|
Post by Charity on Jun 16, 2005 10:59:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Jun 16, 2005 11:03:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Jun 16, 2005 11:05:08 GMT -5
Evidence for a Young World by Russell Humphreys Here are a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers I list below in bold print (often millions of years) are maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 to 10,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale.
Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with an old universe only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a young universe. The list starts with distant astronomic phenomena and works its way down to Earth, ending with everyday facts.
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Jun 16, 2005 11:05:59 GMT -5
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1
Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.
For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’.1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51.2
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years.3
Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical ‘Oort cloud’ well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.4 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.
Lately, there has been much talk of the ‘Kuiper Belt’, a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. [For more information, see the detailed technical article Comets and the Age of the Solar System.]
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.5 This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e., mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters.6
The main way known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. 6 As far as anyone knows, the other 24 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.
Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged 3 billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.
4. Not enough sodium in the sea Every year, river7 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.8,9 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates.9 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.9 Calculations10 for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean. [See also Salty seas: Evidence for a young Earth.]
5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast The total energy stored in the Earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years.11 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.
A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.12 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.13 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.14 [See also The Earth’s magnetic field: Evidence that the Earth is young.]
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Jun 16, 2005 11:06:23 GMT -5
6. Many strata are too tightly bent In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.15
7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’ Strong geologic evidence16 exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone — formed an alleged 500 million years ago — of the Ute Pass fault west of Colorado Springs was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time scale.
8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.17 ‘Squashed’ Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.18 ‘Orphan’ Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.19,20
9. Helium in the wrong places All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth’s atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in 5 billion years.21 This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.22 [See also Blowing Old-Earth Belief Away: Helium gives evidence that the Earth is young.]
10. Not enough stone age skeletons Evolutionary anthropologists say that the stone age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts.23 By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies.24 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the stone age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.
11. Agriculture is too recent The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the stone age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.23 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the 4 billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the flood, if at all.24
12. History is too short According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.25 Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.24
References Scheffler, H. and H. Elsasser, Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352–353, 401–413.
D. Zaritsky et al., Nature, July 22, 1993. Sky & Telescope, December 1993, p. 10.
Steidl, P.F., ‘Planets, comets, and asteroids’, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73–106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983) 5093 Williamsport Dr., Norcross, GA 30092.
Whipple, F.L., "Background of modern comet theory," Nature 263 (2 Sept 1976) 15.
Gordeyev, V.V. et al., ‘The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world’s rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams’, Dockl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980) 150.
Hay, W.W., et al., ‘Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction’, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No B12 (10 December 1988) 14,933–14,940.
Maybeck, M., ‘Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans’, Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979) 215.
Sayles, F.L. and P.C. Mangelsdorf, ‘Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater’, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979) 767.
Austin, S.A. and D.R. Humphreys, ‘The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists’, Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991) in press. Address, ref. 12.
Austin, S.A., ‘Evolution: the oceans say no!’ ICR Impact No. 8 (Oct. 1973) Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 21.
Merrill, R.T. and M. W. McElhinney, The Earth’s Magnetic Field , Academic Press (1983) London, pp. 101–106.
Humphreys, D.R., ‘Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis flood’, Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism (Aug. 1986, Pittsburgh) Creation Science Fellowship (1987) 362 Ashland Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15228, Vol. II, pp. 113–126.
Coe, R.S., M. Prévot, and P. Camps, ‘New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal’, Nature 374 (20 April 1995) pp. 687–92.
Humphreys, D.R., ‘Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the flood’, Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991) (ref. 12).
Austin, S.A. and J.D. Morris, ‘Tight folds and clastic d**es as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences’, Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986) pp.3–15. Address in ref. 12.
ibid., pp. 11–12.
Gentry, R.V., ‘Radioactive halos’, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) 347–362.
Gentry, R.V. et al., ‘Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification’, Science 194 (15 Oct. 1976) 315–318.
Gentry, R. V., ‘Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological perspective’, Science 184 (5 Apr. 1974) 62–66.
Gentry, R. V., Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates (1986) P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067, pp. 23–37, 51–59, 61–62.
Vardiman, L.The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research (1990) P.O.Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.
Gentry, R. V. et al., ‘Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management’, Geophys. Res. Lett. 9 (Oct. 1982) 1129–1130. See also ref. 20, pp. 169–170.
Deevey, E.S., ‘The human population’, Scientific American 203 (Sept. 1960) 194–204.
Marshak, A., ‘Exploring the mind of Ice Age man’, Nat. Geog. 147 (Jan. 1975) 64–89.
Dritt, J. O., ‘Man’s earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the evolutionary timetable’, Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creat., Vol. I., Creation Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 73–78. Address, ref. 12.
This article originally published by:
Dr Russell Humphreys Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, Inc. P.O. Box 10550 Albuquerque, NM 87184
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Jun 16, 2005 11:07:36 GMT -5
How old is the earth? by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M. First published in Refuting Evolution Chapter 8 For particles-to-people evolution to have occurred, the earth would need to be billions of years old. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science presents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36–37: man’s existence is in such a tiny segment at the end of a 5-billion-year time-line that it has to be diagrammatically magnified twice to show up. On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end. If we took the same 15-inch (39 cm) time-line as does Teaching about Evolution to represent the biblical history of the earth, man would be about 1/1000th of a mm away from the beginning! Also, Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6), which would make sense with the proposed biblical time-line, but is diametrically opposed to the Teaching about Evolution time-line. This chapter analyzes rock formation and dating methods in terms of what these two competing models would predict. The rocks The vast thicknesses of sedimentary rocks around the world are commonly used as evidence for vast age. First, Teaching about Evolution gives a useful definition on page 33: Sedimentary rocks are formed when solid materials carried by wind and water accumulate in layers and then are compressed by overlying deposits. Sedimentary rocks sometimes contain fossils formed from the parts of organisms deposited along with other solid materials. The ‘deep time’ indoctrination comes with the statement ‘often reaching great thicknesses over long periods of time.’ However, this goes beyond the evidence. Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods. We have already discussed how different biases can result in different interpretations of the same data, in this case the rock layers. It is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one, to prefer the former interpretation. Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. If so, then the rock layers must have formed over vast ages. The philosophy that processes have always occurred at roughly constant rates (‘the present is the key to the past’) is often called uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism was defined this way in my own university geology class in 1983, and was contrasted with catastrophism. But more recently, the word ‘uniformitarianism’ has been applied in other contexts to mean also constancy of natural laws, sometimes called ‘methodological uniformitarianism,’ as opposed to what some have called ‘substantive uniformitarianism.’ It should also be pointed out that uniformitarian geologists have long allowed for the occasional (localized) catastrophic event. However, modern historical geology grew out of this general ‘slow and gradual’ principle, which is still the predominantly preferred framework of explanation for any geological formation. Nevertheless, the evidence for catastrophic formation is so pervasive that there is a growing body of neo-catastrophists. But because of their naturalistic bias, they prefer, of course, to reject the explanation of the Genesis (global) flood. However, a cataclysmic globe-covering (and fossil-forming) flood would have eroded huge quantities of sediment, and deposited them elsewhere. Many organisms would have been buried very quickly and fossilized. Also, recent catastrophes show that violent events like the flood described in Genesis could form many rock layers very quickly. The Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington state produced 25 feet (7.6 meters) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!1 And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit 3 to 4 feet (about 1 meter) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field.2 Sedimentation experiments by the creationist Guy Berthault, sometimes working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers can form by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles.3 In one of Berthault’s experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together.4 The journal Nature reported similar experiments by evolutionists a decade after Berthault’s first experiments.5 So when we start from the bias that the Bible is God’s Word and is thus true, we can derive reasonable interpretations of the data. Not that every problem has been solved, but many of them have been. Conversely, how does the ‘slow and gradual’ explanation fare? Think how long dead organisms normally last. Scavengers and rotting normally remove all traces within weeks. Dead jellyfish normally melt away in days. Yet Teaching about Evolution has a photo of a fossil jellyfish on page 36. It clearly couldn’t have been buried slowly, but must have been buried quickly by sediments carried by water. This water would also have contained dissolved minerals, which would have caused the sediments to have been cemented together, and so hardened quickly. The booklet Stones and Bones6 shows other fossils that must have formed rapidly. One is a 7-foot (2m) long ichthyosaur (extinct fish-shaped marine reptile) fossilized while giving birth. Another is a fish fossilized in the middle of its lunch. And there is a vertical tree trunk that penetrates several rock layers (hence the term polystrate fossil). If the upper sedimentary layers really took millions or even hundreds of years to form, then the top of the tree trunk would have rotted away. Ironically, NASA scientists accept that there have been ‘catastrophic floods’ on Mars7 that carved out canyons8 although no liquid water is present today. But they deny that a global flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) if it were completely uniform, and even now covers 71 percent of the earth’s surface! If it weren’t for the fact that the Bible teaches it, they probably wouldn’t have any problem with a global flood on earth. This demonstrates again how the biases of scientists affect their interpretation of the evidence. www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Jun 16, 2005 11:08:42 GMT -5
Radiometric dating As shown above, the evidence from the geological record is consistent with catastrophes, and there are many features that are hard to explain by slow and gradual processes. However, evolutionists point to dating methods that allegedly support deep time. The best known is radiometric dating. This is accurately described on page 35 of Teaching about Evolution: Some elements, such as uranium, undergo radioactive decay to produce other elements. By measuring the quantities of radioactive elements and the elements into which they decay in rocks, geologists can determine how much time has elapsed since the rock has cooled from an initially molten state. However, the deep time ‘determination’ is an interpretation; the actual scientific data are isotope ratios. Each chemical element usually has several different forms, or isotopes, which have different masses. There are other possible interpretations, depending on the assumptions. This can be illustrated with an hourglass. When it is up-ended, sand flows from the top container to the bottom one at a rate that can be measured. If we observe an hourglass with the sand still flowing, we can determine how long ago it was up-ended from the quantities of sand in both containers and the flow rate. Or can we? First, we must assume three things: We know the quantities of sand in both containers at the start. Normally, an hourglass is up-ended when the top container is empty. But if this were not so, then it would take less time for the sand to fill the new bottom container to a particular level. The rate has stayed constant. For example, if the sand had become damp recently, it would flow more slowly now than in the past. If the flow were greater in the past, it would take less time for the sand to reach a certain level than it would if the sand had always flowed at the present rate. The system has remained closed. That is, no sand has been added or removed from either container. However, suppose that, without your knowledge, sand had been added to the bottom container, or removed from the top container. Then if you calculated the time since the last up-ending by measuring the sand in both containers, it would be longer than the actual time.
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Jun 16, 2005 11:10:26 GMT -5
Teaching about Evolution addresses assumption 2:
For example, it requires that the rate of radioactive decay is constant over time and is not influenced by such factors as temperature and pressure—conclusions supported by extensive research in physics.
It is true that in today’s world, radioactive decay rates seem constant, and are unaffected by heat or pressure. However, we have tested decay rates for only about 100 years, so we can’t be sure that they were constant over the alleged billions of years. Nuclear physicist Dr Russell Humphreys suggests that decay rates were faster during creation week, and have remained constant since then. There is some basis for this, for example radiohalo analysis, but it is still tentative.
Teaching about Evolution also addresses assumption 3:
It also assumes that the rocks being analyzed have not been altered over time by migration of atoms in or out of the rocks, which requires detailed information from both the geologic and chemical sciences.
This is a huge assumption. Potassium and uranium, both common parent elements, are easily dissolved in water, so could be leached out of rocks. Argon, produced by decay from potassium, is a gas, so moves quite readily.
Anomalies There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.9 Another example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The ‘dates’ ranged from < 0.27 to 3.5 million years—but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975!
What happened was that excess radiogenic argon (40Ar*) from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature also lists many examples of excess 40Ar* causing ‘dates’ of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape.10
If excess 40Ar* can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?
Another problem is the conflicting dates between different methods. If two methods disagree, then at least one of them must be wrong. For example, in Australia, some wood was buried by a basalt lava flow, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by the K-Ar method at c. 45 million years old!11 Other fossil wood from Upper Permian rock layers has been found with 14C still present. Detectable 14C would have all disintegrated if the wood were really older than 50,000 years, let alone the 250 million years that evolutionists assign to these Upper Permian rock layers.12
According to the Bible’s chronology, great age cannot be the true cause of the observed isotope ratios. Anomalies like the above are good supporting evidence, but we are not yet sure of the true cause in all cases. A group of creationist Ph.D. geologists and physicists from Answers in Genesis, the Creation Research Society, and the Institute for Creation Research are currently working on this topic. Their aim is to find out the precise geochemical and/or geophysical causes of the observed isotope ratios.13 One promising lead is questioning Assumption 1—the initial conditions are not what the evolutionists think, but are affected, for example, by the chemistry of the rock that melted to form the magma.
Evidence for a young world Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.14
The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.15
Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.16
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.17
The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1-1/2 inches (4cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).18
Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.19
A number of other processes inconsistent with billions of years are given in the AiG pamphlet Evidence for a Young World, by Dr Russell Humphreys.
Creationists admit that they can’t prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admits: ‘Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964–68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.’20 Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present processes to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age-dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.
Creationists ultimately date the earth using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which can be shown to be consistent with much data.
Addendum: John Woodmorappe has just published a detailed study demonstrating the fallacy of radiometric ‘dating,’ including the ‘high-tech’ isochron method: The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999).
References and notes S.A. Austin, Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, 1:3–9, ed. R.E. Walsh, R.S. Crowell, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1986; for a simplified article, see K. Ham, I got excited at Mount St Helens! Creation 15(3):14–19, June–August 1993. Don Batten, Sandy stripes, Creation 19(1):39–40, December 1996–February 1997. P. Julien, Y. Lan, and G. Berthault, Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures, TJ 8(1):37–50, 1994. G. Berthault, Experiments on Lamination of Sediments, TJ 3:25–29, 1988. H.A. Makse, S. Havlin, P.R. King, and H.E. Stanley, Spontaneous Stratification in Granular Mixtures, Nature 386(6623):379–382, 27 March 1997. See also A. Snelling, Nature Finally Catches Up, TJ 11(2):125–6, 1997. Carl Wieland, Stones and Bones, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 1994). R.A. Kerr, Pathfinder Tells a Geologic Tale with One Starring Role, Science 279(5348):175, 9 January 1998. O. Morton, Flatlands, New Scientist 159(2143):36–39, 18 July 1998. S.A. Austin, Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano, TJ 10(3):335–343, 1986. A.A. Snelling, The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating,’ Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, ed. E. Walsh, 1998, p. 503–525. This document lists many examples. For example, six were reported by D. Krummenacher, Isotopic Composition of Argon in Modern Surface Rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 8:109–117, 1970; five were reported by G.B. Dalrymple, 40Ar/36Ar Analysis of Historic Lava Flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6:47–55, 1969. Also, a large excess was reported in D.E. Fisher, Excess Rare Gases in a Subaerial Basalt from Nigeria, Nature 232:60–61, 1970. A.A. Snelling, Radiometric dating in conflict, Creation 20(1):24–27, December 1997–February 1998. A.A. Snelling, Stumping old-age dogma, Creation 20(4):48–50, September–November 1998. Acts and Facts, Institute for Creation Research, 27(7), July 1998. C. Wieland, Sensational dinosaur blood report! Creation 19(4):42–43, September–November 1997; based on research by M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June 1997, p. 55–57. D.R. Humphreys, Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field During the Genesis Flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 2 (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986), p. 113–126; J.D. Sarfati, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, Creation 20(2):15–19, March–May 1998. L. Vardiman, The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990); J.D. Sarfati, Blowing old-earth belief away: helium gives evidence that the earth is young, Creation 20(3):19–21, June–August 1998. K. Davies, Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.E. Walsh, 1994, p. 175–184; J.D. Sarfati, Exploding stars point to a young universe, Creation 19(3):46–49, June–August 1998. D. DeYoung, The Earth-Moon System, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. 2, ed. R.E. Walsh and C.L Brooks, 1990, 79–84; J.D. Sarfati, The moon: the light that rules the night, Creation 20(4):36–39, September–November 1998. S.A. Austin and D.R. Humphreys, The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, 1990, 17–33; J.D. Sarfati, Salty seas: evidence for a young earth, Creation 21(1):16–17, December 1998–February 1999. Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, A Review by Dr Will B. Provine, cited on 18 February 1999. Available online from <fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/NAS_guidebook/provine_1.html>.
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Jun 16, 2005 11:12:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Jun 16, 2005 11:14:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Jun 16, 2005 11:16:01 GMT -5
Scientific Evidence Disproves Evolution Theory Facts prove Universe is about 6,000 years old, not billions of years old. by Dr. Kent Hovind, PhD. Let's imagine we are exploring an old gold mine, and we find a Casio Databank watch half buried in the mud on the floor of the mine. Suppose also that the correct time and date are displayed on the watch, and it is still running smoothly. Then imagine that I tell you the watch has been there for over 1,000 years. "That's impossible!" you say. "That watch could not have been there for 1,000 years, and I can prove it!" "How can you prove I'm wrong?" I say. "Well, for one thing, this mine was just dug 150 years ago," you say. "Okay," I admit, "you're right about the thousand years being too much, but the watch has been here for 150 years at least!" "No!" you say. "Casio didn't make the Databank watch until 12 years ago." "All right," I say. "The watch was dropped here 12 years ago then." "Impossible!" you say. "The batteries only last five years on that watch, and it's still running. That proves it has been here less than five years." While we still can't prove exactly when the watch was left there, you have logically limited the date to five years at the most. You have effectively proven that my initial statement about the watch being 1,000 years old is wrong. The larger numbers prove nothing in this debate. Even if I were to radiometric-date the mud or the plastic in the watch to try to prove that it is thousands of years old, my data would be meaningless. The same logic can be applied to finding the age of the earth. If several factors limit the earth's age to a few thousand years, the earth cannot be older than a few thousand years! Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the earth, it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young. The Bible teaches that God created the universe approximately 6,000 years ago, ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six literal 24-hour days. Then, approximately 4,400 years ago, a worldwide flood destroyed the earth. This devastating, year-long flood was responsible for the sediment layers being deposited (the water was going and returning, Genesis 8:3-5). As the mountains rose and the ocean basins sank after the Flood (Psalm 104:5-8, Genesis 8:1), the waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid erosion through still soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today in places like the Grand Canyon. The uniformitarian assumption - that today's slow erosion rates that take place through solid rock are the same as has always been - is faulty logic and ignores catastrophes like the Flood (2 Peter 3:3-8 says that scoffers are "willingly ignorant" of the Flood). Listed below are facts from various branches of science that limit the age of the universe (including earth) to a few thousand years. Though it cannot be scientifically proven exactly when the universe was created, the evidence more than suggests that it is not billions of years old. Evidence from Space The 0.5-inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks. The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents. Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient astronomers from 2,000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star - today it is a white dwarf star. Since today's textbooks in astronomy state that 100,000 years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied. Evidence from Earth Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation. Niagara Falls' erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don't forget Noah's Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) The size of the Mississippi River Delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah's day could have washed out 80 percent of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4,400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.) A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now. Ice cores at the South Pole and Greenland have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet. The aircraft that crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and was excavated in 1990 was under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years. This indicates all of the ice could have accumulated in 4,400 years. Evidence from Biology The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4,000 years. The oldest living coral reef is less than 4,200 years old. The oldest living tree in the world is about 4,300 years old. Evidence from History The oldest known historical records are less than 6,000 years old. Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide flood. Nearly 300 of these flood legends are now known. Biblical dates do not exceed 6,000 years. The following Bible verses speak of the beginning: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1). And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth (Hebrews 1:10). For in six days the Lord made heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them (Exodus 20:11). Since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation (2 Peter 3:4). The works were finished from the foundation of the world. For God did rest the seventh day from all His works (Hebrews 4:3, 4). Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord am He (Isaiah 41:4). Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female? (Matthew 19:4) For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (Romans 1:20). Those who believe the earth is billions of years old will typically try to discredit one or two of these evidences and then mistakenly think that they have successfully proven the entire list wrong. This is not logical, of course. Each evidence stands independently, and it takes only ONE to prove the earth is young. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists. Many who support evolution are great at straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. (Matthew 23:24) It is interesting to read the ramblings of Creation naysayers like Scott, Matson, Babinski, etc. as they try to disprove the evidence for a young universe. See how many times they use words like "we believe," "perhaps," "could have," and so on. Evolutionists may need billions of years to make people believe a rock can turn into a rocket scientist, but that still wouldn't be enough time! For Further Reading: Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1986) Sylvia. Baker, Bone of Contention. (Creation Science Foundation Ltd., Sunnybank, Queensland 4109 Australia: 1990) Kent E. Hovind, Creation Seminar, Parts 1-7 (Creation Science Evangelism, 29 Cummings Road, Pensacola, Fla. 32503) Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983) Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism. (El Cajon, Calif.: Master Books, April 1985) R. L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy. (Midland, Mich.: Inquiry Press, 1976) Creation Science Evangelism c/o 29 Cummings Rd. Pensacola, Florida [32503] (850)479-3466 www.drdino.com
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Jun 16, 2005 11:17:47 GMT -5
Meet Dr. Kent Hovind Well, thank you for joining us this morning. My name is Kent Hovind. I was a high school science teacher for fifteen years, and now for the last nine years I’ve been traveling around the country and the world speaking on the subject of Creation, Evolution, and Dinosaurs. Of all the crazy things to do, that is what I get to do and that has been a great blessing to be able to encourage people’s faith in the Word of God. Three Purposes for the Seminar I’ve got three things in mind that I try to do in my seminars and I have something I always start off my seminar with and tell people so they know where I am coming from. I do not want to sneak up on anybody. I will tell you right up front, I believe the Bible is the infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of the Living God. I believe it from cover to cover. I even believe the cover, it says Kent Hovind, I believe that. I’ve got three things I want to try to accomplish. Number one, I want to strengthen your faith in the Word of God. Number two, if you are not saved, I am going to try to get you saved. And, number three, if you are saved and not doing much for the Lord, than I am going to try to make you uncomfortable. There is a war going on, folks. Everybody ought to find something to do. I have learned in my 29 years of being a Christian; everybody is good for something. Even the worst of you could serve as bad examples if nothing else. All right, let’s get started. www.algonet.se/~tourtel/hovind_seminar/seminar_part1a.html
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Jun 16, 2005 11:20:27 GMT -5
Four Basic Questions in Life Now, how would you answer the four great questions of life? Well, that depends upon your worldview. If the evolution story is true, who am I? Well, if evolution is true, we are nothing important that is for sure. Actually, you are just a bit of protoplasm that washed up on the beach. As a matter of fact, you are part of the problem because you are one of the polluters of the environment and the more of you we can get rid of, the better. Right? Where did I come from? Well, if evolution is true, you came from a cosmic burp about 20 billion years ago. Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? Well, if evolution is true, there is no purpose to life so you might as well have fun; if it feels good, do it. Get all the gusto you can get, you only go around once in life, you know? Where am I going when I die? Well, if evolution is true, you are just going to the grave and you are going to get recycled into a worm or a plant. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Now, if that is true that puts a whole different set of answers to those four fundamental questions of life. The devil came to Eve in Genesis 3, "The serpent said unto the woman, yea hath God said ye should not eat of every tree of the garden?" The second thing he said to Eve was, "Ye shall not surely die." Now he is denying what God said. God said if you eat off the tree you’ll die, the devil said, "no you won’t," and that is a common technique the devil often uses, just out right deny what God has said. And the third thing he said to Eve is classic, he said, "Eve, if you eat off that tree, ye shall be as gods." The idea that man can become a god if we do what the devil says. See, the devil wants you to think, "we started off like an amoeba. Yes, boys and girls, and we are evolving, we are getting bigger and better and stronger and smarter and someday we are going to sail around the universe and discover new life forms like Star Trek." People ask me all the time, they say, "Brother Hovind, do you think there is intelligent life on other planets?" I say no. I taught high school 15 years, I don’t think there is much intelligent life on this planet. I didn’t get to see a lot of it! Examples of Lies He lied to Eve and told her she could be like God and he is the one that wanted to be like God. You know Adolph Hitler said, "If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." He also said, "People are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one. If you’re going to tell lie, tell a big one. People will believe that."
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Jun 16, 2005 11:22:12 GMT -5
Moldy Spider Legs You know, I’ve got two older brothers, Ross and Mark. They have always been older than I am. They still are today as a matter of fact! When I was about 6 or 7 years old (I was raised in East Peoria, Illinois), I came running into the breakfast table one morning, and I was the first one there for breakfast. I got the last banana out of the bowl to put on my cereal. Well, a few minutes later, my two big brothers came in. They said, "Hey Kent, is that the last banana?" I said, "Yep, and I got it!" How many of you have an older brother or sister? You know that wonderful feeling you get when you finally pull one over on them? They pick on you all the time. Boy, that morning I had them and I knew it. They wanted my banana. But big brothers do not beg little brothers for anything. They either beat them up and take it away by brute force, or they lie to them and trick them out of it somehow. So my brothers said to me, they said, "Kent, do you know how bananas are made?" I said, "No." (I was only 6 or 7. It has been proven in laboratory tests the brain doesn’t even start to grow till kids are 18 to 20. How many parents can verify that one? Yep!) I said, "No, how are bananas made?" And they said, "Well, down in South America they have got these spiders that live up in the trees, and they have big long legs, and when they die all their legs fold up and mold starts to grow on the dead spider legs. A banana is actually made from moldy spider legs." I said, "You guys are lying to me, you just want this banana ‘cause you know it’s the last one." They said, "No brother, we’re not lying, you cut that thing in half, and look in the middle, you can still see the black spots where his legs were." You know, I did not eat bananas for nearly 3 years after that! They lied to me. Have you ever been lied to before? You know, I would not have believed the lie if there had not of been a little bit of truth behind it.
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Jun 16, 2005 11:24:10 GMT -5
99.995% Pure See, if you want to get somebody to believe a lie, you have got to mix it in with some truth. Nobody would swallow just a bold face lie, so they mix two things together. That is what they do all the time to kill a rat. You don’t feed a rat a bowl of poison, stainus fluoride (same stuff that goes in your toothpaste by the way). What you do if you want to kill a rat, you give a rat a bowl of good food. You know rat poison is 99.995% good food...with a little poison mixed in? And the rat does not know he is being poisoned. That technique of mixing two things that are unrelated together, is very common. It is common in advertising. They have done it for years with Marlboro cigarettes. You watch any Marlboro commercial: they always have something on there about a cowboy. You ever thought about that? What is the connection of smoking Marlboro and cowboys? Do all cowboys smoke Marlboro? No. Do you have to smoke Marlboro to be a cowboy? No. If you start smoking Marlboro, do you become a cowboy automatically? No. You may smell like a horse, but you are not a cowboy. Actually it has been proven in laboratory tests that nobody in the world smokes, nobody smokes. Only the cigarette smokes. The person is the sucker that’s all! What they are doing here though is they are brain-washing folks into thinking, "Man, if you smoke Marlboro, you’re John Wayne." It’s an image that takes place in the mind. It does not exist in reality. It’s brainwashing. They do the same thing to sell beer. Nobody with half a brain would buy beer, so they mixed beer in with sports. You always have some big football player holding his can of bud-dumber, or bud-stupid. (They call it Budweiser, but it does not make him any wiser.) He has got his Bud-dumber, Miller-Low-Life, or Dead Dog. He says man, you drink this stuff, you will be a football player. Right! You drink that stuff; you will be a couch potato. Later on, you will be a hamburger on the highway. There is no connection between alcohol and sports. But, if you tell the lie long enough and loud enough and often enough, the people will believe it. We have got a lot of folks that think alcohol goes with sports. They have been brainwashed.
|
|