The Age of the Earth
Creation account given in the Bible records the
age of the earth circa 4,000 B.C. or around 6,000 years ago. This account is
in major conflict with evolutionary theory. The evolutionary theory
absolutely requires millions of years to make its ideas seem even remotely
possible. In this chapter we will examine evolutionary dating methods and
assumptions to see if they are truly scientific. These age pronouncements
which we hear from the media and scientific establishment have become part
of politically correct dogma. It was said during the time
of Hitler's regime that if you repeat an idea or lie often enough it becomes
true in a society's mind. Examining the basis for these
"millions of years" pronouncements
will prove to be a revelation to the average reader.
How does an
evolutionary scientist know how old a dinosaur fossil is? He will go to his
geologic column chart, look up dinosaurs and tell you the fossil is anywhere
from 64 to 240 million years old. How does an evolutionary scientist know
how old a particular layer of sedimentary rock is? He would find out what
type of fossils are in the sediment. Suppose it was the "red beds of Great
Britain" which contain billions of fossil fish. He again goes to his
geologic column chart and looks up the age where fishes supposedly evolved.
His chart indicates that fishes evolved 350 to 400 million years ago in the
"Devonian Age". The sediments then are called Devonian with an age of 350 to
400 million years.
Have you begun
to see the lack of scientific basis for these pronouncements. You tell the
age of the sediments by the fossils you find in them and then you tell the
age of the fossils by the sediments they are found in. This is circular
reasoning based on one's belief in evolution and not true science at all. As
previously stated, evidence of man's existence throughout the supposed
geological column refutes this hypothetical time chart built on the theory
evolutionists have acknowledged that the geologic column is not true science
but will quickly add that radiometric dating techniques prove scientifically
that the earth is billions of years old. What is not revealed to the general
public is the assumptions based on evolutionary bias that are used in the
calculations. It is by no means a foolproof scientific formula which gives
the infallible answer out one end.
dating techniques you are looking at a physical process in which changes
occur over time. Determining the rate that a process changes over time and
quantifying the change can provide an apparent measurement of age.
Radiometric techniques use radioactive isotopes that decay from the parent
element into a daughter element. The rate of decay is called a half-life or
the time it takes for half of the parent element to decay into the daughter
element. Uranium which decays to lead has a very slow rate of change (long
half-life) which gives apparent ages in the hundreds of millions to billions
rock which contains uranium/lead products and adding evolutionary
assumptions can appear to prove the earth is old. Let's examine the
assumptions necessary to calculate these old ages.
Based on Evolutionary Bias
there was only the parent element in the rock (daughter element was
2. There was a
closed system (ie. no parent or daughter element has leaked out or been
added in ).
3. The decay
rate of the parent element to the daughter element has remained constant
(linear) over these supposed billions of years.
that the initial daughter element was zero is an evolutionary
assumption which the creation model would oppose. The internal design of the
earth with moderating elements in balance with radioactive elements would
lead to the assumption that parent and daughter elements were present in
appropriate quantities. In addition if there were accelerated decay rates
during the internal meltdown at the time of Noah's flood then this would have added additional
quantities of the daughter element to the mix. This would give an appearance
of increased age if the evolutionary assumption that the initial daughter
element was zero is used.
assumption about a closed system would also be rejected as valid. The
effects of a meltdown and worldwide flood would provide perfect conditions
for leaching or adding to the decay process elements.
Now when we
consider the assumption of a linear decay rate over billions of years we
find this to be the exact opposite of the creation model. In general decay
processes and rates tend to be exponential, very high then falling off
rapidly, then gradually slowing down as they approach zero. Radioactive
decay appears to be linear in our day. We may be observing the tail end of
nuclear decay as it approaches near zero. To extrapolate this rate into the
past as evolution does would create long ages which never really happened.
If we assume an exponential decay curve or accelerated episodes in the past
this would eliminate the old ages calculated. This would of course eliminate
the vast amounts of time which evolution requires.
model has radioactive material before the flood inside the earth functioning
in a designed manner. The internal meltdown of the earth drastically altered
this scenario expunging radioactive elements into the surface layers. The
creation model would assume either an exponential decay curve under these
circumstances or an episodic accelerated decay rate perhaps during creation
week and at the time of the flood. But do we have any evidence to which we
can point to support higher decay rates in the past. I believe we do. The
Institute for Creation Research has been studying this area as it really
represents the last Icon of Evolution. For the layman they have published
the results of their research in a book called “Thousands Not Billions” by
Dr. Donald DeYoung. In their research granites which contained Zircon
crystals and a type of Mica called Biotite were studied. These granites
contained the decay products of uranium to lead and in this study yielded an
unexpected result. The granites based on evolutionary long decay rates were
aged at 1.5 billion years. Now what is interesting is that as uranium decays
through 8 stages to lead emitting an alpha particle each time a by product
of that process is Helium. Now Helium atoms are chemically inert and very
slippery. In other wards they diffuse out of rock rapidly, in the thousands
of years. Now if these granites were really millions of year old there
should be no Helium atoms left, it would have all diffused out long ago. But
when measurements for Helium were taken significant amounts were still
present. Based on the amount of Helium still present and diffusion rates the
granites were aged at only 6,000 years plus or minus 2,000 years. I believe
the ICR scientists have adequately answered questions concerning pressure
and possible contamination so their data stands. How can this data be
reconciled then? Well, it supports the creation model assumption that there
were higher decay rates or accelerated decay rates in the past. Only
accelerated decay rates perhaps during creation week and at the time of
Noah’s flood could account for the Helium still being present in the Zircons
and the Biotite. Of course we still have not solved the heat problem related
to accelerated decay. This is a valid problem and deserves further research
and thought. If a large portion of decay took place during creation week,
the Creator himself may have dealt with the heat
generation in a unique way which he would have to reveal. If another portion
of nuclear decay took place during the internal meltdown of the earth,
waters encased inside the earth would have absorbed a large amount of heat
and then brought it to the surface to create the larger and hotter oceans
after the flood. In addition heat has been retained
inside the earth as molten rock. Another area to research would be what is called “the
strong nuclear force”. The strong nuclear force is the binding energy which
holds a uranium nucleus together. It is very powerful over a very short
distance ie the diameter of the nucleus. Outside of this distance it exerts
very little force. An alpha particle has to escape the strong nuclear force.
At present we do not adequately understand this force. What may have
happened is that there was a reduction of the strong nuclear force in the
past which allowed accelerated escape of alpha particles and therefore
higher decay rates over a short amount of time. Further research needs to be
present we can say that the presence of Helium provides compelling evidence
supporting accelerated nuclear decay rates in the past and further research
needs to be done on the areas of heat dissipation, accelerated decay with lower
heat produced and the strong nuclear force.
on Radiometric Dating
If you date a
uranium/lead rock by these three evolutionary assumptions your calculation
"appears" to give a great age. But if you apply more reasonable creation
model assumptions combined with the new evidence on the presence of Helium
to the same rock your calculations give a very young age for the earth.
examined the assumptions used in radiometric dating techniques it can be
seen that dates derived by these methods are not truly
scientific but built on the
belief in evolution and use the famous evolutionary mantra “the present is
key to the past”. In other words present processes have always been in play
and we can extrapolate them into the distant past. In light of the eye
witness account of Genesis and the evidence presented
this principle would be in grave error.
or Carbon 14 dating is a popular method used to date organic or previously
living material. Contrary to popular understanding this method only dates
material in the range of 30 to 40 thousand years. It is based on the decay
of the carbon 14 isotope to ordinary carbon with a half-life of 5,760 years.
Cosmic radiation entering the earth's atmosphere combines with nitrogen to
form the radioactive isotope carbon 14.
Some of these
carbon 14 atoms are combined with oxygen to form carbon dioxide which then
enters the food chain through plants, then animals. Every living thing will
have a portion of carbon 14 atoms and ordinary carbon atoms. As long as the
specimen is living a certain balance of radioactive carbon to ordinary
carbon is maintained. However once the specimen dies it no longer has the
intake of carbon 14 atoms. The remaining carbon 14 atoms decay back to
nitrogen. By measuring the amount of remaining carbon 14 in the specimen one
can supposedly arrive at its age or death.
Again we have
a significant age difference for organic matter, up to 40,000 years, as
compared to Biblical chronology of less than 6,000 years. Not surprising we
must again look at the evolutionary based assumptions used with this method.
Based on Evolutionary Bias
1. The rate of
formation of carbon 14 in the upper atmosphere has been constant.
2. The amount
of carbon 14 entering the food chain has been constant.
3. The rate of
decay from carbon 14 to ordinary carbon has been constant.
As we look at
these assumptions based on the creation model we can logically and
reasonably adjust these older dates to fall within Biblical chronology. In
the first assumption a pre-flood solid canopy and stronger magnetic field
would reduce the formation of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. This would
contrast with the post-flood conditions of a clear sky, weaker magnetic
field and larger oceans. The post-flood conditions would provide for a
greatly increased rate of formation of carbon 14. This leads to the second
assumption about the amount of carbon 14 living organisms would absorb.
Specimens living before the flood would have a much lower ratio of carbon 14
to ordinary carbon than those which lived after the flood. The assumption
that the decay rate has remained constant in view of the internal meltdown
of the earth and the worldwide flood is highly questionable. An exponential
decay curve or accelerated decay episodes would
further reduce carbon 14 dates considerably.
Can we present
some hard evidence that C14 actually supports a young age for the earth in
the order of 6,000 years? I believe we can. The same research done on the
presence of Helium in granites was also done on the presence of C14 in
fossil material throughout the sedimentary layers. This is also part of the
“Thousands Not Billions” book. Now once a living plant or animal dies and is
buried in sedimentary layers in the earth it no longer takes in C14 but
begins to lose C14 until it all has decayed away. If the layers are in the
millions of years old you would expect to find no C14 left in fossil
material. It would have all decayed away by now barring of course some
outside source which would continually bring in C14 to replace the decayed
amounts over millions of years. The likelihood of this
happening would be remote. The evolutionary scale for the layers
containing fossils and coal is in the order of 570 million years. The
Geologic time scale from older to younger is Paleozoic – the Age of
Amphibians ( subsections Cambrian 570 M.Y., Ordivician 500 M.Y., Silurian
435 M.Y., Devonian 395 M.Y., Mississippian 345 M.Y., Pennsylvanian 318 M.Y.,
Permian 280 M.Y.) to Mesozoic – the Age of Reptiles (subsections Triassic
225 M.Y., Jurassic 192.5 M.Y., Cretaceous 136 M.Y.) and Cenozoic – the Age
of Mammals (Tertiary 65 M.Y., Quaternary 1.8 M.Y.). So, for fossil bearing
layers evolution says that these layers represent 570 million years of time.
current method of C14 measurement is done by a process called “accelerated
mass spectrometry”. The AMS technique is highly sensitive and accurate and
actually counts any C14 atoms present in the fossil material. In this study
they tested the presence of C14 in various layers of coal. Now both models
of past earth history recognize coal as the former remains of trees and
plant material. Ten layers of coal were tested for C14 ranging in alleged
evolutionary ages of 300 million years to 34 million years of age. Across
the 10 layers consistent levels of C14 were detected. The level of the layer
did not seem to matter. They all exhibited relatively uniform quantities of
C14. What conclusions can we draw from this? We can draw the conclusion that
all these layers were laid down at the same time and all these layers are
only thousands of years old not millions. Therefore all these
layers holding coal as well as the other layers holding
fish, dinosaurs and mammals lived at the same time and were buried at the same
time in the deluge of Noah. This research fits with the creation model very
well. One possible source of contamination was considered, the continual
influx of C14 by subsurface water. This was discounted by the need for continual
C14 replacement for millions of years which was deemed
unlikely. The other was the relatively uniform
levels of C14 in all layers when compared to the variety of depths, layers
and porosity in which the coal resided and in the layers between the coal.
If significant subsurface water contamination had
happened it should have produced a great variety of C14 levels but
as test results showed the amount of C14 was relatively
uniform throughout the layers of coal. Therefore subsurface water was
discounted as a major source of outside contamination.
To add more
strong evidence of a young age for earth materials
diamonds which are composed of crystalline carbon
were measured for detectable levels of C14. Now diamonds are formed within
the earth in molten materials and extruded into the upper sediments
or surface and as the molten material cools it forms what they call a
“kimberlite pipe”. Diamonds according to evolutionary theory are thought to
be millions if not billions of years old. According to
the Creation model they were formed at the time of Noah's flood during the
internal meltdown of the earth. Diamonds are also some of the hardest
materials on earth and are thought to be extremely resistant to any type of
contamination. If diamonds are really of great age there should be no
detectable amounts of C14. But again in the samples tested C14 was detected
indicating at face value that diamonds are in the thousands of years of age
not millions or billions. Again supporting the creation model of earth
history and calling into question the evolutionary model for earth history.
The Carbon 14
dating method used on pre-flood and early post-flood materials based on
"current" conditions and rates would be dated too old. Pre-flood and early
post-flood specimens would have much lower carbon 14 absorption cycles
therefore giving an appearance of age older than six thousand years.
Therefore we can again conclude that carbon 14 dates combined with
evolutionary assumptions are not valid scientific proof of the earth even
being 40,000 years old. Assumptions taking into account the creation model
would bring carbon 14 dates within the Biblical chronology. In addition new
evidence on the C14 content of coal and diamonds support a young age for the
fossil bearing layers and non-fossil bearing rocks in the earth.
Scientific Evidences for a Young Earth
There are a great number of physical processes that can be measured
even with evolutionary assumptions which give a young age for the earth. These are
generally not promoted due to evolutions need for vast amounts of time. To date there have
been 70-80 processes identified which calculate an age for the earth from a few thousand
years to 500 million years. This is very young compared to evolutions need for 4 to 6
billion years. The creation account would not give any validity to these calculated ages
but it does show that there are many more processes that indicate a relatively young age.
The following examples can be given.
1. Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field
Dr. Thomas Barnes has studied the decay pattern of the earth's
magnetic field since it was first measured in 1835. The decay pattern fits an exponential
curve. The half-life has been calculated at around 1,400 years. Extrapolating back in time
the earth's magnetic field would have been equal to that of a magnetic star in only 10,000
years. Life could not have existed on the earth with such a strong magnetic field. The
conclusion is reasonable that life has existed on earth less than 10,000 years.
2. Amount of Helium 4 in the Atmosphere
Dr. Melvin Cook has studied the helium 4 content in the earth's
atmosphere. Helium 4 apparently enters the atmosphere from the solar wind and the
radioactive decay of uranium rock. Calculations of the rate of helium entering the
atmosphere offset by a negligible amount escaping give an age of around 10,000 years.
3. Influx of Chemicals to the Oceans by Rivers
How long would it take at present rates of chemical influx to
obtain the oceans current chemical content. Calculations of the rates of over 30 chemicals
entering the oceans per year have given a median age of around 100,000 years. This of
course has the evolutionary assumption that the oceans started with zero chemical content.
4. Oil and Gas Deposits
Dr. Melvin Cook has studied oil and gas well pressures and the
permeability of their surrounding formations. The abnormally high pressures found in wells
indicate that they are of recent formation in the order of thousands of years ago.
Calculations of fluid flow through porous rock and sediment indicate that pressures would
have dissipated in only thousands of years. Of course if the reservoirs are young the
sediments which contain them are also of recent origin. Again consistent with the creation
model but in direct opposition to evolution.
5. Population Statistics
Human population statistics indicate that growth tends to be
geometric with time. Dr. Henry Morris has provided the following statistical information
in his book "The Genesis Flood". From an estimated population base of 300
million in 700 A.D. it took 950 years to 1650 A.D. for population to double. In only 200
years from 1650 to 1850 it doubled again to 1.2 billion. From 1850 to 1950 in only 100
years it doubled again to 2.4 billion. As population continues to grow we will be adding 1
billion people every 15 - 20 years.
How long did it take to get to our present population if you started
with two people? Extrapolating back in time with conservative birth rates, length of
generations, lifespans, and death rate factors you could arrive at our present population
in around 4,300 years. Again consistent with Noah and his family re-populating the earth
around 4,300 years ago. Calculations based on the evolutionary idea that man arrived 1
million years ago leads to population numbers of such magnitude that they defy logic.
6. Top Soil
The soil which sustains life averages seven to eight inches all
over the earth. It has been estimated that it took six to twenty five thousand years to
accumulate the top soil. This would imply that life could only have existed in a
continuous form within this time period. Again the calculation uses evolutionary
7. Polonium Haloes
Dr. Robert V. Gentry, a physicist, formerly with the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory has done extensive work on radioactive haloes found in the basement
granites of the earth's crust. Radiohaloes are formed in the granite as part of the
radioactive decay process. When radioactive elements in the granite decay they give off a
energy particle that travels a certain distance through the rock leaving a circular halo.
Normally Polonium is a intermediate radioactive element in the chain of uranium decaying
to lead. However Polonium haloes were found present in the basement granites which had no
uranium associated with them. The astounding part is that polonium has a half-life which
is at most minutes to seconds. This means that in order for the granites to 2record the
polonium haloes they had to be solidified in a matter of minutes to seconds. It is
comparable to finding a "BB" shot frozen in the center of an ice cube. The water
had to be frozen instantly in order to have the "BB" shot in the middle of the
ice cube. Again the evidence for rapid formation of granites supports the creation
account. The evolutionary idea of the earth cooling down over billions of years to form
the granite basement rocks is not supported by the physical evidence.
Dating techniques which use evolutionary assumptions can appear to
give great ages but they are not true science. The assumptions alone give the calculation
its final result. Even using evolutionary assumptions the vast majority of physical
processes give a relatively young age for the earth compared to the amount of time
The geologic column has no scientifically provable basis at all. The
whole column was invented in the middle 1800's and is built solely on the belief in
evolution. The physical evidence clearly refutes this hypothetical creation.
Some Reference Material for the Age of the Earth
1. The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris
published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
2. A Scientific Analysis of Genesis by Edward F. Blick
published by Hearthstone Publishing
WATS line 1-800-652-1144
3. Creation's Tiny Mystery (Polonium Haloes) by Robert V. Gentry
published by Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee
4. Thousands Not Billions by Dr. Don DeYoung
published by Master Books