Evidence for a
Part Five of a Five-Part Series on The Age of
Isn't it odd that there are
virtually NO televised debates between evolution-believing scientists
and creation scientists? One reason for this is because of scientists like
Duanne Gish, who for many years did debate evolution scientists on college
campuses, yet because he won virtually all of them, little by little, evolutionists became unwilling
to debate. Kent Hovind also noticed the same thing and explains why this
is so in a presentation
he gave at U.C. Berkeley in 2004. In fact, more and more people are
realizing that since they didn't make themselves, somebody else must have done so,
and that a Creator is necessary
In this regard, living things are so complex that even
people with college degrees in science are
realizing that it couldn't have created itself: even in trillions of
years. In this regard Francis Crick, a co-discoverer of DNA,
proposed that could not have arisen on planet earth, but rather must have come
from outer space.
That's because he realized it could not have arisen
on planet earth -- and that even water
itself works against the creation of life from non-life.
Contrary to what we've been told over and over by the evolution-believing
mass media, the "scientific" establishment, and old-Earth (slow)
Creationists, there are numerous geophysical and astronomical clocks which point to a young age for the earth, solar system,
and universe. In fact, such young-earth indicators are in the
majority. But because the scientific establishment and the media are biased in favor of evolution, and against the Creator, and because evolution requires an old earth
to appear plausible, the
public at large is rarely informed of the
mounting evidence that contradicts the old
earth dogma of evolution.
In the pages that follow
we discuss 22 clocks, or indicators that the Earth
and Universe are young. Or to say it another way: there is a LOT of
scientific evidence that suggests the Earth is perhaps only thousands of years
old, and that the 4.5
billion year age that evolution-believing "scientists" have
LOUDLY proclaimed -- over and over -- is incorrect.
A "clock" is any geophysical or astronomical process that is changing at a constant rate. Clocks may be used to estimate how long a process has been going on. All
radiometric ones) require the use of at least three assumptions. These are:
1. The rate of change has remained constant throughout the past.
2. The original conditions are known.
3. The process has not been altered by outside forces.
In each of these cases it is not possible to prove that the
assumptions are true.
For example flooding can greatly alter sedimentation rates,
and with clocks over 5,000 years old, the original conditions cannot be known with certainty.
Therefore scientists must make a guess with regard to what
they believe the original conditions might have been. The shorter the time involved, the more likely
that a specific process has been
constant, and unaltered by external influences.
The following clocks point to a young earth,
solar system, and universe. Taken together, they suggest
that the earth is quite young -- probably less than 10,000
750 m.y.a. max
- 10,000 years
1,000,000 years max
4,900 years max
Helium in the
1,750,000 years max
Short Period Comets
- 10,000 years
10,000 years max
Dating of Dino Bones
- 50,000 years
and Old DNA
- 50,000 years
Unfossilized Dino Bones
5,000 - 50,000 years
165 M.Y.O. Ammonites
5,000 - 50,000 years
- 10,000 years
10,000 years max
The Dead Sea
13,000 years max
- 8,800 years max
5,000 years max
The San Andreas Fault
- 10,000 years
10,000 years max
Minerals in the Oceans
(mostly young) Ages
Rapid Mountain Uplift
10 million years
Carbon 14 Dating
Dark Matter & Spiral Galaxies
1 million years (max)
Helium and lead in Zircons
The gravitational pull between the Earth and
Moon causes the Earth’s oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earth’s
terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the
Moon. This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon."1
This tidal friction
also causes the Earth’s rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.1,2 The
rate of recession was measured at four
centimeters per year in 1981; 3 however, according to Physicist Donald
"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back
into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects.
the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th
power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long’ ago, and the average is
Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old --
or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.4
Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is
more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system
proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where
it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery — unless it was designed that way from the beginning.
What does the Moon have to say about all this
-- Creation going
2. Oil Pressure:
When oil wells are drilled, the oil
is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who
claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous.
time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and,
over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't.
Perhaps because our oil deposits were created as a result of
Noah's Flood only about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure
should be left. 5,6,7,8 Here's More.
3. The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is
the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived.
11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. 9,10,11,12
Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have
in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests.
Young Faint Sun Paradox, Global Warming -
Is the Sun to Blame?, and
Star changes Baffle Long-Agers
4. The Oldest Living Thing:
The oldest living thing on earth is either
an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of
one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old.
The fact that these trees are still alive and growing older means that we don't yet know how old they will get before they
die. It also strongly suggests that something happened around 4,500 to
ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these
trees to die off. 13,14,15 Note also that it is possible for
trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the
above estimated ages of these trees. Also, with regard to
fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of
fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings.
says 1700. This is significant since we
are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about
1800 years before the Noachian Flood described in the Book of Genesis. See also
from Living Things
5. Helium in the Atmosphere:
Helium is a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium-238. As uranium decays, the helium produced escapes from the earth's surface and accumulates in the atmosphere. As time passes, the amount of
helium in the atmosphere increases. Scientists have estimated the amount of uranium in the earth's crustal rocks. From this they estimate
the amount of helium that
should be produced, and from these they can calculate how much helium is being added to the atmosphere over a given amount of time.
They also know how much helium is currently in the atmosphere.
If we use the
same assumptions that radiometric dating experts make: i.e. no initial helium in the earth's early atmosphere, a constant decay rate, and that nothing has occurred to add to or take away the
helium -- then the earth's atmosphere is at most 1.76 million years old.
16,17 Other estimates say it is much less: or only 175,000 years.
For a more detailed discussion see: Helium Evidence for a
Young World Remains Crystal Clear, and Helium Evidence for A Young World Overcomes Pressure,
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
6. Short Period Comets:
Short period comets revolve round
the sun once every hundred years or less.19
With each revolution they lose 1-2% of their mass. After several hundred revolutions they disintegrate.
At present there are over 100 short period comets in
our solar system, many of which have periods of less than 20 years.20
Since comets are believed to have originated at the same time as the solar
system. 21 This, plus the fact that they have not all
disintegrated, suggests that either the solar system is young, or that new comets are
continuously being added.
Evolutionists have come up with theories to explain the existence of comets, and how new ones are being added. One
is called the Oort Cloud
theory, named after J. Oort. This suggests that a hypothetical cloud surrounds the solar system
that is said to extend
past the orbit of Pluto.21
The other theory is
called the Kuiper belt theory, and it is directed at short period
comets, as opposed to to Oort Cloud theory, which is directed at both long and short period
ones. Although some people claim that the Kuiper belt
discovered, to this author's knowledge that is not the case. Nor has even one hypothetical object (i.e. asteroid of
comet material) been observed to transform into a would-be comet. See
20 for more on this. See also the Astronomy section of the "Young"
Age of the Earth and Universe Q&A page.
The existence of short period comets
suggests that our solar system
is less than 10,000 years old: otherwise they
would have burned out long ago. 22
7. The Earth's Magnetic Field:
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5 % every 100 years. This means that
about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong.
that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then
only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is
today: so strong that the amount of heat
produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on earth.
In other words, it seems likely that the Earth's magnetic field is quite young,
and suggests that the earth itself is also young.
The fact that the earth's
magnetic field is decaying is well documented. For example, a recent NOVA
Special on this subject brought this out very clearly. In fact, at
present rates of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field 1000 years
from now. And although, the NOVA special strongly suggested that this may
simply mean the earth is getting ready for another reversal, such may not be the
case, as Dr.
Humphreys work suggests. A brief portion of Dr. Humphreys findings are
after that I published a review of the evidence for past polarity reversals,
reaffirming their reality (Humphreys, 1988). Then I developed my
dynamic-decay theory further, showing that rapid (meters per second) motions
of the core fluid would indeed cause rapid reversals of the field’s polarity
(Humphreys, 1990). I cited newly discovered evidence for rapid reversals (Coe
and Prévot, 1989), evidence in thin lava flows confirming my 1986 prediction.
Since then, even more such evidence has become known (Coe, Prévot, and Camps,
reversal mechanism of my theory would dissipate magnetic energy, not sustain
it or add to it, so each reversal cycle would have a lower peak than the
previous one. In the same paper (Humphreys, 1990, p. 137), I discussed the
non-dipole part of the field today, pointing out that the slow (millimeter per
second) motions of the fluid today could increase the intensity of some of the
non-dipole parts of the field. However, I concluded (that) ... the total energy
of the field would still decrease.
... answers, skeptics today still use Dalrymple’s old arguments to
dismiss geomagnetic evidence. Much of that is probably due to ignorance of our
responses, but some skeptics are still relying on the non-dipole part of the
field. They hope that an energy gain in the non-dipole part will compensate
for the energy lost from the dipole part.
“hope,” because it appears that since 1967, nobody has yet published a
calculation of non-dipole energies based on newer and better data. So that is
what I will do below. It turns out that the results quash evolutionist hopes
and support creationist models." 27
Another major problem with old-earth beliefs in this regard
is the timing of the earth's last reversal. Old earth believers claim that
it took place 780,000 years ago; however, at current rates of decay, only about
10,000 years ago the earth would have been so hot that no life could have
survived on its surface. And even if we assume that in the past the
earth's magnetic field decayed much slower than today, we are still only
looking at about 20,000 years ago that life could have existed on the
earth. This indicates that old-earth dates for the earth's past magnetic
reversals (arrived at using radiometric method) are probably incorrect, and
suggests that the assumptions used in old-earth (radiometric) dating were (and
are) incorrect. See also: Radiometric
Dating and the Age of the Earth, and Continental
Drift and the Age of the Earth and the Links associated with these
Mystery of the Earth's Magnetic Field and Magnetic
Evidence on the Ocean Floor
8. Direct Dating of
Dinosaur / Dragon Bones:
By evolutionary reasoning, dragon bones only occur in the so-called Cretaceous, Jurassic, or Triassic eras.28
According to the geological time chart
such creatures (now called dinosaurs) died out between 65 and 220 million years ago. What
is not well known about these eras is that they are based upon the theory of
evolution -- which requires extremely long periods of time. When evolution-biased scientists say that they "know" such things, they
are not being forthright. For while they may, in fact, believe such
things, if they
were honest they would admit that such "dates" assigned to these eras are highly questionable.
Dinosaur Bones Millions of Years Old for
why dinosaurs probably became extinct in recent times.
So how can we date
dinosaur / dragon bones?
piece to the puzzle is the fact that many dinosaur bones are not permineralized
or turned into stone. This means
they can be directly dated by the Carbon-14 method, the exact same way a mammoth or Neanderthal bone is dated. This has
also been done on numerous occasions by various laboratories in
the United States and Europe, and the dates indicate that dinosaurs were alive from
9,800 -- 50,000 years ago.29,30,31
This author discussed this with Paul LeBlond, Professor of
Oceanography at the University of
British Columbia. Dr. LeBlond said that any C14 date over 5,000
years is highly questionable. 32
Therefore, despite what "scientists" may assert, 33
we can establish that all mammoths, Neanderthals, or other bones
"dated" over 5,000 years by the C14 method are also
questionable. If we
accept any, then we must accept them all: including those that are incompatible with evolution-based "ages" associated with the
Geological Time Chart.
However, the very fact that many
thousands of dinosaur bones contain organic material is
a strong indication that these creatures became extinct in the recent past.
This is discussed in detail in the sections below. See also C-14
Dating of Dinosaur Bone Collagen and
Blood and 'Ancient' DNA: 34
This prediction was
based upon the observed breakdown of DNA.
Before the existence of supposedly "ancient" organic material had been well publicized, it was predicted that
"no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years."
Not long after this prediction was made, very old DNA started turning up.
For example, at the Clarkia Fossil Beds, in Idaho, a green magnolia leaf
was discovered in strata that was said to
be 17 million years old.35
Because it was
so fresh-looking and even pliable, scientists decided to see if any DNA was
present. And to
their surprise they discovered that there was: and that it matched the
DNA of modern magnolia trees.
Since then, DNA claims have been made for supposedly older material such as
dinosaur bones,36,37 and insects in amber.38
It was said that the
reason the magnolia leaf was preserved was because it was buried in clay;
39 however, the 17 million year date is still doubtful.
say that DNA from the insects was preserved because they were entombed in amber.
However, a serious problem arises when we come to the
dinosaur bones; for these were not entombed in amber or clay,
but in sandstone.40,41
And because sandstone and bone are
both porous, this means that ground and rain water would be able to seep into the rocks, and thus into the bones as well. The fact that
the outer part of one of these bones was mineralized 42
gives strong evidence that
water -- and thus oxygen -- had access to the bones. The fact that the inside of the bones
are not mineralized is an indication that
they are young. The fact that the partially mineralized bone had
looked like red blood cells in it is a strong indication that it is young, probably less than 10,000 years old.43
When Mary Schweitzer first saw the bones under a microscope, she said:
"I got goose
bumps,"..."It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern
bone. But ... I (just) couldn't believe it. I said
to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that
This is good question indeed; however, the answer from the "scientific" establishment says even more.
For they refuse to consider the likely possibility
that the bones are (perhaps) as much as 64,995,000 years younger than what they have
told the public to believe.
Note: Although it was claimed that DNA was isolated in the dinosaur
bones from Montana and Utah,
it was so fragmented that the results have thus far not been replicated.45,46,47
laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of collagen and heme
and other organic protein molecules in the tyrannosaurus from Montana -- the
one with little round things that looked just like
Remember that the ancient DNA from the magnolia leaf discussed
above was supposed to last for a maximum of 10,000 years before decaying into inorganic matter.
Therefore, if the 17 million year old "date" is correct, then scientists were off by a factor of 1,700 in their
(observation-based) prediction with regard to the breakdown rate of DNA.
So much for using "science" when it seems to hint that something is amiss
with the evolution-based Geological Time Chart.
More recently, DNA has been extracted from two 30-million-year-old insects (a beetle and a bee) that were trapped in amber. In this case
they were off by a factor of 3,000 with regard to the observation-based prediction
of DNA preservation. However, the organic dinosaur remains present the greatest difficulty for the
"scientific" establishment to overcome. This is due to the alleged greater
age involved and because of the much greater exposure to the elements.
Because sandstone and bone are porous,50,51
and because the bones were partially mineralized,
it is virtually certain that water could (and did) get to
these bones. Because DNA only
lasts for about 10,000 years before it disintegrates, it is likely that no organic matter at all would survive much longer than 20,000 years. This means that the prediction with regard to how long organic matter can
survive was off by a factor of over 3,000 or that something is seriously
wrong with the evolution-based dating system and the geological time chart. Either the scientific
methods used to estimate the rate of breakdown of organic matter are grossly in error, or the great ages associated with these organic remains are off by a factor of over 3,000.
This, coupled with the fact that such unfossilized dinosaur bones can be
(and have been) dated by the Carbon 14 method, and yield dates between 10,000
and 50,000 years old, suggests that the great ages promoted by the evolution-believing establishment are in error. See also
scrambling continues and the Links below for more info.
However, even beyond this are the
purported 165 million-year-old Ammonites discussed below, with their organic ligaments
still intact, that were buried in mud, and the supposedly 300 million year old fossil wood
(impregnated with limestone) that still has its organic
woody structure intact.
Then there is the case of
preserved alive in salt crystals for a purported 250 million years.
Such anomalies strain the credibility of
supposedly objective "scientists" who are willing to bend and strain
the facts of science to promote the Story of how they think that life just might
have -- against all odds
-- arose on
earth without any intelligence behind it over millions and millions
of years. Even worse: they Demand that our children be taught such
things in school as if they were facts.
In a More
recent article, about: "what appears to (be) a soft tissue inside the bone, with what appears to be blood vessels and cells...
similar to a stretchy bone matrix", we are told that:
tissue... has revealed organic components that somewhat resemble cells and fine blood
vessels. The discovery was quite an unexpected one. The leader of the research team Mary Schweitzer had
routinely tried dissolving pieces of the bone to understand its mineral composition, when she found
something unusual: a transparent filament that closely resembled blood vessels. She even found
traces of what appear to be red blood cells, osteocytes (bone-building cells)." Emphasis Added
The article also stated that the "fossilized bone was dated back some 70 million years ago."
Mary also speculated that:
"It is possible that the outer parts of the leg fossilized while the vessels were
trapped within mineralized bone and remained intact all these millennia." Emphasis Added
Of course it is also "possible"
that the bones are
not 70 million years old, but rather only a few thousand. But such a
scenario, would eliminate any possibility of evolution playing anything other
than an extremely minor role in the Creation of life on Earth, while also pointing
in the direction of a Creator/God: something that
don't want discussed in public
classrooms. And so they continue to speculate about how the
just might have possibly occurred: a long, long time ago, in a land far away: while ignoring the
evidence that strongly suggests that such would simply not happen in trillions of years, even on a so-called
suitable planet that was covered with
and full of
Bubbles and lightning: unless an outside
upon and ordered it.
In other words, the belief that we are a byproduct of Nature is, for
all practical purposes, outside the realm of empirical (i.e. observable and
testable) science. Some of these dedicated believers in evolution also claim to believe in God, yet they don't think
that the Creator
should get much (if any) of the credit for the Creating, but instead Mother
people think that the
words "Creation" and "Creator" must never be mentioned in public classrooms, but rather only
such words that support their beliefs.
Is evolution based on science, or is it simply a secular religious philosophy
that masquerades as science? For those who want more details on this
topic, see Is Evolution
based on Science.
So much for keeping "religion" out of the classroom,
while at the same time displaying one's ignorance with regard to what the Founding Fathers
which was practiced for over 200 years in the
United States of America. But that was before the modern age of ignorance, political
correctness, and the mass media Agenda of coercing the public to believe in
things that are based more on wishful thinking than on empirical
and testable science. Some may say I am ranting but check
out the facts for yourself and make up your own mind, rather than simply
believing what our left-leaning media wants you to believe: i.e. that the
Creation doesn't even have a Creator, but simply blew itself into existence.
For more on why Dinosaurs and Man must have
lived together see: Evidence that Humans and
Dinosaurs Lived Together at the same Time.
Dinosaur Bones Millions of Years Old?, and "Oldest"
For facts on the complexity of Living organisms, see: How
Facts of Life.
Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones:
in the Journal of
Paleontology begins with the following statement:
"Hadrosaur bones have been found on the Colville River north of Umiat on the North Slope of Alaska."
What is perhaps most interesting about these "many thousands of bones" is that they
"lack any significant degree of permineralization."
In in other words they are not turned to stone. In fact, the people who discovered them
didn't report it for 20 years because they thought they were bison bones.
Because the bones were partially exposed in a "soft, brown, sandy
and because every year the snow melts and subjects
them to the elements for two to three months, these bones also call
in question the evolutionary-based ages of dinosaurs, and the
Geological Time Chart itself. See also 8 and 9A above.
For more on Dragons and Man living together at the same time see Unfossilized
See also this CBS
News story and USA
article for more on organic dinosaur remains.
165 Million Year Old Surprise:
In May of 1996 it was reported that ammonites in pristine condition have been found in
network' of mud springs on the edge of the 'market town' of Wootton Bassett, near Swindon, Wiltshire, England."
56 What is so interesting about these purportedly
165 million-year-old ammonites
"many still had shimmering mother-of-pearl shells ...
(and) they retain their original... aragonite [a mineral form of calcium carbonate] ... The
outsides also retain their iridescence ... And ... in the words of Dr. Hollingworth,
'There are shells
(that) ... still have their organic ligaments and yet they
are millions of years old.'!"
57,58 Emphasis Added
It is a fact that water is a component of mud. It is also a fact that oxygen is a component of water. Oxygen allows oxidation to take place. Oxidation causes things to break
down and water itself
likewise via hydrolysis.
These mud springs are further evidence that something is wrong with the current evolutionary scheme for dating
Axel Heiberg and
Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands are located in northern Canada, above the Arctic circle. The winters are so cold
there that the only "trees" able to grow are small shrubs less than a foot in height.59
However something very strange has been found on these islands that testifies to a very different
past: i.e. numerous large trees and tree stumps lying on, or buried just beneath the
How did they get there?
And more importantly, when did they get there?
It is claimed that the trees are leftover remnants of forests which inhabited this area 40-65 million years ago.
The scientific data suggests
otherwise. For instance, they are not petrified, 60,61,62 but
can be sawed and burned. In addition, pine cones, pine needles, and leaves are also preserved
in the sandy/silty soil. 60,61,62
Another clue to the puzzle is that the roots of these trees are missing.
60,61,62 This suggests that they didn't grow
here but were uprooted by a catastrophic
event and later re-deposited at different levels. This is exactly what has happened in Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens; however, the upright trees on the bottom of this lake are still under water.
At some time in the
future, they may be left standing upright -- looking as if they grew there.
In regard to this, Quiring, states :
"During the eruption many trees from the surrounding
hillsides were washed into the lake. Today, thousands of logs, protected within the monument,
float back and forth with the changing winds. As some of the trees sink, roots first,
upright on the lake floor to form a 'sunken forest.'"
In regard to the
preservation of the organic matter on Axel Heiberg Island, an online
article states the following:
"The Axel Heiberg fossils are largely preserved
as mummifications. Although usually compressed, the wood and other remains are
relatively unaltered chemically and biologically (Obst et al, 1991). Preservation of the fossils is exquisite, including leaf litter, cones, twigs, branches, boles,
roots, etc. Where these are not compressed, they are virtually
indistinguishable from equivalent tissues found in the forest floor of modern conifer forests ...
The reasons why preservation is exceptional and there is so little
mineralization remain obscure. Analysis of the organic remains indicate that they were
buried in a fresh-water environment (Goodarzi et al, 1991)." Emphasis Added
Although these trees are frozen for most of the year, each summer the snow
melts and for about three months the temperature reaches into the
70 degree Fahrenheit range.72 Such warm temperatures
should, under normal conditions, allow decomposition to take place.
One explanation for the remarkable degree of preservation is the suggestion
that these trees were "mummified" by being buried under significant
amounts of strata, and then, over time, this overlying strata was eroded.
This is perhaps possible, however, it is also possible that these
trees are not millions of years old, but rather only a few thousand. The fact that the roots of some of these upright trees are missing suggests that
they were uprooted by a catastrophe, and transported by water
to these islands (perhaps) in the not-too-distant past. Otherwise they would have decayed.
Similar trees from Siberia are only 7,000 years old.
For example, in "Cataclysms of the Earth,"
by Hugh Auchincloss Brown, on page 31, Mr. Brown makes the following comments:
"In certain areas of northern Siberia
innumerable tree trunks
called by the natives "Adam's wood" and said to be in all stages of decay are embedded in the solidly frozen tundra. Because they were once growing trees, of types which do not grow in that climate,
they confirm that a change in climate has taken place, such as would be caused by a careen of the globe.
They could have been broken by a hurricane or flood. If so, they will show a clean break on the side on which the breaking force was imposed and torn fibers on the lee side. A reexamination of the wood, to determine genera and species of the trees, will enable us to establish the latitude range or climate in which these trees grew." Emphasis Added
"A so called mammoth tree, with fruit and leaves still on it, was discovered and reported after a landslide of Siberian tundra. Such cold storage of fruit 7,000 years old
can only be explained by a sudden transportation of the fruit from a warm climate in which it grew to the cold storage climate in which it has been refrigerated. This specimen of fruit, with leaves, and many other specimens of leaves reported found in Siberia also confirm the careen of the globe."
Velikovski, in his book "Earth in Upheaval"
(1955) reported similarly preserved trees in the frozen tundra of Alaska.
See also Discovery
of 260 million year old fossil forest from Antarctica,
we find the following:
"The wood was most
interesting to me. In some cases branches were preserved, suggesting that the
wood had not been transported far by streams. We found an impression of a piece
of bark with a knot preserved clearly – not bad for about 250 million years
old! The stumps were not replaced by silica, and thus are not
“petrified,” but they have been freeze dried in a way that has preserved the
growth rings in some cases. On one tree, we counted 26 annual rings, and it
was probably older because not all the growth rings were preserved."
For more on these trees and other
(supposedly very old) material see:
Dating of "Fossil" Wood and Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones.
Reptile in the 'Cretaceous' Arctic,
by Michael Oard
Glacial Perspective -- Lessons of a 40
Million Year Old Forest, by Dr.
The Oldest Wood
in the World by Carla Helfferich
over turf in Arctic land that time forgot, by Ed Struzik
Carbon-14 in the
produced when radiation from the sun strikes Nitrogen-14 atoms in the earth's upper atmosphere. The earth's atmosphere is not yet saturated with C14. This means that the amount of C14 being
produced is greater than the amount that is decaying back to N14.
It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as
30,000 years. Thus, it appears that
the earth's atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old. In fact, the evidence suggests
it is less than 10,000 years old. 73, 74, 75
Some of these estimates
place the atmosphere's age at
and others at 100,000
but they each pose serious problems for old-earth (i.e. millions or billions of
years old) scenarios. See
20 below, and associated Links.
12. The Dead Sea:
The Dead Sea is in Israel. It
is receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content.
Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists
have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea.
From these it is possible to
estimate how long this process has been going on. Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level
at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is
only 13,000 year old.
76,77 For more on this subject,
Up until the recent past, when the top of
was reinforced with concrete, the water was carving a channel upriver toward Lake Erie at the rate of about
four to five feet per
year. Since the channel is now about seven miles long (35,000
feet), this means
that the age of Niagara Falls is between 7,000 and 8,750 years
old (or less). This, of course, assumes that the rate of erosion has been constant. The age of North America, is
likely the same.78,79,80
For more on this see the
following comments by Ian Juby.
Depending on which book one consults, historians claim that human history
goes back 4,600- 5,400 (or more) years; however, according to
Rainey, 1870 B.C. (plus or minus 6) is the "earliest actual recorded date in human history."
81,82,83 Also on this point, Sylvia Baker
Professor Libby as follows:
"Professor Libby learned this when he tried to verify
his Carbon-14 method. He said. 'The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was
when our advisers informed us that history extended back only 5,000 years...
You read statements in books that such and such a society or archeological
site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly (that)
these ... ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is at about the
time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the first historical date of any real
certainty has been established.'" 84
See also How
Far Back to the Records Go?
The San Andreas Fault:
The San Andreas Fault is one of
the most active faults in the North America. It runs into the Pacific Ocean at Tomales Bay, just east of Pt. Reyes, about 30 miles north of San Francisco.
It is said to move from 1/2
2 inches per year. 85 How long has it been moving for? The answer varies greatly. Some say it has moved for tens of miles, and others say perhaps hundreds. The
evidence is highly questionable.86 There are a few granite outcrops that hint that it may have moved 12,000 feet;87
however this too is
questionable since the origin of granite itself is uncertain. Some geologists believe most granites are igneous while others believe the majority are metamorphic. 88 If the granite referred to above is
of volcanic origin, then it could have come straight up from the ground.
One thing that appears certain is that there is much disagreement with regard to how long this fault has been active. Looking at a geology map of the
Pt. Reyes area,
note that there are a few features that suggest that the fault has not been moving very long. These are:
Sand Point, Tom's Point, and Lagunitas Creek. 89 The fault crosses each of these and yet none of them appear to be
offset at all. This evidence suggests that this fault is quite
young -- on the order of a few thousand years old. For more details, see
2 of this series on the subject of Continental Drift.
Eve's Mitochondrial DNA: 90
It is also different in that it is only passed on from the
or at least, so it was once thought; however that
is now very much in question, as is brought out in the Links below.
Mitochondrial DNA is different from
nucleus DNA in that it has "only 37 genes, compared to the estimated 100,000... in the cell's nucleus..."
In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman
(they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago.90,91,92
This story was widely reported in the press. A few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported.94 This means that Eve did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only
5,000-10,000. This greatly revised date is
very close to the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately for those who want the whole truth, this didn't make the headlines. See
Demise of Mitochondrial Eve" and Mapping
Discovering the Past Through our Genes.
the earth's population doubles every 50
years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start
with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population.
See Population Statistics
for more on this.
Minerals in the Oceans:
By measuring the amounts of various minerals that are present in the
oceans and calculating the amounts of each that are added each year by
river runoff, scientists can estimate how old the oceans are. When doing
so the great majority of minerals yield young ages for the earth's oceans --
many of which are less than 5,000
years old. 98
See also The
Sea's Missing Salt, 99 by Dr. Steve Austin.
Rapid Mountain Uplift:
In March of 2005, Dr. John
Baumgardner released his assessment of the "Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's
Mountains" in an
article. In it he discovered that:
enigma for the standard geological community is why all the high mountain
ranges of the world -- including the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the
Rockies -- experienced most of the uplift to their present elevations in what
amounts to a blink of an eye, relative to the standard geological time
scale. In terms of this time scale, these mountain ranges have all
undergone several kilometers of vertical uplift since the beginning of the
Pliocene about five million years ago. This presents a profound
difficulty for uniformitarian thinking because the driving forces responsible
for mountain building are assumed to have been operating steadily at roughly
the same slow rates as are observed in today's world for... the past several
hundred million years." 100
Carbon 14 from (supposedly)
Carbon 14 is found
in organic materials of all types, including diamonds, coal seams, carbonized
wood, unfossilized wood and dinosaur bones. In fact, that is the problem. In other words, Carbon 14 is found where it shouldn't
be -- if the earth were "billions of years" old.
Commenting on this in their extensive paper: "Measurable
14C In Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming The Young Earth
Creation-Flood Model," Dr's Baumgardner,
Humphreys, Snelling, and Austin stated in their Conclusion that:
"The careful investigations performed by scores of researchers in more than a dozen AMS facilities in several countries over the past twenty years to attempt to identify and eliminate sources of contamination in AMS
14C analyses have, as a by-product, served to establish beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of intrinsic
14C in remains of living organisms from all portions of the Phanerozoic record. Such samples, with ‘ages’ from 1-500 Ma
as determined by other radioisotope methods applied to their geological context, consistently display
14C levels that are far above the AMS machine threshold, reliably reproducible, and typically in the range of 0.1-0.5
pmc (percent modern carbon). But such levels of intrinsic
14C represent a momentous difficulty for uniformitarianism. A mere 250,000 years corresponds to 43.6 half-lives for
14C. One gram of modern carbon contains about 6 x 1010
14C atoms, and 43.6 half-lives worth of decay reduces that number by a factor of 7 x
1014. Not a single atom of 14C should remain in a carbon sample of this size after 250,000 years (not to mention one million or 50 million or 250 million years). A glaring (thousand-fold) inconsistency
that... exists between the AMS-determined 14C levels and the corresponding rock ages provided by 238U, 87Rb, and 40K techniques.
We believe the chief source for this inconsistency to be the uniformitarian assumption of time-invariant decay rates. Other research reported by our RATE group also supports this conclusion [7, 23, 42]. Regardless of the source of the inconsistency, the fact that
14C, with a half-life of only 5730 years, is readily detected throughout the Phanerozoic part of the geological record argues the half billion years of time uniformitarians assign to this portion of earth history is likely incorrect. The relatively narrow range of 14C/C ratios further suggests the Phanerozoic organisms may all have been contemporaries and that they perished simultaneously in the not so distant past. Finally, we note there are hints that
14C currently exists in carbon from environments sealed from biospheric interchange since very early in the earth history.
We therefore conclude the 14C
evidence provides significant support for a model of earth’s past involving a recent global Flood cataclysm and possibly also for a young age for the earth itself." 101 Emphasis Added
See also: Carbon-14 Dating Shows that the Earth is Young,
What about Carbon 14.
Ma = Million years ago.
pmc = percent modern carbon
Matter and Spiral Galaxies:
Although it isn't well
known, the galaxies themselves also provide strong evidence that the Universe itself is
less than ONE million years old. That's because almost all spiral
galaxies have Blue stars in them. And since Blue stars are so
bright, it is estimated that they can't be older than one million years.
Therefore, it seems likely that the galaxies themselves cannot be any older than
See: Blue Stars Confirm Recent
Creation, by Jason Lisle, Ph. D., (Acts &
Facts, Sept. 2012, p.16) for more details.
The structure of spiral galaxies themselves also tells us
that they cannot be any older than (a maximum of) about 200 million years old:
much less than the 13-14 billion years that old earth proponents claim.
This is because laws of physics dictate that spiral arms should lose their "structure," or
spiral arms, in only 4-5 turns, but for some reason they
don't. Perhaps this is because they are Young? See also What
Happened to all the Dark Matter?, 104 Exploding
Stars point to a Young Universe 105
Three of this series on the Age of the Earth.
Zircons are tiny volcanic crystals. They also are found to contain far
more helium and lead than they should -- if the earth were "billions of
years old." Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, and Snelling have written a paper on this subject as well, and in their summary they said that:
"We contracted with a high-precision laboratory to measure the rate of helium diffusion out of the
Here we report newer zircon diffusion data that extend to the lower temperatures
... of Gentry's retention data. The measured rates resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we made based on the reported retentions and a young age. Combining rates and retentions gives a helium diffusion age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This contradicts the uniformitarian age of 1.5 billion years based on nuclear decay products in the same zircons.
These data strongly support our hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago.
Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic "billions of years" down to the 6,000-year timescale of the Bible."
See also: Helium
Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay.
2001, 2004, 2005,
2006, 2012, 2013, Randy S. Berg;
Copies may be distributed freely for educational purposes only.
The Age of the Earth
Age of the Earth Debate
Big Bang Worldwide
Articles on the Age of the Earth:
Science Vs Evolution
Age of the Earth
Age of the Universe
Continental Drift Story
Evidence for a Young World
Geologic Evidences Page
For A Recent Creation
Scriptures and a Young Earth
the Earth Really 4.5 Billion Years Old?
Evaporites and Varves favor an Old Earth?
What You Probably Didn't Know About Ice Cores
Corals are so Old, then why do they Date so Young?
Young age of the Earth & Universe Questions & Answers
for a young Earth 2
Books on the age of the
Age of the Earth
Form, and Time
Great Turning Point
Its a Young World after all
Illustrated Origins Answer Book
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth
Creationist Web Sites
& DVD Video Links
Age of the Earth Links
Origin Archive on Creation
Age of the Earth Debate
Did Humans come
the Earth Created Instantly?
Days or Six Long
Dinosaurs Millions of Years Old?