by Babu G. Ranganathan
Haven't geologists proved from scientific dating methods that the earth
is 4.5 billion years old? Doesn't astronomy prove that the universe
must, at least, be billions of years old since it would have required
billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the earth?
Don't all qualified scientists, including geologists, believe in
Darwinian evolution and a billions of years old Earth and universe? The
simple answer is "No".
Both evolutionists and creationists have certain built-in assumptions in
interpreting and using scientific data when it comes to the earth's
age. The issue many times comes down to which assumptions are more
reasonable. Dating rocks is not a hard (no pun intended) science.
For example, many times one radiometric dating method will give a vast
difference in age from another radiometric dating method used on dating the
same rock! Radiometric dating methods have never been correct when
tested with the actual historical age of certain rock. For example, Hawaiian
lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated
by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science
141 [1963]: 634).
The reason for such huge discrepancies from radiometric dating is
because the rate of decay is not the same today as it was in the past.
Evolutionary geologists go on the assumption that no major changes have
occurred in the past which could have affected the initial amounts and
even the rates of decay of the substances involved (Industrial Research
14 [1972]: 15). If, for example, a world-wide flood the Bible describes
in Genesis had actually occurred then it would have, indeed, altered the
initial conditions so as to make radiometric dating less than an exact
science, to say the least. The Carbon -14 dating method has been known
to have fifty percent accuracy, but it is only accurate up to thousands
(not millions or billions) of years and can only be used on things that
were once living.
Complicated as the subject of the earth's age may be, a main reason for
why evolutionists believe the earth is many millions of years old is
because of their belief concerning how the fossil layers were deposited.
What one believes about the deposition of the fossils in the earth
will, indeed, determine one's view of the earth's age. Contrary to
popular belief, the age of the fossils is not determined by radiometric
dating.
Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried
quickly and under tremendous pressure, so that their bones, remains, and
imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly
and under enormous pressure their remains will decay rather than become
preserved or fossilized. Most of the many billions of fossils in the
earth are found in rock that has been affected by water (Sedimentary
Rock). Therefore, most of the billions of fossils in the earth were
formed as a result of the animals and plants being buried suddenly and
quickly under tremendous water pressure.
Geologists who are evolutionists believe that local geographical floods
over a period of many millions of years deposited these animals and
plants and preserved their remains in the earth's crust. This is only
one view.
Geologists who are creationists believe that a one world-wide
cataclysmic flood, otherwise known as the Genesis Flood, buried most of
these animals and preserved them as fossils in the earth. Obviously, if
it was one world-wide flood that deposited these animals and preserved
them as fossils in the earth it would not have taken very long. But, if
the fossils were caused by local and limited geographical floods then it
would, indeed, have required many millions of years before such local
floods could have produced the billions of fossils and deposited them in
various layers all over the earth.
There are many problems, however, with many local floods as the cause
behind the fossils. Even today local floods are not known to be able to
generate the type of tremendous pressure and force necessary to
fossilize creatures in rock. Among other arguments, it is difficult to
explain how local floods could have carved out such majestic and
geographical wonders as the Grand Canyon which is thousands of square
miles and packed with billions of fossils and was clearly formed by the
cataclysmic action and force of water. Yet, evolutionary geologists are
content in believing that the Colorado River merely overflowing its
banks,over millions of years, was capable of performing such a feat!
If many floods had deposited these layers, we should see evidence of
this between the layers, but the contact between the layers is razor
sharp with no debris, erosion, or weathering.
The Bible in Genesis 7 says that much of the water that flooded the
whole world came from under the ground. We know even today of vast
reservoirs of water that are under the earth. Obviously, if the Genesis
account is true, there was much greater amount of water underground in
the earth's past. Genesis 7 says that this water burst through the
surface of the Earth and, consequently, covered and changed the entire
topography of the Earth.
Passages in the Old Testament Book of Psalms (i.e. Psalm 104) describe
God as raising high mountains from the earth after the world-wide flood
so that the water would recede into the ocean basins. The tremendous
velocity and pressure from such receding water is what most likely
caused the formation of the majestic Grand Canyon with its billions of
fossils.
The fossils in the earth are found to exist in various layers of the
earth's crust. Evolutionary geologists claim that each layer was formed
and deposited by local flooding over many millions of years. However, in
various parts of the earth there are fossils of trees that protrude
through several layers! This indicates that these layers were deposited
and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years.
Otherwise, the tops of these trees would have decayed a long time ago.
The tops of these trees could not wait millions of years to become
deposited and fossilized so there is no other explanation except that
these layers were deposited in quick succession under cataclysmic forces
and conditions.
Furthermore, evolutionary geologists believe that the lowest layers
contain only fossils of simple organisms while the higher layers contain
only fossils of complex organisms. This, according to him/her, is
evidence that complex organisms evolved from simpler ones over many
millions of years. As a result of this view, the evolutionary geologist
dates fossils according to the layer of rock in which they are found
and, in turn, dates rocks according to the type of fossils they contain
(circular reasoning!). Thus, the evolutionary geologist simply assumes
that rocks which contain fossils of simple organisms must be very old
(because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved first) while
the rocks containing fossils of complex organisms must be younger
(because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved more
recently) even when there is no actual physical differences between the
rocks themselves!
There are numerous examples of layers containing "mixed" fossils where
fossils of creatures that are supposed to have existed millions of years
apart from one another are found right next to one another within the
same layer or stratum (i.e. fossils of dinosaurs and birds in the same
stratum. That definitely refutes the theory that birds had evolved from
dinosaurs! There have been found dinosaur footprints and human foot
prints crossing each other's paths!). Evolutionists simply ignore these
fossils and continue with their dogmatic beliefs. Some excellent
Internet resources to consult for documentation of these facts are:
www.icr.org , www.creationscience.com, www.answersingenesis.org ,
www.christiananswers.net.
Besides the many assumptions involved, there are other problems with
this view. First, there are no actual transitional stages to connect the
so-called progression of simpler organisms in the fossil record to more
complex ones. For example, there are no fossils of fish with part fins,
part feet to show that fish evolved into land animals. In fact, the
fossils show only complete and fully-formed species. There are no
partially-evolved dinosaurs or anything else to indicate macro-evolution
in the fossil record. Second, this idea that the lower layers contain
fossils of only simpler organisms exists only on paper, in evolutionary
textbooks, and not in the real world. There are many areas in the world
where fossils of complex organisms are found way beneath layers
containing fossils of simpler organisms with no evidence of any shifting
of these layers. Of course, if a world-wide flood did occur, then in
many cases the lower layers would contain fossils of simpler organisms
because these would naturally be the first to be deposited.
The recent discovery of dinosaur fossils containing actual soft tissue
is powerful evidence that the fossil layers are not millions of years
old because such tissue cannot possibly be preserved through millions of
years. Read about this fantastic discovery at
http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-soft-tissue-issue-here-stay/.
This discovery was finally examined by a peer review of fellow
scientists who, instead of really addressing the problem, dismissed the
strong evidence of a thousands of years old dinosaur soft tissue. You
can read about the logical and scientific holes in their arguments here:
http://www.icr.org/article/6237/. Read and see for yourself whether it
was real science or evolutionary bias that determined their conclusions.
Recent scientific data shows that the rate of erosion would have leveled
all the continents on earth over fifty million years. Even
evolutionists acknowledge this, but evolutionists claim that after the
continents were fully eroded new geological upheavals created more
continents and mountains. But, if this were truly the case, all the
fossils should have also disappeared. The fact that all the continents,
with their mountains, still exist is powerful evidence that the earth
is, at least, far less than fifty million years old!
Another major fact pointing to a young world is what is known as the
"genetic load". The accumulation of genetic mutations, which are almost
always harmful, will cause, over time, species extinction. Evolutionists
realize this. The fact is, if our world were really millions of years
old, all species would have become extinct long ago due the genetic load
(the net accumulation of harmful mutations).
Many have insisted that our world and universe must be billions of years
old because it would have required billions of years for light from the
farthest stars to reach the earth. This is assuming that the stars,
galaxies, and universe were not created complete and fully mature from
the beginning, with the light already reaching the Earth from the moment
of creation. Creationists believe that because God created a mature
universe from the beginning, it naturally has the appearance of being
much older than it actually is. For example, when God created the first
man and woman they were mature adults and complete from head to toe. If
we had observed them five minutes after they were created we would have
thought from their appearance that they had been on earth for many
years, even though they were freshly created from the hand of God.
Some creationists theorize that, by applying Einstein’s theory of
relativity, during the fourth day of creation week billions of years
transpired in the rest of the
universe as God “stretched out the heavens.”
Highly respected scientist and physicist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown
that according to the rate of decay of the earth's magnetic field the
earth is only thousands of years old and not billions.
According to evolutionists, our moon is nearly as old as the Earth and,
from the rate of unimpeded meteors hitting the moon's surface over
billions of years, there should be many feet of lunar dust on the moon's
surface. Unlike the earth, the moon has no atmosphere to burn up
meteors so massive collection of dust was a major concern for scientists
and they were concerned that the lunar module, carrying the astronauts,
would sink into many feet of dust. But, when we actually landed on the
moon the astronauts discovered only a very thin layer of dust. This is
strong evidence that our earth/moon system is young after all.
There is much more to say on this subject, and there are many positive
evidences for a young earth and universe not covered in this article.
Excellent articles and books have been written by highly qualified
scientists, including geologists, who are creationists showing
scientific evidences for a young earth and universe. M.I.T. scientist
Dr. Walt Brown provides considerable information on the topic at his
site www.creationscience.com. Also, considerable information on the
subject is provided by scientists of the Institute for Creation Research
.
An excellent article on the subject is Evidence for a Young World: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
Another site with information on how the most reliable radiometric
dating methods show the earth to be thousands and not millions or
billions of years old may be accessed at: www.icr.org/rate/.
