Evidence For a Young World

Sometimes people ask me to show them some evidence that can only be interpreted to mean that the earth and the universe is about 6000 years old as the biblical chronologies suggest. Well, all evidence can be interpreted from both an old earth/universe perspective or from a young earth/universe perspective.  But to make some of that evidence fit into an old universe one may have to make some extreme assumptions. Nevertheless all evidence must be interpreted within an interpretive framework else we could never understand it. What evidence then is best interpreted with a young earth/universe worldview? That is the question. When we look into it we find that there are some lines of evidence that require additional assumptions to maintain a uniformitarian age of billions of years.

Earth outer core

Electrical resistance in the earth’s core wears down the electric current which produces the earth’s magnetic field. That causes the earth’s magnetic field to lose energy rapidly.

Recently I had the pleasure of spending some time with Dr D. Russell Humphreys as we toured around Israel and taught Messianic congregations about Genesis creation which includes all aspects from the creation of the universe to the global flood in Noah’s day. Russ gave a presentation on Evidence for a Young World.

Some of those evidences are:

  1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
  2. Too few supernova remnants.
  3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
  4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
  5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
  6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
  7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
  8. Biological material decays too fast.
  9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
  10. Too much helium in minerals.
  11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

The numbers for the ages listed (often millions of years) in his presentation are maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The ages required by evolutionary theory are often much greater than determined. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (about 6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Continue reading

What about those 100-million-year-old dinosaur fossils?

Evolutionary ‘science’ alleges the earth is about 4.6 billion years old and life started 3.8 billion years ago on the planet. It also alleges that life evolved from a single-celled ‘last common ancestor’ to all the diversity of life we see today. According to their story, the dinosaurs lived some 230 million years ago and died out about 63 million years ago. The claim is that the fossil evidence supports this evolutionary story, whereas the Bible tells a completely different story. Most of the fossils are then the result of sudden burial in all the sedimentary layers laid down by global flood waters about 4,500 years ago. Dr Jim Mason presents some compelling arguments to answer the title question. He looks at the so-called geological column, where the flood fits into that, evidence on the age of fossils, uniformitarian principles, sediments and varves, soft tissue, blood cells, and DNA in dinosaur bones, homology and transitional forms.

Lecture was given August 1st 2015. See Age and Reason Seminar Adelaide for details.

Recommended Viewing

See also other lectures given at the same seminar:

Doesn’t radiometric dating prove that the Earth is billions of years old?

So-called science alleges that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old.  The claim is that radiometric dating methods all support this age of the earth and the solar system and as a result the time line derived from the Bible, of only about 6000 years, must be wrong. Dr Jim Mason presents some compelling arguments to answer the title question. He covers radiometric dating techniques, including the one that most people are familiar with, carbon-14. He shows that the three primary assumptions in all those methods cannot be relied upon to be correct. Rocks of known age, by eye-witness accounts of their formation in the case of solidification of volcanic lava, are incorrectly dated by various radiometric decay chains. So, why would you trust the same methods to date rocks of unknown age?

Lecture was given August 1st 2015. See Age and Reason Seminar Adelaide for details.

Recommended Viewing

See also other lectures given at the same seminar:

Carbon-14 in diamonds not refuted

ID-100147896Old-earth creationist Kirk Bertsche has been critical of the RATE work on Carbon-14 dating diamonds, which indicate that they are not billions of years old, but less than 56,000 years (with evolutionary assumptions) and less than 7000 years old (with the correct biblical assumptions).  Kirk Bertsche writes,1

The ICR (Institute for Creation Research) recently spent eight years on a project known as RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The RATE team claims the results have yielded convincing and irrefutable scientific evidence of a young earth.

John Baumgardner, a geophysicist with expertise in tectonic modeling, presents experimental data claiming to show that all biological material contains intrinsic radiocarbon, no matter how old that material may be thought to be.2,3 He makes additional claims that even non-biological carbonaceous material contains intrinsic radiocarbon. He suggests that this radiocarbon is residual from the material’s creation. If true, his claims would have far-reaching implications for the ages of these materials.

Continue reading

8 Reasons Why Evolution is Foolish

monkey

1) Where did the Universe come from?

Man puts all his faith in cosmology to answer this fundamental question. But cosmology is not even science, it is just philosophy. This has meant that man has had to invent fudge factors to make his theories work, such as the totally-just-made-up stuff called Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Inflation. There isn’t a shred of any real laboratory evidence for any of them. Not any! They also claim the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation as the afterglow of the Big Bang, thus supposed to be coming from all directions. Yet it seems to be associated with the orbital plane of our solar system’s planets! But that makes no sense at all!

BB T

Continue reading