Days of Noah are Here!

The Age of the Earth - Chapter 3

The 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 empirical testable 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 of evolution.

Radiometric Dating

Many 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.

In examining 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 of years.

Examining a 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.

Assumptions Based on Evolutionary Bias

  1. 1. Initially there was only the parent element in the rock (daughter element was initially zero).
  2. 2. There was a closed system (ie. no parent or daughter element has leaked out or been added in ).
  3. 3. The decay rate of the parent element to the daughter element has remained constant (linear) over these supposed millions and billions of years.

The first assumption 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.

The second 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 third 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.

The creation 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 and 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 done.

For the 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.

Conclusions 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. Having 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 mantra would be in grave error.

Radio-Carbon Dating

Radio-Carbon 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.

Assumptions Based on Evolutionary Bias

  1. 1. The rate of formation of carbon 14 in the upper atmosphere has been constant.
  2. 2. The amount of carbon 14 entering the food chain has been constant.
  3. 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.

Now the 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, 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 diamond 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.

Conclusions on Radio-Carbon Dating

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 assumptions.
  7. 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 2 record 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.

Overall Conclusions

Dating techniques which use evolutionary assumptions can appear to give great ages but they are not true testable empirical 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 evolution needs. 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 contradicts this hypothetical creation.

 

Some Reference Material for the Age of the Earth

  1. 1. The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
  2. 2. A Scientific Analysis of Genesis by Edward F. Blick published by Hearthstone Publishing
    3.  
  3. 3. Creation's Tiny Mystery (Polonium Haloes) by Robert V. Gentry published by Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee
  4. 4. Thousands Not Billions by Dr. Donald DeYoung published by Master Books