THE AGE OF THE EARTH
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge. "*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L. C. Birch and P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.
"I argue that the theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all. "*R. H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist, (1976) Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1. (Emphasis his.]
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation." *Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe (1981), p. 19.
How old is Planet Earth? This is an important question, for even though long ages of time are not a proof of evolution, yet without the long ages evolution could not occur (if it were possible for it to occur).Actually, there are many evidences that our world is quite young. Here are some of them:
First we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE STARS that the universe itself is quite young:
1 - STAR CLUSTERS. There are many star
clusters in the universe. Each one is a circular ball composed of
billions upon billions of stars, each with its own orbit. Because
the orbits are elliptical, they have a tendency to be interlocking.
An extremely large circular star cluster, with similar stellar orbits
within it is found at the center of each saucer-shaped island universe.
Evidence indicates that each of these giant packs of stars is moving
in a certain direction. Science tells us that
some of these clusterswith their starsare moving so rapidly that
it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe
were, very old.
2 - LARGE STARS. Some stars are
so enormous in diameter that it is thought that they could not have
existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial
larger mass would have been impossibly large. These massive stars
radiate energy very rapidlysome as much as 100,000 to 1 million times
more rapidly than our own sun. On the hydrogen basis of stellar energy,
they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such
fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had
to be far too gigantic.
3 - HIGH-ENERGY STARS. Some stars are
radiating energy so intensely that they could not possibly have survived
for a long period of time. This includes the very bright 0 and
B class stars, the Wolf-Rayert stars, and the P Cygni stars. Radiation
levels of 100,000 to 1 million times as much as our own sun is emitted
by these stars! Yet, by the standard solar energy theory, they do
not contain enough hydrogen to perpetuate atomic fusion longer than
approximately 50,000 to 300,000 years.
- BINARY STARS. Many of the stars in the sky are binaries:
two stars circling one another. But many of these binary systems
point us to a young age for the universe.
"Many such pairs consist of two very different types of stars, one theoretically very old and the other young. How could this be if they had to evolve together in order to form a pair? Such problems have frustrated theorists in their efforts to understand how binary stars could have evolved. Perhaps the great age of stars is a fiction." Robert E. Kofahl, Evolution Refuter (1980), p. 128.
5 - HYDROGEN IN UNIVERSE. According
to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted
into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting
other elements into it. *Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintains
that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists contend,
there should be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed
into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen
in the stars, therefore the universe must be youthful.
6 - AGE OF THE UNIVERSE. For much
more information on this topic, see the chapter appendix entitled Age
of the Universe, at the end of chapter 3 (Origin of the Solar System).Next
we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that
our solar system is quite young:
7 - SOLAR COLLAPSE. Research studies
indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds
of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000
years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But
in far less a time than 50,000 years life here would have ceased to
exist, for recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the
sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smallerfor
life to be sustained on our planet. (See chapter 2, Origin of the Stars,
for more on this. Also see "The Shrinking Sun" in Creation
Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, pp. 57-59.)
"Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct, visual measurements that indicate that the sun's diameter is shrinking at a rate of about. 1 percent each century or about five feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinking has been going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques also confirm that the sun is shrinking, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much."W. T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p 19.
8 - SOLAR NEUTRINOS. In 1968 it was
discovered that the sun is emitting hardly any neutrinos. This evidence
points directly to a very youthful sun. These neutrinos ought
to be radiating outward from the sun in very large amounts, but this
is not occurring. This fact, coupled with research discoveries that
the sun is shrinking in size, point to a recently-created sun. (See
solar collapse and antimatter in chapter 2, Origin of the Stars,
for more information on this.)
"The lack of solar neutrinos is almost irrefutable evidence for a recently created sun . . .
"If the sun had formed as is assumed by most scientists today, nuclear fusion could never have become is energy source. Evidence from the solar neutrino experiment, global solar oscillations, and measured solar shrinkage all are strong evidence against the existence of nuclear fusion in the sun. Any alternate energy source necessarily means a shorter maximum lifetime."Paul M. Steidl, "Solar Neutrinos and a Young Sun" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, pp. 60, 64.
9 - COMETS. Comets journey around
the sun and are assumed to have the same age as our world and solar
system. But, as *Fred Whipple has acknowledged, astronomers have no
idea where or how comets originated. Yet we know that they are continually
disintegrating. This is because they are composed of bits of rocky
debris held together by frozen gases and water. Each time a comet
circles the sun, some of the ice is evaporated and some of the gas
is boiled away by the sun's heat. Additional material is lost through
gravitational forces, tail formation, meteor stream production and
radiative forces. The most spectacular part of a comet is its tail,
but this consists of material driven away from its head by solar energy.
All the tail material is lost in space as the comet moves onward.A
number of comets have broken up and dissipated within the period of
human observation. Some of those regularly seen in the nineteenth century
have now vanished. Others have died spectacularly by plunging into
the sun. Evidently all the comets
should self-destruct within a time frame that is fairly short. Careful
study has indicated that the effect of this dissolution process on
short-term comets would have totally dissipated them within 10,000
years.There are numerous comets circling our sun, including many short-term
ones, with no source of new comets known to exist. If they were "millions
of years old," the original size of each comet would have had
to be larger than our sun,in which case our sun would have been orbiting
the comets, and not vice versa! Yet we have hundreds of comets in our
solar system with closed elliptical orbits, proving that they are locked
into our solar system and did not originate outside of it.
"Each time a comet approaches the sun on the near part of its orbit, the sun's radiation warms and drives away part of the gases, dust, and frozen water it contains. Moreover, the strong gravitational force near the sun partially disrupts the solid chunks making up the core of the comet. Ultimately, these effects of the sun cause the comet to disintegrate and disappear, and this has actually been observed to happen.
"Careful studies of comets by British astronomer R.A. Lyttleton and others have led to the conclusion that all of the short-term comets should have disappeared in about 10,000 years."R.E. Kofahl and ICL Seagraves, The Creation Explanation (1975), p. 144.
Picture from page 155 CLICK TO ENLARGE
"Short-term comets" includes all those which return close to the sun every several centuries or less. According to Lyttleton's calculations (and he is a confirmed evolutionist), they would have all been wiped out within 10,000 years. See *R.A. Lyttleton's 1968 book, Mysteries of the Solar System, for more information on this.In reply, evolutionists speculate that there is a hypothetical "Oort cloud" on the edge of the solar system, which is manufacturing new comets. But there is no scientific evidence that such a cloud exists.
"Evolutionary theories are totally incapable of accounting for comets in an old solar system. They cannot explain the formation, maintenance or return of comets. the chemical composition, behavior, and orbits of comets are not consistent with large ages and naturalistic formation. Comets are young objects. And since there is no natural mechanism which can account for a recent formation of comets, they must have been created recently in a recently created solar system."Paul Steidl, "Comets and Creation" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1987, p. 159.
"According to Richardson's figures, out of an original family of 1,000 short-period comets, at the end of 3,000 years only 1 or 2 would be left! Slusher concludes, 'The destruction and the loss of comets puts a definite upper limit on the age of the solar system. Instead of 4.5 billion years, it appears at the most to be only a few to several thousand years old.' "News note in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1973, p. 174.
10 - COMET WATER. It has only
been in recent years that scientists have discovered that comets
are primarily composed of water, and that so many small comets are
continually striking the earth. Yet each strike adds more water to
our planet. Scientific evidence
indicates that, if the earth was billions of years old, our oceans
would be filled several times over with water.
"Photographs, taken from earth-orbiting satellites, seem to show tiny, ice-filled comets striking the earth's upper atmosphere at a rate of one every three seconds. As each comet vaporizes, about 100 tons of water should be added to the earth's atmosphere. If this began when the evolutionists say the earth started to evolve, the earth and all its oceans should have several times more water than it now has."W. T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p 18.
11 - SOLAR WIND. As the
sun's radiation flows outward, it applies an outward force on
very, very small particles orbiting the sun. All
of the particles smaller than 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter
should have long ago been "blown out" of our solar system,
if the solar system were billions of years old. Yet research studies
by satellites in space have shown that those small particles are
abundant and still orbiting the sun. Therefore our solar system is
12 - SOLAR
DRAG. This is a principle known as the "Poynting-Robertson
Effect." A solar drag is exerted by our sun on the small
rocks and particles (micrometeoroids) in our solar system. This
causes these particles to spiral down into the sun and be destroyed.
The sun, acting like a giant vacuum cleaner, sweeps up about 100,000
tons (90,720 metric tons) of micrometeoroids each day. The actual
process by which this occurs has been analyzed. Each particle absorbs
energy from the sun and then re-radiates it in all directions.
This causes a slowing down of the particle in its orbit and causes
it to fall into the sun. At its present rate, our sun would
have cleaned most of the dust and particles in less than 10,000
years, and all of it within 50,000 years.Yet there is an abundance
of these small pieces of rock, and there is no known source of
is because each solar system would lock in its own micrometeoroids
so they could not escape to another one, and the gravity on each
planet and moon would forbid any of its gravel to fly out into
(In summary: Particles smaller than 100,000th of a centimeter are hurled out of the solar system by the solar wind effect, and particles larger than that are pulled into the sun by the Poynting-Robertson Effect. The Poynting-Robertson Effect is illustrated by rain which, falling on a rapidly moving car, tends to slightly slow it. In a similar manner, solar radiation, striking particles orbiting the sun, lessens their speed. )
Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE OTHER PLANETS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that it is quite young:
13 - TEMPERATURE AND EROSION
ON VENUS. Temperatures on the surface of the planet Venus reach
900F [482C]. *Emmanuel Velikovsky predicted that such a high Venusian
surface temperature would be found, and so it turned out. Velikovsky
said that this would provide clear evidence that Venus was only
a few thousand years old: Both this high temperature, as well
as other surface features, do indeed support a young age for that
planet. Many large craters up to 100 miles [160.9 km] in diameter
pock its surface. Yet scientists cannot explain how meteors could
get through the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere without burning
up. They are also astounded that Venus should show such minor effects
of erosion. The dense atmosphere should long ago have worn away
all the craters if the planet has the age postulated by evolutionary
theory (4 billion years).
14 - EROSION AND WATER ON MARS. A
similar problem exists in relation to the planet Mars. When the Mariner
satellites orbited Mars, they sent back detailed photographs of its
surface. Large numbers of craters and volcanoes were seen, as well
as a dust storm that lasted for months. It was obvious that many
of the craters had sharp edges, indicating only a small amount of
erosion. Yet more than a
few thousand years of the kind of weather activity regularly occurring
on Mars would have seriously eroded those edges. Long-term erosion
should also have obliterated the strong color differences clearly
visible on the surface of the planet. A
small amount of water has been found on Mars. But powerful ultraviolet
radiation from the sun should long ago have split the hydrogen and
oxygen apart, releasing the oxygen into the atmosphere while
the hydrogen escapes into outer space. There should now be no water
and a sizable amount of oxygen above the surface. But this is not
the case. Considerable amounts of hydrogen are indeed now observed
to be escaping from the planet into outer space, but there is very
little oxygen in the atmosphere,and the water is still there on the
surface. It is all a great mystery to scientists who, in spite of
the evidence, declare the planet to be billions of years old.
15 - COMPOSITION OF SATURN'S
RINGS. *G.P. Kuiper reported in 1967 that the trillions of
particles in the rings circling the planet Saturn are primarily
composed of solid ammonia. Since solidified ammonia has a much
higher vapor pressure than even ice, reputable scientists recognize
that it could not survive long without vaporizing off into space.
This is a strong indicator of a young age for Saturn's rings.
(More on this will be found in an appendix, entitled Age of the
Universe, at the end of chapter 3 (Origin of the Solar System).
16 - BOMBARDMENT OF SATURN'S RINGS.
Meteoroids bombarding Saturn's rings would have destroyed them
in far less than 20,000 years.
"The rings that are orbiting Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune are being rapidly bombarded by meteoroids. Saturn's rings, for example, should be pulverized and dispersed in about 10,000 years."W.T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p 18 [former engineering professor at MIT, and later chief of Science and Technology Studies, U. S. Air-War College].
17 - MORE RING PROBLEMS. NASA
Voyager treks have disclosed that Jupiter and Uranus also have rings
encircling them! (In addition, a 1989 Neptune fly-by revealed that
it also has ringsfour of them.) These discoveries have only augmented
the problem of the evolutionists, for it would indicate a young age
for those planets also. They try to come up with a theory that can
explain one set of ringsand then more are discovered elsewhere and
their theories are again thrown into confusion. *Bradford Smith,
a Voyager scientist, summarized their quandary in this way:
"The theory that explained how Saturn's rings could persist through 4.6 billion years of solar system evolution also explained why Saturn was the only planet that could have a ring."Then those theories had to be revised to account for the rings of Uranus. The revisions implied that Jupiter would not have a ring. Now Jupiter has been found to have a ring and we have to invent a theory to explain it . .
"Dust and grain-sized particles can be ruled out as major constituents of the ring [of Jupiter]. The intense radiation in Jupiter's magnetic field would sweep them out. . No theory has yet been developed that explains how all three of these planets could have rings for so long."*Bradford Smith, quoted in Mark Tippetts, "Voyager Scientists on Dilemma's Horns," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1979, p. 185.
18 - JUPITER'S MOONS. The
Voyager I space probe was launched on September 5, 1977. Aimed at
the planet Jupiter, it made its closest approach to that planet on
March 5, 1979. Thousands of pictures and thousands of measurements
were taken of Jupiter and its moons.Ever since Galileo first saw
them, its four largest moons have been called "Galilean moons." This
new data about these four moons provide us with invaluable information.
Io is the innermost of the four, and was found to have seven active
volcanoes) These volcanoes spew plumes of ejecta from 60 to 160 miles
[96.5 to 257 km] above Io's surface. This is astounding.
"The volcanic plumes shoot forth
at speeds up to 2,000 mph [3,218 km/h], 20 times faster than volcanic
eruptions on Earth." *J. Schefter, Popular Science, Vol. 215,
1979, pp. 54.
Nothing on our planet can match this continuous stream of material being shot out by Io's volcanoes at a velocity of 2,000 miles per hour [3,218 km per hour]. The usual evolutionary model portrays all the planets and moons as being molten 5 billion years ago. During the next billion years they are said to have had active volcanoes. Then, 4 billion years ago, the volcanism stopped as they cooled. Io is quite small, yet it has the most active volcanoes we know of. Obviously, it is quite young and its internal heat has not had time to cool.The evolutionist reply to this is that perhaps there might be radioactive rocks below its surface which are causing those volcanoes!
"What causes such violent volcanic activity? To keep a body the size of Io in a state of continuous volcanic activity through geologic time by radiogenic heating would require an unreasonably large fraction of long-lived radionuclides. "*Elske Smith and *Kenneth Jacobs, Introductory Astronomy (1973), p. 962.
Of the five Galilean moons, Ganymede and Callisto have no volcanoes and a high density of impact craters, Io has volcanoes and no impact craters, and Europa has no volcanoes and no impact craters. Io has the most marks, pits, and brightly colored areas of any of the four, but no impact craters.If all four moons evolved, they should be essentially alike in physical characteristics. The theorized millions of years they have existed should cause them to have the same amount of volcanoes and impact craters, but this is not so. In contrast, a recent creation would explain Io's volcanoes and the variety of surface features.
More recent data now indicate that Jupiter's moon, Titan, may also have volcanoes.
Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM OUR OWN MOON that it is quite young:
19 - MOON DUST. Although most
people do not know it, one of the reasons so much money was spent
to send a rocket to the moon was to see how thick the dust was on
its surface)Evolutionists had long held to the fact (as we do) that
the earth and moon are about the same age. But many scientists
think the earth and its moon are billions of years old. If that were
true, the moon would by now have built up a 20-60 mile 132 to 96.5
km] layer of dust on it! In the 1950s, * R.A. Lyttleton, a highly-respected
astronomer, said this:
"The lunar surface is exposed to direct sunlight, and strong ultra-violet light and X-rays [from the sun] can destroy the surface layers of exposed rock and reduce them to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year. But even this minute amount could, during the age of the moon, be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep."*R.A. Lyttleton, quoted in R. Wysong, Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 175.
In 5 to 10 billion years, 3 or 4/10,OOOths of an inch per year would produce 20-60 miles [32 to 96.5 km) of dust. In view of this, our men at NASA were afraid to send men to the moon. Landing there, they would be buried in dust and quickly suffocate! So first NASA sent an unmanned lander to its surface, which made the surprising discovery that there is not even 20 feet [32 km] of dust on the moon! But in spite of that discovery, Neil Armstrong was decidedly worried about this dust problem as his March 1970 flight in Apollo 11 neared. He feared his lunar lander would sink deeply into it and he and Edwin Aldrin would perish. But because the moon is young, they had no problem. There is not over 2 or 3 inches [5.08 or 7.62 cm] of dust on its surface! That is the amount one would expect if the moon were about 6-8,000 years old.Dr. Lyttleton's facts were correct; solar radiation does indeed turn the moon rocks into dust. With only a few inches of dust, the moon cannot be older than a few thousand years.It is significant that studies on the moon have shown that only 1 /60th of the one- or two-inch dust layer on the moon originated from outer space. This has been corrobated by still more recent measurements of the influx rate of dust on the moon, which also do not support an old moon.There has been a noticeable silence on this matter after the Apollo landings began. Evolutionary scientists are baffled by this obvious evidence for a young moon, when all theoretical calculations do, indeed, support Lyttleton's analysis that if the moon were really old, it would have a great thickness of moon dust resulting from millions of years of bombardment by solar energy and by meteorites of all sizes.Before the first manned landing on the moon, *Isaac Asimov summarized the problem of thick moon dust produced over the billions of years that it has existed:
"But what about the Moon? It travels through space with us and although it is smaller and has a weaker gravity, it, too, should sweep up a respectable quantity of micro-meteors."To be sure, the Moon has no atmosphere to friction the micro-meteors to dust, but the act of striking the Moon's surface should develop enough heat to do the job. . On the Moon there are no oceans to swallow the dust, no winds to disturb it, or life forms to mess it up generally, one way a another. The dust that forms must just lie there, and if the Moon gets anything like Earth's supply, it could be dozens of feet thick. In fact, the dust that strikes crater walls quite probably rolls downhill and collects at the bottom, forming drifts that could be 50 feet deep or more. Why not?"I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship [to the moon], picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight." *Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science: A Thirty-Year Retrospective (1989), pp. xvi-xvii (This was *Asimov's first published science essay (1958), reprinted in a 1989 book.)
CLICK TO ENLARGE
20 - LUNAR SOIL. Analysis of
lunar soil negates the possibility of long ages for the moon's
dirt on the moon does not reveal the amount of soil mixing that would
be expected if the moon were very old.
- LUNAR ISOTOPES. Many wonder what value there has been in
collecting moon rocks. One of the most surprising moon rock discoveries
is seldom mentioned: Short-lived Uranium 236 and Thorium 230
were found in those stones! Short-term radioactive isotopes do
not last long; they rather quickly turn into their end product,
which is lead. If
the moon were even 50,000 years old, these short-life radioisotopes
would long since have decayed into lead. But instead they were
relatively abundant in the moon rocks! The importance of this
should not be underestimated. The moon cannot be older than several
thousand years.One of the objectives of the moon trips was
to find evidence in the moon rocks that would support evolutionary
theories about its origin. But that proved to be unproductive.
It is of interest that the 12 Apollo astronauts who landed on the
moon, from 1969 through 1972 (when the U.S. lunar landing program
ended), brought back to earth a total of 842 pounds [381.9 kg]
of lunar rocks and dust. Divided into the total cost of the Apollo
program, which was estimated at $50 billion when the project ended,
the moon samples cost roughly $3 million per ounce [28.35 g]!
- LUNAR RADIOACTIVE HEAT. Rocks brought by Apollo teams from
the moon have been dated by the various radiometric methods.
A variety of very conflicting dates has resulted from these tests
(see chapter 7, Dating Methods, for a discussion of this).
But the factor of relatively high radioactivity of those rocks
indicates a young age for the moon:
"The content of radioactive elements in the moon rocks is so high that if the moon were actually millions of years old, the heat produced by radioactive decomposition would have melted the moon."R.E. Kofahl and K.L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (1975), p. 145.
23 - LUNAR GASES. Several inert
gases have been found on the surface of the moon. Scientists believe
that these gases came from the sun, in the form of "solar wind." Mathematical
calculation reveals that, at today's intensity of solar wind,
the amount of inert gases found on the moon would be built up in
1,000 to 10,000 years,and no longer. These calculations are based
on Argon 36 and Krypton 84 concentrations. Even 20,000 years ago
would be far too lengthy a time. Therefore the moon could not be
older than about 6-10,000 years.
24 - LUNAR PHENOMENA. A growing
collection of data of transient lunar activity (moonquakes, lava
flows, gas emissions, etc.) reveals that the moon is not a cold,
dead body. It is still adjusting to inner stresses and is not yet
in thermal equilibrium. Yet, all things considered, if the moon were
very old it should not show such thermal activity.
25 - LUNAR RECESSION. Scientists
have discovered two interesting facts: (1) the moon is already far
too close to the earth, and (2) it is gradually moving farther away
from us. This is called recession of the moon. Due to tidal friction,
the moon is slowly spiraling outward away from planet earth! Based
on the rate at which the moon is receding from us, the earth and
the moon cannot be very old. This is an important point and in no
way can be controverted. The
present rate of recession clearly indicates a young age for the earth-moon
system. If the moon were older, even 20 to 30,000 years old,it
would at that earlier time have been so close that it would have
fallen into the earth!
"Since 1754, observations of the moon's orbit have indicated that it is receding from the earth. As tidal friction gradually slows the earth's spin, the laws of physics require the moon to recede from the earth. However, the moon should have moved from near the earth's surface to its present distance in several billion years less time than the 4.6 billion year age that evolutionists assume for the earth and moon."W. T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p 17.
Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE ATMOSPHERE that the earth is quite young:
26 - ATMOSPHERIC HELIUM. The radioactive
decay of either uranium or thorium produces helium. According to
evolutionary theory, these decay chains have been going on for billions
of years, and should therefore have produced a much larger quantity
of helium than is found in our world. The amount of helium on
our planet is far too small, if our world has existed for long ages.To
fit the evolutionary pattern, our atmosphere would now have to contain
much more than our present 1.4 parts per million of helium. Some
evolutionists have suggested that the helium is escaping out into
space, but no evidence has ever been found to substantiate this.
Research has shown that, although hydrogen can escape from the
earth, helium is not able to reach "escape velocity." In
order to do so, the temperature of the planet would have to be too
high to support the life that evolutionists say has been here for
over a billion years.To make matters worse, not only are we not
losing helium to outer space,we are getting more of it from there! Cook
has shown that helium, spewed out by the sun's corona, is probably
entering our atmosphere.There is, at the present time, 3.5 x 1015
grams of helium in our atmosphere, and the rate of helium formation
is about 3 x 1011 grams per year (* M.A. Cook, "Where Is the
Earth's Radiogenic Helium?" in Nature, January 26, 1957,
p. 213.) Calculations based on this information indicates a very
youthful age for our planet.
"If the earth was billions of years old, the radioactive production of helium in the earth's crust should have added a large quantity of helium to the atmosphere. Current diffusion models all indicate that helium escapes to space from the atmosphere at a rate much less than its production rate. The low concentration of helium actually measured would suggest that the earth's atmosphere must be quite young."*L. Vardiman, "The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere Estimated by its Helium," Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, Creation Science Fellowship, (1986).
"Helium gas being released from radioactive decay is continually being released into the atmosphere from the earth's crust. The estimated rate of this release, compared with the total helium now in the atmosphere, suggests that the atmosphere may be only about 12,000 to 60,000 years old . . [To add to the problem] it may be that helium from the sun is adding to the earth's atmospheric helium."Robert Kofahl, Evolution Refuter (1980), p. 125.
Atmospheric helium is produced from three sources: (1) radioactive decay of uranium and helium in the earth's crust and oceans; (2) cosmic helium flowing into our atmosphere from space, but especially from the sun's corona; (3) nuclear reactions in the earth's crust caused by cosmic ray bombardment. Since the atmosphere now contains about 4 billion tons (3.63 billion metric tons] of He-4, and assuming that only uranium and thorium are the sources of it all and that its release rate has been constant, the age of the earth can be calculated from it: that point in the past when there was zero He-4 in the atmosphere.
"One prominent scientist has calculated the total annual rate of helium-4 flow into the atmosphere, not including cosmic helium, to be 330,000 tons [299,376 metric tons] per year. From this rate we find that the atmosphere [enveloping our planet] has a maximum age of 12,000 years."R.E. Kofahl and K L Segraves, The Creation Explanation (1975), p. 186.
After stating the above, Kofahl and Segraves conclude that, using all three helium sources in the calculation, earth's atmospheric age would be reduced to 10,000 years. In addition to this, a worldwide catastrophic event in the past such as the Flood, could for a short time have unleashed much larger amounts of helium into the atmosphere. Such an event could significantly reduce the total atmospheric age. Helium content is a good measure, since there is no known way it can escape from the atmosphere into outer space.
27 - CARBON 14 DISINTEGRATION. The
present world-wide buildup of radiocarbon in the atmosphere would
have produced all the world's radiocarbon in several thousand
Yet, ironically, it is Carbon 14 that is used by evolutionary scientists
in an attempt to prove that life has existed on our planet for millions
of years!*Willard Libby won a Nobel Prize for his discovery of radiocarbon
dating. His dating method has several flaws, one of which we will
mention here. He assumed that the C-14 rate of production would equal
its rate of disintegration. But Robert Whitelaw, a nuclear and engineering
expert at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, found that the production
rate is not equal to the disintegration rate. In fact, his calculations
reveal a recent turning on of the C-14 clock,otherwise
the two factors would be balanced. Whitelaw's research indicates
that the clock was turned on approximately 8,000 years ago.(Much
more information on radiocarbon dating will be found in chapter 7,
Dating Methods.)Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM METEORITES that
the earth is quite young:
- METEOR DUST. Meteors are continually hurtling into the atmosphere
and landing on our planet. They are then known as meteorites. But
small amounts of meteor dust (called micrometeors and too small
to see) also enter our atmosphere, and gradually settle to earth.
The composition of these materials is iron, nickel, and silicate
compounds.On the average, about 20 million meteors collide with
atmosphere every 24 hours. It is now known that, because of meteorites
and meteorite dust, the earth increases in weight by about 25 tons
[22.7 mt] each day.We have here another evidence of a young earth,
for the amount of meteorites and meteorite dust earlier accumulated
in rock strata, in relation to the amounts reaching the earth at
present, would indicate an age in thousands of years, not millions.*Hans
Pettersson of the Swedish Oceanographic Institute did careful study
into the subject. Here is a report on his findings by *Isaac Asimov:
"Pettersson calculated that the total quantity of dusts of meteor origin in the atmosphere, up to a height of 60 miles [96.5 km] amounts to 28,600,000 tons [25,945,920 mt] . . half the total14,300,000 tons [12,973,000 mt] of such
dustsettles to earth each year, as [another] 14,300,000 tons [12,973,000 mt] of new dust must enter the atmosphere . . Of course, this goes on year after year, and the earth has been in existence as a solid body for a good long time, for perhaps as long as 5 billion years. If, through all that time, meteor dust had settled to the earth at the same rate it does today, then by now, if it were undisturbed, it would form a layer 54 feet [164.5 dm] thick over all the surface of the earth."*Isaac Asimov," 14 Million Tons of Dust per Year" in Science Digest, p. 34
Asimov's article was afterward corroborated by an article by Pettersson in the February 1960 issue of Scientific American.Asimov discards the problem by saying that "crustal mixing" removes the dust. Somehow, he says, all those meteorites have disappeared. But his "crustal mixing" theory does not explain the problem. Meteoritic materials are composed of iron, with large amounts of nickel and other less common minerals. Yet there is not enough of these elements in the crust (the top layer) of earth's surface to agree with the idea of an old planet. For example, the average nickel content of meteorites is 2.5 percent, whereas there is only 0.008 percent nickel in the rocks and soil of earth's crust. Similar calculations with similar results have been made with iron.River water carries about 0.75 billion pounds [.3402 billion kg] of nickel each year to the ocean, and the ocean contains about 7000 billion pounds [3,175 billion kg]. The amount of nickel in the oceans could have been carried there from land in 9,000 years (or in half that time if a fair amount of nickel was in the oceans to begin with). So the absence of high amounts of nickel on land could not be caused by erosion into the seas. If the earth were as old as the evolutionists declare it to be, there would, on the average, be over 600 pounds [272 kg] of nickel on each square foot of the ocean floor, but it simply is not there.Once again, we find that the earth could only be a few thousand years old.
"If the disintegration of comets [alone] produces 14,300,000 tons [12,972,960 mt] of meteoritic dust each year, and if the earth were but one billion years oldand most evolutionists consider the world to be considerably older than that there should be an 11-foot [33.5 dm] layer of meteorite dust upon the earth, especially on the floor of the ocean. Where is it?"H.R. Siegler, Evolution or Degeneration: Which? (1972), pp. 54-55.
29 - METEOR CRATERS. Meteor craters
are fairly easy to locate, especially since we now have such excellent
aerial and satellite mapping systems. For example, the meteor crater
near Winslow, Arizona, is 3/4 mile [1.2 km] in diameter and 600 feet
[1,829 dm] deep. Efforts have been made to locate meteor craters
in the rock strata, but without success. They always lie close to
or on the surface. This and erosional evidence indicate that all
the meteor craters which have struck the earth are all only a few
thousand years old. No larger meteors struck the earth prior
to that time, for no meteor craters are found anywhere in the lower
30 - METEOR ROCKS. Meteorites
of various types are continually plunging into earth's atmosphere,
and some reach the surface and are then called "meteorites." Supposedly
this has happened for millions of yearsyet all the meteorites discovered
are always near the earth's surface! None are ever found in
the deeper ("older") sedimentary strata. If the earth
were very ancient, many should be found farther down. This is an
evidence of a young earth. It is also an indication that the sedimentary
strata was rather quickly laid down not too long in the past.
"No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column."*Fred Whipple, "Comets," in The New Astronomy, p. 207.
"While there are many meteorites buried in the upper few feet or so of soil, there are few or none lower down, and in particular in the alleged geological column. Surely this is a strange situation, from the uniformitarian viewpoint. A Creationist, on the other hand, will have no trouble in seeing why this is so. For the materials of the column were not lying there for ages to accumulate meteorites; they were deposited very quickly."News note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1978, p. 88. (See also *K Hindley, "Fallen Stars by the Ton" in New Scientist, 75(1059:20-22 (1977)).
*Asimov's theory, that "crustal mixing" removed all trace of the meteorites, was mentioned earlier.
"It has been estimated that at least a million meteors have hit the Earth's land surface, which is only 25 percent of the planet. Every last trace of more than 99 percent of the craters thus formed has vanished, erased by the effects of wind, water, and living things." *Isaac Asimov, Asimov's Book of Facts (1979), p. 404.
But the nickel from those meteorites should still be there littering the earth's surface and to be found beneath it. But this is not the case.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
31 - TEKTITES.Tektites are a special
type of glassy meteorite. Large areas containing them are called "strewn
fields." Although some scientists claim that tektites are of
earthly origin, there is definite evidence that they are actually
meteorites. Every so often, a shower of tektites falls to the earth.
The first were found in 1787 in what is now western Czechoslovakia.
Those in Australia were found in 1864. They were given the name tektites,
from a Greek word for "molten," because they appear to
have melted in their passage through the atmosphere. Tektites have
also been found in Texas and several other places. Each shower
lies on the surface or in the topmost layers of soil; they are never
found in the sedimentary fossil-bearing strata. If the earth
were 5 billion years old, as suggested by evolutionists, we should
expect to find tektite showers in all the strata. If the earth is
only a few thousand years old, and a Flood produced all the strata,
we would expect to find the tektites only in the topmost layers of
the ground, and not in the deeper strata. And that is where they
are. The tektites are found
on top of, what evolutionary theory calls, "recent" soil,
not beneath it. The evidence is clear that the tektites did not work
their way up from beneath or wash down from older sediments at a
higher elevation. Stream erosion studies in Czechoslovakia show
that glass objects similar to tektite material will wear down to
1/90th of their original mass within only 40 km [24.84 miles]. In
addition, studies made of australites (tektites found in Australia)
revealed a complete lack of etching (scratch marks) on them. Comparing
the data from the Czech and Australian tektites, it is clear that
(1) both were found in their original locations, and (2) neither
have been subjected to terrestrial weathering more than a few thousand
years (see *Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Science, No. 17).In
the 1960s two independent teams of investigators searched for additional
australites in the field and, upon finding them, made radiocarbon
datings of the wood by them and beneath them. Based on a Carbon
14 age of 7,300 years, these investigators say that the tektites
cannot be older than an adjusted 6,500 years. This would make
the age of the earth very young (see *Journal of the Geological Society
of Australia, 18:409-418, and "Journal of Geophysical Research,
75:996-1002.)(We recognize that carbon 14 dating tends to yield dates
that are too old, but 6,500 years is far less than the millions that
the evolutionists offer.)That, in brief, is the story of the tektites,
and it is yet another striking evidence of a young earth.Next we
shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE that the earth is quite
32 - EARTH ROTATION. The spin of the
earthwhich is now about 1,000 miles [1,609 km] an houris gradually
slowing down. This is caused by gravitational drag forces of
the sun, moon, and other factors. If the earth were really billions
of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning
on its axis! This is yet another evidence that our world is not
very old.Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backwards
from our present spin rate, and 5 billion years ago our planet
would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to
the shape of a flat pancake. And we today, would still have the
effects of that. Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64.3 km]
up into the sky, and our tropical areasand all our oceanswould
be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world
cannot be more than a few thousand years old.
MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY. As you probably know, the earth has
a magnetic field. Without it, we could not use compasses to identify
the direction of magnetic north (which is close to the North
Pole). Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, a physics teacher at the University
of Texas, has authored a widely-used college textbook on electricity
and magnetism. Working with data collected over the past 135
years, he has pointed out that earth's magnetic field is
gradually decaying. Indeed, he has shown that this magnetic field
is decreasing exponentially according to a decay law similar
to the decay of radioactive substances.
"During the past 150 years, the magnetic field has declined in strength by 10 percent. If the decline continues at this rate, the field will reach zero in about 1,500 years." "The strength of today's [geomagnetic] field, for instance, seems to be decreasing by about seven percent each century." *Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1991), pp. 15, 21."It is known that the earth's magnetic field is decaying faster than any other worldwide geophysical phenomenon. A comprehensive ESSA Technical Report gives the values of the earth's magnetic dipole moment (the vector which gives the strength and direction of the magnet) ever since Karl Gauss made the first evaluation in 1835. The evaluations have been made about every 10 or 15 years since then. Each evaluation required accurate worldwide readings over an epoch (a year or so) and special mathematical reduction to 'wash' out the 'noise.' These reliable data clearly show this relatively rapid decay. The report stated that on a straight line basis the earth's magnetic field would be gone in the year 3991 A.D. But decay is exponential and in this case has a half-life of 1400 years.
"A relatively recent NASA satellite preliminary report shows a rapid decay in the earth's magnetic field. No knowledgeable scientist debates the fact of the rapid decrease in the earth's magnetic field, nor does he question that the associated electric current in the core of the earth is using up energy. The present rate of loss is seven billion kilowatt hours per year. The earth is running out of that original energy it had in its original magnetic field. "T.G. Barnes, "Depletion of the Earth's Magnetic Field," in Creation: the Cutting Edge, p. 155.
In 1835 the German physicist K.F. Gauss made the first measurement of the earth's magnetic dipole moment, that is, the strength of earth's internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent!On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it now has. Just 20,000 years ago, enough Joule heat would have been generated to liquefy the earth. One million years back, and the earth would have greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, and the earth would have vaporized! It would appear that the earth could not be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. (For more data on this, see two articles by Barnes: Battle for Creation (1976), pp. 230242; Creation: the Cutting Edge (1982), pp. 154165.)
"As the magnetic field energy decays, it is transformed into heat. The energy involved in this hypothetical extrapolation less than 30,000 years into the past would be sufficient to heat the entire earth to 5000C (9032F] and completely vaporize it by now. The earth obviously is not now either melted or vaporized. In the light of this analysis of the earth's decaying magnetism observed for 130 years, extrapolation of earth history 4.5 billion years into the past leads to an absurdity. The evidence supports an earth history of not much more than 10,000 years. "R. E. Wahl and K.L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (1975), p. 194.
This magnetic decay process is not a local process, as one would find in a uranium mineral, but worldwide; it affects the entire earth. It has been accurately measured for over 150 years, and is not subject to environmental changes since it is generated deep in the earth's interior.
"All the recent commotion about the exponential depletion of our natural resources has singularly failed to mention that we are also running out of a rather vital, apparently nonrenewable resource, the Earth's magnetic field, quite rapidly." *Fredrick B. Jueneman, "Magnetic Depletion" in Industrial Research and Development, 20(8):13 (1978).
The data pertaining to this has been carefully evaluated and checked.
"The only dependable historical data on the strength and direction of the earth's main magnet are the evaluations which were first made by Gauss in the 1830's and the subsequent evaluations made through worldwide magnetic observatory collaboration every few decades thereafter. These data show an exponential decay in the earth's magnetic field with a half-life of only 1400 years. A solution to Maxwell's equations for the electric currents and associated magnetic field of the earth's magnet reveals that there is an electric current of 6.16 billion amperes flowing in the core of the earth and a power loss (going into heat) of 813 megawatts at the present time."It is obvious that this magnetic decay phenomenon could not have been going on for more than a few thousand years, as the magnetic field would have been implausibly large for the earth. This is strong physical evidence that there must have been a relatively recent origin of this electromagnet or some unknown catastrophic 'reenergizing' event. The validity of this theoretical and observational result is confirmed by means of an independent check, namely an evaluation of the total magnetic energy in the earth's present field and checking it against a hypothetical reference magnet of the same strength and dimensions. The check is excellent, and leaves little doubt that this physical solution is the most meaningful interpretation of the earth's magnetic history."Thomas G. Barnes, S.I.S. Review, 2:42-46 (1977).The problem is a serious one.
"If this decay rate persists, the earth's dipole magnet will vanish in A.D. 3991."*Keith McDonald and *Robert Gunst, "An Analysis of the Earth's Magnetic Field from 1835 to 1965," in ESSA Technical Report, IER 46-IES 1(1967), p. 1.
Charts from pages 166 and 167 CLICK TO ENLARGE
Additional evidence was obtained from NASA's Magsat satellite which orbited the earth from October 1979 to June 1980. It was designed expressly to study earth's magnetic field. The data was analyzed by * Robert Langel, chief project scientist, who issued the official report.
"A satellite launched by NASA in 1979 has gathered new data on the earth's decreasing magnetic field. Magsat, as the satellite was called during its eight-month lifetime, measured the earth's main magnetic field."The overall intensity of the earth's field was found to be declining at a rate of 26 nanoteslas per year, with a half-life of just 830 years) Thomas Barnes' results based on earlier data gave a decay rate of 16 nanoteslas per year and a 1400 year half-life. . Extrapolation shows that the field strength should reach zero in 1200 years. The earth is younger, and time later, than many think."Donald B. Deyoung, "Decrease of Earth's Magnetic Field Confirmed, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1980, pp. 187-188.
"If one takes the Langel projection, the earth's magnetic shield will vanish completely in the year 3180 A.D. If one takes the projection in a 1967 ESSA technical report, the vanishing data for the earth's magnetic field is 3991 A.D."TG. Barnes, "Satellite Observations Confirm the Decline of the Earth's Magnetic Field, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1981, p. 40.
The half life of carbon 14 is approximately 5,700 years. The earth's magnetic field is decaying about eight times faster than the rate of decay for C-14. Yet without its magnetic field, the inhabitants of earth would have no protection against harmful cosmic rays. Normally, most of them are deflected by our magnetic field. But the few that enter, produce showers of secondary rays in the atmosphere and then head downward. They have been found in the bottom of deep lakes. (Since it is cosmic rays which originate carbon 14 in our atmosphere, this ongoing change in earth's magnetic field produces changes in carbon 14 rates. This, in turn, dramatically affects C-14 clock dating results and makes those dates unreliable.
"If one computes the magnetic field strength back in time 10 thousand years, the earth's magnetic field would have been as strong as that of some magnetic stars. The reasonable assumption has been made that the earth never had a magnetic field as strong as a star's magnet."On the basis of an original magnetic field strength of the earth that is less than that of a magnetic star, the origin of the earth's magnet is less than 10 thousand years ago.
"Since there is no power generating plant in the earth, its origin must have been at the time of creation. This means that the young magnetic age of the earth's magnet also means a young age for the earth itself. These conclusions are based upon the decay theory of the earth's magnet. That is supported by (1) The real-time evaluations of the earth's magnetic moment [from 1835 to the present]. (2) The only rigorous theoretical explanation of the present processes in this electromagnet. (3) Three types of independent confirmational checks on that theory."Thomas G. Barnes, "Earth's Young Magnetic Age Confirmed," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1986, p. 33.
None other than * Isaac Asimov agrees with the basic findings in regard to the decay of our planet's magnetic core:
"Earth's magnetic field has been weakening. It seems to have lost 15 percent of its strength since 1687. At the present rate of decrease, it will reach zero in 2,000 more years. Between the years 3500 and 4500, the magnetic field will not be sufficiently strong to ward off charged radiation from outer space. "*Asimov's Book of Facts (1979), p. 326.
Evolutionists try to defend their long ages theories with radioactive half lives, but radioactive mineral decay rates are highly unreliable because they are open systems, and are subject to many forms of contamination and other factors which can change their clock mechanisms (see chapter 7, Dating Methods). If any fundamental planetary process ought to be a reliable indicator of the earth's age, it should be this earth's magnetic fieldand it indicates an upper limit of decidedly less than 10,000 years for the age of the earth.
"The facts are:"(1) The earth's dipole magnet is located in the core of the earth more than a thousand miles from the earth's crust (where the observable rocks are located)."(2) It is an electromagnet dissipating almost a billion joules of energy per second now."(3) It is known to be decaying more rapidly than any other worldwide geophysical phenomenon. If the present decaying process continues, the magnetic field will have vanished within the extreme limits of time of 2,000 years to 11,000 years, depending upon whether one uses an evolutionary or a creationist presupposition.
"(4) There is at present no known source of energy to re-energize the magnet when its energy runs down to zero. One can safely say there is no theoretical reason at present to consider anything other than a single continuing decay process that started in the not-too-distant past, a creation only thousands of years ago, not millions or billions of years ago."Thomas G. Barnes, news note in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1982, p. 196.
Most of the factors described above would apply to the age of the earth, which appears to be decidedly less than 10,000 years. Most of the following items of evidence would apply to the length of time since the Flood, which evidence indicates may have occurred about 4,350 years ago.
You have just completed THE AGE OF THE EARTH part 1
NEXT Go to the next file in this series,
THE AGE OF THE EARTH part 2
EVOLUTION FACTS, INC.
PO BOX 300 - ALTAMONT, TN. 37301 USA