sealed up from oxygen. Many have signs of rapid burial, in pristine condition before decay. Polystrate fossils are tree-trunks that extend through an entire series of sedimentary layers of rock. These fossils prove the layers were deposited quickly, not one per-year as taught by evolutionists. NO evidence that millions of years are needed for sediment accumulation of series of layers. And no evidence of erosion between the layers, which are said to be millions of years old. And they lack soil layers in the so called 'geologic column'.
All coal to said to be millions of years old, and forms under peat bogs. Yet no metamorphosis of peat into coal has ever been discovered any where in the world. Nor has it been observed, proven or demonstrated. But we can make coal today with the right conditions in a few weeks. Also no coal has ever been found that does NOT contain Carbon 14. No Carbon 14 should exist in coal if it is millions of years old. A sample of coal in Oklahoma USA (not tested for carbon 14) was dated 250 millions years old. It was found with a man-made iron pot. Coal in Pennsylvania USA dated 250 million years old was found with a man-made brass bell. A rock dated 60 million years old was found with a metal man-made spike embedded in fossilized wood. Many similar examples could be given.
Table Below. Volcanoes erupted in historic times, we know when the works formed yet always date millions of years. Any wonder rocks of a known age are not tested.
Old Dates for Young Rocks
6 million years
22.8 million years
Mt Etna Basalt
25 million years
Mt Etna Basalt
.7 million years
Mt Etna Basalt
35 million years
Mt Lassen plagioclase
11 million years
Sunset Crater basalt
27 million years
21 million years
43 million years
30 million years
Kilauea Iki basalt
8.5 million years
2.4 million years
15 million years
1.6 million years
Medicine Lake obsidian
12.6 million years
The following is a segment from "In the Minds of Men" by Ian Taylor © TFE Publ. 2004. To obtain a copy (or the CD) email http://creation.com/
"The poor world is almost 6,000 years old".
It seems that as long as mankind has been keeping records, there has been a compulsion to keep track of time, the age of the individual, of his social group, his country, his empire, and of civilization itself. The records have been chiseled in stone and kept on paper and papyrus, but it is only in the past two millennia that the Judeo-Christian West has related its records to one historical event, a fact that has greatly simplified the record keeping. Dates within the A.D. time frame are, thus, fairly certain. The further one goes back in the B.C. era, however, the dates become increasingly less certain until, eventually, beyond about 2000 B.C., the dates given are actually a consensus of opinions from the prevailing school of thought.
The archaeological dates depend on a continuum of evidence, such as interrelated king lists with the years of reign, and as such, this is primary data. Dating by the carbon 14 radiometric method, for example, is secondary data, because this method is first calibrated against archaeologically dated material. More will be said of the carbon 14 method in the next chapter.
To go back further in time, estimates are made from the natural processes, largely independent of each other and certainly independent of the hand of man. More will be said of these in this chapter and the next, but it may first be asked, Can we legitimately consider the ancient written records? There are many of these of which the Bible is only one. As in the case of the written testimony of our own birth, these records are only as good as our trust in the authors. Although these sources cannot be taken as proof of the beginning, we might consider their coincidental record from widely different cultures to be circumstantial evidence.
The Age of the Earth Before Lyell and Darwin
One concise and readily available source of nineteenth century information is Robert Young's concordance, and in the popular 22nd edition, under "creation", will be found a list of 37 computations of the date of creation from a possible list of more than 120. Of these 37, 30 are based on the Bible and 7 are derived from other sources -- Abyssinian, Arab, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Indian, and Persian. Not one of these ancient records puts the date of creation earlier than 7000 B.C. In all the hundreds of thousands of years over which hominid man is alleged to have evolved, it is surely more than coincidental that ancient civilizations, which were by no means ignorant of timekeeping by astronomical methods, should all begin their historical record at this arbitrary date. In addition, all the myths and legends, however bizarre, speak of instant creation just a few thousand years earlier.
In almost every system of historical chronology, either the creation of the world or the birth of Christ has been adopted as the reference point to which all other dates are subordinate. The dating system based on the birth of Christ will be familiar to most readers and is, in fact, used throughout the world today for business transactions. However, in non-Christian countries, and Israel specifically, the eras are referred to as: B.C.E., before the common era, and C.E., the common era. In religious communities dating is often from the creation of the world. For example, orthodox Jews begin their dating at 3760 B.C., while the Freemasons begin theirs at 4,000 B.C.
Before the rise of science, it was usual for the church hierarchy to set forth pronouncements and deliberations on such issues as the age of the earth. Until the time of Darwin, the Old Testament Scriptures were held to be the literal truth. While the Bible does not spell out the date of creation, it was believed that this could be derived from the somewhat complicated genealogies and ages of the patriarchs. A number of scholars in the past have attempted to deduce the date of creation by this means, and a few of the more popular estimates were: Playfair, 4008 B.C.; Ussher, 4004 B.C.; Kepler, 3993 B.C.; and Lightfoot, 3928 B.C. These scholars were each proficient in a number of ancient languages, yet the fact that their dates were close but not coincident means that it is not a simple matter to establish the beginning exactly from the biblical genealogies; to this day there are men still working on this problem. Nevertheless, the date 4004 B.C. has generally been thought to be the most likely beginning point, and this has been associated with Anglican Archbishop James Ussher, although several other workers arrived at this same figure in Ussher's day.
In 1701 the date 4004 B.C. for the year of creation was inserted as a marginal commentary in the English edition of the Great Bible by Bishop Lloyd and, by association, thus became incorporated into the dogma of the Christian church. By the time the theory of evolution came into open conflict with church dogma, almost every Bible published in the 19th century had Ussher's date appended to the first page, followed by sequential dates throughout to the time of the birth of Christ. As the church succumbed to the reasonings of science, these dates were quietly dropped from the Bible's beginning about 1880.
There are few texts that, when discussing the age of the earth, fail to mention Ussher's name and his date of 4004 B.C. Many of these texts add a further detail ascribed to Ussher and pinpoint the time of creation at 9 A.M. on 17 Sept., or 9 A.M. on 23 Oct, depending on the authority being quoted. The facts are that this specification of the precise time of creation did not originate with Archbishop Ussher but with his contemporary, John Lightfoot, who, except for a propensity to indulge in some idle speculation, has been effectively used, particularly by geology and biology textbook writers, to discredit the Ussher date. Characteristically, not only have the details been attributed to the wrong author but careful reading shows, for example, that the 9 A.M. statement was actually taken out of context in the first place (Lightfoot 1825, 2:335 ).
So much for the time of creation and the consequent age of the earth from the biblical perspective. If this record is to be taken at all seriously, it may be appreciated that the minimum age of the earth at this point is about 6,000; while allowing for possible omissions in the genealogies, it might be a 1,000 years or so older, but hardly more. The exact figure may never be known, but the point is that this is about a million times less than the current estimates of the age of the earth as given by evolutionists. Quite obviously, these two estimates are poles apart and provide the basis for diametrically opposed ideologies.
Time and Rationality in the Nineteenth Century
Historical time is unique; once passed, a moment can never be recaptured, and, without witnesses, can only be inferred from assumptions. It is no coincidence, then, that the theory of evolution, as formulated by Darwin and as we subsequently know it today, is founded on Lyell's geology. As we saw in Chapters 3-4, Lyell's geology is, in turn, based on a device whereby traditional catastrophe became the quiet outworkings of natural processes observable today. That device was the philosophical stretching of time, from a few thousand years, implied by the biblical testimony and engraved on the 19th century mind, to an almost open-ended scale, reckoned today in thousands of millions of years. Lyell exploited the impossibility to recapture past events, and once having broken into this virgin ground, it then became a private preserve for his followers and had the convenience of having a sliding scale of time to fit the current theory.
Science was not very sophisticated in the early 19th century, and the only problem confronting the unproven assumption of the long ages proposed by Lyell was the mind-set of other scientists of the day and, of course, of the theologians, many of whom happened to be the same scientists! Nevertheless, the revolution from young earth to old earth was the snowball starting the whole avalanche that eventually changed mankind's entire Weltanschauung, or worldview….."
"In the Minds of Men" by Ian Taylor © TFE Publ. 2004. Obtain a copy or the CD edition email www.creation.com