A Closer Look At The Age Of The Earth
And The Science Vs Evolution Debate
Most Evolutionists and Slow Creationists believe that the earth is 4,600,000,000 (4.6 billion) years old, while many Creationists believe that the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. At least one of these beliefs is in serious error. The intent of this web site is to examine the assertion that the earth is "billions of years" old and to present a portion of the evidence that points to a much younger age, and to show why the facts of Science demonstrate that a Creator must have been intimately involved with the creation of Life on this planet.
Science Versus Belief
The 90% Majority
The Facts of Life
What Scientists Say Behind the Scenes
The Fossil Record
Evolution and the Age of the Earth
Truth or Story Telling: The Frog to Prince Scenario
Mission Impossible or Creator God
And What does the Moon have to say about all this?
How Important is a Six Day Creation
Which God Will it be?
Science Versus Belief
The first sentence in the Ancient Hebrew Scriptures states that:
"In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
Although many believe this is true, it can't be "proven" in a strict scientific sense because science consists of observing or examining an event or process, and involves the ability to repeat that process, and to obtain the same results time after time -- regardless of who conducts the experiment. Therefore, when we talk about the past, and especially the distant past, such as the creation of the earth, or the life that exists on it, we are dealing with something that has not been examined or observed by men, nor is it something which can be repeated or demonstrated in a laboratory. Furthermore, the theories that have been proposed: Creation, Evolution, Theistic Evolution (i.e. "Slow Creation"), have not been and almost certainly never will be "proven" in a strictly scientific sense. So when we speak of things that took place in the past, such as how life began, we are not talking about science, but rather much more so about our faith (or beliefs): a faith that may be based on various different things, such as: our own observations, (personal) experiences, and assumptions regarding written history, archeology, the geological/fossil record, and/or upon second hand information that scientists, the media, or others have told us (perhaps 1000's of times, and in many different ways) that they "know" (or believe) to be true. Others, such as myself, would say that their faith is also based on their own personal experiences with the Creator, Himself.
Creation is based on the belief that an intelligent Creator/God purposely designed and put the universe together. Evolution is based on the belief that life formed from non-living materials and that random chance and millions of highly favorable and innovative mistakes (i.e. "mutations") were able to complement and build upon one another to create all the life forms which exist today, and/or have become extinct. Only one of these beliefs can be true. Either we evolved, or we were designed and created. If it turns out we were Created, then this also means that there are absolutes, and that everything is NOT relative, because the fact that we have been Created (by a Creator) is (or would be), in itself, an absolute truth -- whether or not He Created us directly, or indirectly via setting up and establishing the Natural Laws of the Universe, organizing the first self-replicating and organisms, and letting them "take their course." Furthermore, if it turns out that God did in fact, spontaneously Create every different life form that ever existed on this planet within a matter of days (as I believe He did), then many other truths would result from this one absolute truth -- including moral truths of right and wrong. In other words, if there is a Creator / God, then He is the One who also can establish and declare what is right and wrong, and hold us accountable for opposing or ignoring Him or His plans to rule over the Earth and all of mankind, or for violating His moral laws of right and wrong.
Also, if you believe that God directed the process of CREATION or that He started the first living cells and the Laws that allow for life to exist, and then allowed such laws of nature to "take over" and "miraculously" Create all of the various and wondrous forms of life that we see around us over "millions of years" then you believe in slow creation: not evolution.
Neither the Creationist nor Evolutionist views are based solely on science. They both make assumptions about the past that cannot be verified by any present methods or experiments and are therefore believed by faith. Therefore, since no one can demonstrate how it happened, or even how the first living cell got started, we are free to make up our own minds regarding who is right and how it occurred, and we should also be free to speak our minds in any public forum without fear of offending those who have (very likely) been brainwashed (and lied to) by the Mass Media into believing something that cannot be true -- whether it be in a 5th grade public classroom or while obtaining a Ph.D. in Microbiology.
The 90 Percent Majority -- Overruled by the beliefs of the (10%) minority.
It is also the author's hope that all of those who read this will do so with an open mind and weigh the evidence against what we know to be true. With that said I will openly state that I am among the 90% majority 1 in the U.S. who believe that the earth and all of its complex life forms were designed and created by an intelligence far superior to our own, and that the evidence we have, when presented fairly and accurately, overwhelmingly supports Special Creation. Yes folks, Bigotry is alive and well in the United States, and especially among members of the Elite (to Hell with real science or what the public wants) Mass Media. After all, we must not let the truth get in the way of their AGENDA -- of Brainwashing our kids. And to those who disagree I ask:
When was the last time (or rather the first) that the American Media gave Creation Scientists ANY airtime? Or when has the Mass Media allowed even ONE of the MANY open debates on College Campuses between Creation scientists and evolutionists to be Aired on National TV? To my knowledge NOT EVEN ONCE, but rather only very selective and highly edited (tiny) bits and pieces of what we have to say. That's because the theory of evolution is a bankrupt theory that cannot stand up to the light of day, and so its promoters, with the help of the Mass Media, are allowed to continue promoting a theory that is falsely called "science."
The "Facts of Life"
Those who hail evolution as a proven “fact” are either ignorant of the facts, or lying about them. The fact is that scientists have only been able to create 13 of the 20 amino acids that make up protein molecules. And even these (almost always) consist of 50/50 mixtures of L-type (left-handed) and D-type (right-handed) amino acids. This is about as far from making a living organism as a piece of silver is from a computer (complete with monitor and printer) running Windows XP. For even the most "simple," self-replicating, bacterium contains many thousands of protein molecules, of 600 different types, that consist of left-handed (only) amino acids -- each of which is connected in just the right order -- like words and sentences on a page. Even the most basic protein molecule (only 8 amino acids long) has never been observed to form naturally.
The most basic self-replicating bacterium is called Mycoplasma genitalia. It is consists of (at least) 40,000 protein molecules of 600 different types. It has 482 genes, and it cannot survive on its own but requires the aid of a (more complex) "host". To suppose that one of these extremely complex creatures came into being by itself (even over Billions and Billions of years) is an unsubstantiated speculation of the highest order and is NOT based on empirical (i.e. observed) science, but rather in a blind faith in the power of (unintelligent) matter to somehow organize itself by time and chance.
For example, is there any reason to expect that a "Creative" bolt of Lightning, or "Ocean Bubble" could ever produce a half-way-formed "pre-mycoplasmic" organic blob of cells, that would -- in time (say 100 Billion years) -- make itself more and more complex, to the point where it could maintain and Reproduce itself ? Or would such a (hypothetical) halfway formed blob of amino acids simply decay and degrade via natural processes?
Like it or not, the facts of science declare that such an imaginary "pre-creature" could never complete this process via the forces of nature acting on their own, but would instead merely decay back into the unintelligent matter from which it came. In other words, a belief in evolution is based much more on (blind) faith, as opposed to scientifically observed facts; however this is NOT what our children are being taught in public schools today, but rather instead are being brainwashed into believing something that (most certainly) can't be true: thanks to the liberal Mass Media, the ACLU, and the Democratic Party -- who almost always endorse and prop up the collapsing theory of evolution, and falsely label it as "science" -- as opposed to the blind-faith belief that it is.
But, for the sake of those interested, lets look more closely at the inner workings of the cell. For example, living organisms also possess DNA, the molecule that contains the information necessary to make a specific life-form, and which enables it to maintain and repair itself. The DNA molecule is mysteriously broken down into genes. One DNA molecule may have thousands of different genes (i.e. protein blueprints) in it. These genes are (relatively) small portions of chemically coded information that are used to make protein molecules. The DNA cannot "decode" itself, but requires the aid of numerous proteins (that also do not form naturally) in order to do so. If a DNA molecule were compared to a book, then its genes would be the equivalent to individual (long) words or sentences of that book, and the DNA equivalent to the Book itself, but the living organism itself is even MORE complicated than that because it can actually reproduce itself, and because....
Living organisms also possess RNA molecules which copy small portions of information from their DNA (with near perfect accuracy) and transfer that information to ribosomes. In other words, the RNA molecule is an actual (microscopic) mobile copy machine -- like a CD Rom reader (and writer) on wheels. Ribosomes are tiny "protein factories" that take the information brought to them by the RNA molecule and use it to make protein molecules from L-type amino acids. In other words, protein molecules themselves do not form naturally in any slime-pools, or Oceans, or Laboratories, but rather are only made by living organisms.
The great majority of living organisms are also quite fragile and require a protective membrane to enclose them and to keep harmful substances out. If they get too hot or too cold they will die. If there is not enough oxygen, or if there are poison gasses or other poisonous substances present they will also die.
In other words, life is like a highly ordered and complex program (or book) that is hundreds to thousands of pages long and so far we can't even write a single line of that book. To make matters worse, the popular theory of evolution proposes that the book of life -- with all of its twists and turn and amazing coincidences (i.e. multitudes of amazing creatures -- wrote itself, without the aid of an intelligence of any sort. Just as amazing, if not more so, is the Great Faith that so many of our University Professors and Know-It-All Scientists have in the unseen and mysterious Powers of Nature.
Some bacteria even have microscopic motors that they use to propel themselves. Did such motors also "evolve" by themselves?
For more on this subject see:
"How Life Began" by Thomas F. Heinze,
"Why Abiogenesis is Impossible," by Dr. Jerry Bergman,
"The Origin of Information" by Mark Eastman, M.D. and Chuck Missler
DNA Demands Creation By Design, by Carl Cantrell.
See also More Evidence from Biology -- an excerpt from
"A Closer Look at the Evidence" by Richard and Tina Kleiss,
"How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove the Theory of Evolution,"
Could Life "Just Happen"? by Ron Lyttle
What Scientists Say Behind the Scenes
The lead paragraph of an article titled "The Major Evolutionary Transitions," stated the following :
"There is no theoretical reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time, and no empirical" (i.e. observable) "evidence that they do. Nevertheless, eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotic ones, animals and plants are more complex than protists, and so on. This increase may have been achieved as a result of a series of major evolutionary transitions..." 2 Emphasis added
Did you catch that? After more than 100 years of proclaiming evolution as if it were an established fact, scientists are now admitting (in a prestigious science journal) that there is no actual evidence that evolution takes place. And the "evidence" they do proclaim is highly subjective. The fact that certain types of cells appear to be more complex than others in no way proves (or even validates) that evolution has taken place. An example of this is the automobile: just because it "appears" more complex than a bicycle, does not indicate that either of them "evolved" without the aid of an outside intelligence (i.e. a Designer/Builder/Creator). To the contrary, we know that they were, in fact, both Designed and Created by man.
The Fossil Record
The fossil record also offers very little evidence for evolution. If this were not the case, then the theory of Punctuated equilibrium would never have been concocted. This is the belief that evolution from one form to the next occurred too quickly to be recorded in the fossil record. And (so we are told that) this is why we find so few examples of transitional forms in the fossil record. 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 The Links below provide more details.
Punctuated Equilibrium: Come of Age?
Gould grumbles about Creationist hijacking
Evolution and the Age of the Earth
The younger the age of the earth, the more difficult it becomes to believe in evolution. This is because of the Astronomically Great, if not impossible (the number is almost too large to comprehend) "odds" against life spontaneously generating itself and then changing into more and more complex forms without the aid of an outside Intelligence / Creator / God . This is why Sir Fred Hoyle, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University said that:
"The odds of higher forms of life evolving by chance are about the same as if a tornado swept through a junkyard and assembled a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." 12
Evolutionists attempt to overcome these odds by invoking such things as the "wand of evolution" 13
This magical formula consists of three beliefs:
1) The belief that life began from the random mixing of chemicals without any help from an
2) The belief that random mutations were able to produce small beneficial changes which
(over many millions of years) created very innovative and complex structures such as arms,
legs, hands, toes, eyes, ears, wings, and feathers--not to mention the multitudes of complex
internal organs such as a heart/motor, lungs and male and female reproductive organs.
3) The belief that the earth is extremely old.
The third belief is necessary because if the earth is young then there wouldn't be enough time for the millions and millions of beneficial "mistakes" to take place. This is why evolutionists only talk about the "clocks" which supposedly prove that the earth is billions of years old. This is also why they are unwilling to accept or even publicly discuss any of the various clocks that yield young ages for the earth, the solar system, and the universe. For to do so would cast further doubt upon their bankrupt theory. This is also why the Mass Media is afraid to give Creationist Scientists any Airtime. For if they did so (without editing out much of what was said), then it wouldn't be long before the theory of evolution would cease being taught (as if it were a fact) in public classrooms across this land. Nor would it be long before Scientists and Professors across this land would be apologizing for their part in promoting a bankrupt theory.
See also: An Old Age for the Earth Is the Heart of Evolution, by Jonathan F. Henry, Ph.D.
Truth or Story Telling: The Frog to Prince Scenario
Imagine for a moment, if someone told us a "story" about a frog that turned into a prince. No matter how eloquent they were, most of us would think they were either pulling our leg or lacking in common sense; many would think the storyteller was insane--regardless of what his or her "Credentials" were. However, when "scientists" tell us they "believe" or "accept" or "know" that this happened - over many "millions and millions" (i.e. mythions and mythions) of years, in little teeny tiny steps (i.e. the frog "evolved" into a prince), many naive people -- including Judges, "Scientists," Democratic Legislators, and about 90% of the American media -- are willing to jump on board and travel to Fantasy Land.
But are they telling the truth, or are they telling us fanciful stories that are not based on science, but rather simply a very willful and (overly) optimistic imagination?
Living Organism are Extremely Complex
While scientists and engineers can make various complex things such as airplanes, automobiles, and computers, they can't make even the simplest form of life: not even a one-celled amoeba or a grain of wheat, much less a worm or a caterpillar. That's because life is extremely complex and orderly on a microscopic (i.e. sub-cellular) level. Even if all of the right ingredients were placed together in a flask, all of the individual amino acids, proteins, and molecules must still be put in precise order. And even when the cells are in the right order, we still don't know what makes them come to life.
For example if we took a "simple" life-form (such as a jellyfish or a large amoeba), placed it in a blender and mixed it up. Though all the ingredients necessary for life are in the blender, once they are mixed, they are no longer orderly; and try as one might, no one yet has been able to put the molecules back into the original order, much less bring the dead creature back to life.
A puzzle isn't put together by throwing (its) pieces in a box and shaking them up. By the same token, when a radio or a computer is built, each component must be made in a specific way, of the right substance, using very specific processes, and then, all of its pieces must be put in the correct place on a properly designed circuit board. In other words, as far as we know, complex and orderly things require intelligent beings to design and create them.
This brings us to one of the most basic facts of biology: the law of biogenesis. This law states that LIFE always comes from LIFE and that each type of life reproduces after its own kind. See also Genesis 1:21-25.
Mission Impossible or Creator God:
Evidence of Creator -- or -- Extremely Rapid Change
One of the most fascinating creatures is the butterfly. It had never occurred to me how this small creature is, in and of itself, evidence of a creator until I heard Dr. Duane Gish, a scientist from the Institute of Creation Research (and a Graduate from U. C. Berkeley), elaborate on the fact that the rapid transformation which takes place during metamorphosis is diametrically opposed to the theory of evolution, which says that living organisms change very S-L-O-W-L-Y over L-O-N-G periods of Time.
The transformation from caterpillar to butterfly poses a Major Problem for evolution. This is because caterpillars come from butterflies. But evolutionary theory says that life changes from one form to another slowly (i.e. over “millions of years”) as a result of multitudes of tiny mistakes in the DNA. If evolution were true, then how did the first two “protopillars” transform themselves into fully mature butterflies simultaneously in such a short time-frame (i.e. about three days)? I say “they” because both the male and the female are needed to make butterfly eggs. What makes this more amazing is that during “metamorphosis” the caterpillar’s internal organs dissolve into a liquid before they “morph” into a butterfly.
What the first two “protopillars” did is the equivalent of a man and woman placing themselves into a deep sleep and within a matter of months Transforming Themselves into flying angels with wings, and henceforth giving birth to "people" that (in time) would also change into angel-like beings.
For, without both male and female butterflies (with fully developed reproductive organs) you don’t have butterfly eggs, and without butterfly eggs, you don’t have caterpillars, and without caterpillars, you don’t have cocoons…
Note also that it wasn’t just the reproductive organs which formed, but also wings, and wing veins -- with fluid that is pumped (both) into their wings, to make them straighten out, and then pumped out, to make them light again. But they also now have new jointed legs -- with all the ligaments and tendons and nerves connected in just the right place so that the newly transformed creature can stand up and walk. And their wings also are jointed and have muscles attached in just the right place so that they can rapidly flap them back and forth to fly. They also have much more complex eyes and antennae that all just (sort of) spontaneously "developed". Even more amazing is that this mind-boggling transformation didn’t just happen once, but over 100,000 times with each species of butterfly, moth, fly and (flying) beetle.
In this regard, Frank Sherwin quotes Richard Milton (a non-creationist) as follows with regard to this scenario and how it might possibly have occurred:
"...no stage or aspect of this physical process can be accounted for or even guessed at with our current knowledge of chemistry, physics, genetics, or molecular biology, extensive though they are. It is completely beyond us. We know practically nothing about the plan or program governing the metamorphosis, or the organizing agency that executes this plan." 14
In other words, in spite of the wishful imaginations of people who call themselves objective "scientists," the fact is that such evidence strongly "suggests" that these creatures were programmed to transform by an intelligence far superior to our own, and that the evidence of design is overwhelming: which leads to the (logical) Conclusion that there must be a Creator. But in spite of these facts, and major problems for the theory of evolution, (or even "Slow Creation") the Mass Media, popular "science" publications, and a great many University Professors -- whose Jobs require them to "toe the line" regarding evolutionary dogma -- seem to be Hell-Bent on ignoring this evidence, along with the even more astounding "odds" against that first (purely hypothetical) self-replicating organism coming to life via purely Natural processes. In other words, they believe what they believe, in spite of the "odds" and evidence against it, and have instead chosen to believe something that is not supported by the facts -- as opposed to something that is. It is also sad that such people have been given (by we the people) such a strong hold on OUR "Institutions of higher learning": so much so that the truth is only important so far as it agrees with their AGENDA of brainwashing the public to believe something that is (almost certainly) a Fairy Tale.
The Life Cycle of a Butterfly
Butterflies vs. Macroevolution
Bees and Ants: The Social Insects
Mission Impossible: the Monarch Butterfly
Butterflies - The Miracle of Metamorphosis
And What Does the Moon Have to say about all this?
I am glad you asked. For the Moon should also have at least some say in whether or not it thinks that God had anything to do with the Creation of the Sun and the Earth and the Moon. Thanks to Tim Wildmon, and the authors of a new book, we now have our answer.
“Knight and Butler, then noticed some very odd mathematical relationships between the size of the Moon, Earth and Sun. The orbital characteristics of the Moon and Earth, they say, are unlikely to exist by chance alone. For example, the Earth revolves 366 times in one orbit of the Sun and the Earth is 366% larger than the Moon. Conversely, the Moon takes 27.32 days to orbit the Earth and is 27.32% of the Earth’s size.” 15
Wildmon then quotes Knight and Butler as follows:
“There is no possible relationship between the relative size of the Earth and the Moon and their orbital characteristics, yet the numbers are the same. And that was just the first of many such patterns,” said Knight. “The number 366 was the basis of the ancient measuring system we have reconstructed, and that number keeps popping up along with a small group of round numbers such as 400 and 10,000. For example, the Moon is 400 times closer to the Earth than the Sun and exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun. And in 366 orbits of the Moon, the Earth experiences 10,000 days.” 15
These are just some of the amazing “coincidences” that exist between the Earth, Moon, and Sun that seem to mildly "suggest" (to those willing to listen) that an Intelligent Being of some sort, did indeed have a Hand in the creation of the Earth, Moon, and Sun. The Book is titled “Who Built the Moon?” by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler.
How important is a literal Six Day Creation?
When I first became a Christian I believed that the earth was "Billions of years" old, primarily because that's what I had been told (to believe) since the time I was a young child. I was further told that science had virtually proven that we had evolved from apes, which evolved from lemurs, which evolved from squirrels, etc., ... which evolved from amoebas, -- which evolved from some unknown lower life-form, that itself began from the natural reactions of various chemicals.
But something inside just didn't feel right, and so, I quite naturally questioned the whole thing and through a series of circumstances I became aware of God's existence, and shortly thereafter I became a Christian (or a follower of Jesus Christ).
And within a few short years of becoming a Christian, I found out about organizations like the Institute for Creation Research. Several years later I began to look into the question of the Earth's Age for myself, and within a few years I concluded that science had not "proven" that the earth was "billions of years" old, or that we evolved from primordial slime -- via "natural processes". I also remember looking into the Scriptures and finding one verse that seemed to suggest that perhaps the earth was much older than 6,000 years (Gen. 2:4), while finding others that seemed to suggest it wasn't, and that the Creation of life on earth occurred at virtually the same time (Exodus 20:8-11; Matt. 19:4-6). Therefore I am not going to be dogmatic about this, nor am I going to go into a lengthy discussion of it but rather simply provide the interested reader with various Links whereby he or she can check this out for himself or herself. However, I will state that I believe that the Young Earth View point is (in my opinion) better supported by the evidence both from Scripture and Science. Others may disagree, and they are free to do so. Here is a Link-Page to various articles on both sides of this issue.
Which God Will it be: yourself, Your Creator, or another god?
Warning: If you have decided to reject God's Call upon your life, and you don't want to give Him any control over it, then DO NOT click on This Link -- as you probably shouldn't ... read any further.
Copyright, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005, Randy S. Berg; No part of this paper may be reproduced, used, or sold for profit
without the express written consent of the author. Copies may be distributed freely for educational purposes only.
Creation, The Science
A Creation Perspective
Evidence for a Young Earth
Is Evolution a Fact of Science?
Six Days or Six Vast Time Periods
Young Earth vs. Old Earth Link Page
Modern Science's Christian Foundation
True Origin Archive of Creationist Papers
Top evidences against the Theory of Evolution
Outline of Earth History as Revealed in Genesis
Mutations Do Not Support the Theory of Evolution
Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics
an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?