do in fact exist, then the subject of our origin is an issue of truth rather than
simply "science" or "religion."
And in this regard, the age of the Earth is
of utmost importance. For if the Earth is less than 20,000 years old,
or even a million years
old, then the impersonal forces of nature could only have played a very
minor part in how we -- and other life-forms -- came to
be. It is also a fact that the same people who reject the concept, and/or thought that a Creator /
God made them, claim that if the Earth is billions of years old then nature, time and chance is all that's
needed to explain our existence: even though the simplest living
things are more complex than anything man has yet Designed and Created.
So it is
that our beliefs on the earth's age are often directly or indirectly related to
who or what we give credit for our
existence: either a Creator who made life, and us, or the impersonal forces of
nature, time and chance. Thus it is that
Reject the concept that a Creator / God made them are compelled to come up with an
alternate reason for their existence -- and why they
must believe that the Earth is billions of years
old: regardless of what the evidence actually is, and in most cases not even taking
a few minutes of their time to look
God is who He says, then He doesn't need tens of millions of years to create
life, and us. And in this regard we are told that He made the first man
from the dust of the ground -- as opposed to (from) an ape or ape-man, and
independent of other life forms: the same way He claims to have made the animals and birds:
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19.
Everyone knows that a Frog
can't transform into a Prince
in a short amount of
TIME, but if millions and millions of years can be thrown into the mix, then (we are told
the impossible becomes possible, and that in only 500 million years,
becomes likely, or so the story goes
say that a belief in God is "outside the realm of science," yet
they often fail to mention that science also can't "disprove"
the existence of a Creator / God either. And since they can't disprove the existence of
a Creator, nor come anywhere close to showing how life began, then they can't declare with any
degree of certainty how we, nor any other life-form came about: meaning that they also have
a 'religion' of their own, i.e. atheism or the belief that nobody (of
importance) made us: other than the impersonal (and normally destructive) forces
this regard, "scientists" can't even demonstrate how to make all
20 amino acids, nor even the most simple
protein, which consists of only 9 amino acids. Nor have they informed
the public that water
is also not the hero that some
biologists have made
it out to be -- since it breaks down DNA, RNA, proteins, and complex sugars.
The fact is that many people are not
satisfied with what they have been told (to believe) by a media that has
chosen to side with so-called "scientists": both in regard to the earth's purported
(old) age, and the concept that life could make itself from dead matter and
accident) -- if only given enough
time. In fact, those who promote such beliefs
rarely, if ever, acknowledge
the existence of contradictory evidence. And in this regard
there is lots of science-based evidence to indicate that the earth is less than
one million years old.
Much of this evidence is discussed in the following five articles.
examines Radiometric Dating and some of its many problems.
discusses the theory of
Continental Drift and some of the evidence that is rarely discussed in
public. This evidence suggests that the continents separated rapidly and that they are NOT at present still
discusses some of the problems with
Big Bang beliefs: such as that -- as far as we know -- explosions do
not produce order
but rather disorder. In addition, the Big
Bang does not, and cannot, explain where the matter came from that
supposedly exploded, therefore this theory is not based on empirical / testable
science, but is rather a philosophical (or religious)
belief that cannot be demonstrated, much less proven in a scientific sense.
is a summary of the evidence
for a Worldwide Flood: including evidence that seems to confirm that almost all of the
Earth's flat-lying sedimentary layers were laid down at the same time, one
after the other, in a short amount of time. This evidence suggests that
massive sedimentary layers are best explained by
a Worldwide Flood and Catastrophism, as opposed to slow deposition over eons of time. Our
related article on Fossil
Trees makes the same observation
(i.e. of a Worldwide Flood) only in more detail.
provides 20 Scientific methods which
indicate that the Earth is less than one million years old. A 1-page summary is
For a more detailed
Introduction see The
Age of the Earth Debate. For more on
whether evolution is based on true, testable science see the articles linked
To continue to Part One, click on the Radiometric Dating Link below or jump
ahead to one of the other articles listed below and also linked to above:
via Parts One to Five..