Biblical Evidences

Scientific Evidences of a Young Earth
Do They Exist?

Jim Robson


I. Evidence of an Old Earth?

Before we embark on this inquiry, we must first note certain things about the nature of this topic. First, let us consider the possibility that the universe was created in the way the Bible describes in Genesis chapter 1. If the Bible is correct, then the first humans were created full-grown, as man and woman, not boy and girl. Therefore, if you or I were able to go back in time to see Adam and Eve on the very day they came into existence, they would not appear the same way a 1-day-old human appears today. Likewise with the animals, and the trees. If we were able to go back to the Garden of Eden, and cut down a tree, it would most likely have rings, just as if it had been there for many years. Likewise, if we were to examine a rock, it would be fully formed, just as any rock we pick up today. But it would not be millions, or thousands, or even hundreds of years old; it would be just a few days old.

So, what is the point of this? The point is, the Bible tells us that the earth was created fully formed. Therefore, it would have had the appearance of great age, by modern thinking. If a modern scientist were able to perform his tests on the rocks in the Garden of Eden, he would find them to be millions of years old, because of the process he believes must have formed them.

This leads to our next consideration, which is the nature of the assumptions upon which modern scientists base their dating methods. The assumptions they make cannot be proven, and actually are downright arrogant. As an example, let us look at the assumptions behind radiometric dating. Radiometric dating methods are intended to discern the age of igneous rocks by measuring the amount of radioactive elements present in the rocks. Let us consider the assumptions that evolutionary geologists make when using radiometric dating:

First, they assume that the radioactive elements have always decayed at the same rate. How can they know this? Obviously, they cannot. The technology for measuring these elements has not been in existence long enough to provide any evidence that this is the case.

Next, they assume that the rock being analyzed has never been "contaminated" by the infusion of additional end product (end product is what the radioactive element becomes after it has decayed). Once again, this is a pure assumption, which cannot be proven, unless the rock in question has been under constant surveillance since the day it was formed. Moreover, they make this assumption in spite of the fact that they know it is very possible for such infusion to occur.

Third, they assume that the rock being examined had no end product at the time it was formed. This is a very bold assumption. We cannot know this unless we are there on the day the rock is formed, and analyze it immediately. (Of course, the rocks in question are usually far older than the dating methods, so this is not possible.) Moreover, this assumption by its very nature excludes the possibility that the earth was created in its fully formed state. (In other words, they assume that the Bible account cannot be true, then use the conclusions based upon these assumptions to prove that the Bible isn't true!)

Finally, they assume that none of the element being measured ever leached out of the rock. This is in spite of the fact that several of these elements are highly soluble. In some cases, simply pouring water over the sample for a matter of a few hours can substantially change the amount of radioactive element present, and therefore drastically alter the test result.

Whereas the above assumptions are specific to radiometric dating, they are in principle the same kind of assumptions made across the board. All methods for evaluating the age of the earth run on the same basic types of assumptions. From this, it is evident that the evolutionary geologists have framed their assumptions in such a way as to try to exclude the possibility that the Bible account of creation might be literally true. They have also excluded the possibility of any catastrophic event, such as the Flood. Such assumptions are not only arrogant, they are intellectually dishonest: they start by assuming what they are setting out to prove.

Separate and apart from the problems inherent in the assumptions, it is also a fact that the radiometric dating methods have been proven to be unreliable. For example, we know that Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980. Rocks formed by that eruption - less than 20 years ago - have been analyzed using radiometric methods, and the results are astounding. Based upon the conventional assumptions and methods, these rocks were shown to be millions of years old! And there are many other examples that show the complete unreliability of these dating methods.

In concluding this section, we observe that there is little or no real, objective evidence to suggest that the earth is billions of years old. Most of the "evidence" that is cited by evolutionary scientists is based upon faulty assumptions - assumptions which more or less presuppose their desired conclusions. And they certainly have come up with nothing that is solid enough to cast any reasonable doubt upon the Bible - the book which has proven itself to be trustworthy over and over again, in countless ways, for thousands of years. That being the case, the question of whether or not any "scientific" evidence for a young earth exists is almost beside the point. It is really unnecessary. However, it just so happens that such evidence does exist, and much of it is based upon the evolutionists' own assumptions.

II. Evidence for a Young Earth

The following are examples of the evidence that exists to suggest that the earth is indeed much younger than evolutionary scientists assert. There are many examples of such evidence, but the following will suffice to make the point.

One piece of evidence that the earth is much younger than the evolutionary scientists suggest is the level of salt in the sea. There are several factors which add salt to the oceans on an ongoing basis. For example, rivers pick up salt from surrounding mineral deposits as they flow into the sea, thereby carrying salt into the sea. Hot springs on the floor of the ocean are another source of salt, as is dust from volcanoes. Also, ground water seeps into the sea, and this often has a very high mineral content - including salts.

Of course, there are other factors that cause the ocean to lose some of its salt. However, it has been shown that the salt is added much faster than it is taken out. In fact, it is possible to calculate the rate at which the level of salt is increasing. By using the standard assumptions used by evolutionists, geologist Steve Austin and physicist Russell Humphreys calculated that the oceans must be less than 62 million years old. That is far too short a time for the evolutionary processes to have taken place.

Keep in mind that this figure represents the maximum age, and that any age less than 62 million years is consistent with the evidence. Moreover, if the assumptions are changed, the maximum age decreases. For example, the evolutionists assume that the ocean had no salt whatsoever when it was first formed. However, if we allow for some level of salt at the time of creation, then factor in the rate at which the salt level increases, the maximum age of the sea declines sharply. (Of course, such considerations are not "scientific"!)

In addition, since Drs. Austin and Humphreys did their work, a newer study has shown that the rate at which salt is being added to the ocean is actually faster than previously thought. It has been shown that much more salt enters the ocean through the ground water each year than expected. Thus the maximum possible age of the ocean is actually quite a bit less than Austin and Humphreys' figure. (As of this writing, I am unaware of a precise calculation based upon this new evidence.)

According to the standard geological time scale, the Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene epochs represent hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Fossils in Colorado, however, indicate that they are actually not so far apart. This has been determined by examining radiohalos, which are rings of color that form around microscopic traces of radioactive minerals. The Polonium-210 radiohalos in the Colorado fossils indicate that the Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations were deposited within months of each other! Thus, rather than representing hundreds of millions of years of evolution, the deposits in Colorado are suggestive of a single cataclysmic event (i.e. the Genesis Flood).

As radioactive elements decay, they generate helium. This helium, of course, eventually finds its way into the atmosphere. Some helium escapes from the atmosphere into space, but the rate at which it does so has been calculated, and it is slight. In any case, even taking this loss of helium into account, the atmosphere still has only 0.05% of the helium that would be there if the earth were 5 billion years old, as the evolutionists claim. In other words, the level of helium is consistent with an age of 25 thousand years or less. This brings us quite close to the biblical time scale.

Conclusion

Even if there were no direct "scientific" evidence to show that the earth is as young as the Bible claims, we would need to see something very solid and convincing to shake our faith in the scriptural record. As it turns out, however, there is evidence based upon modern scientific research that is consistent with the account of creation in Genesis. Therefore, we have even more abundant reason to be absolutely confident in the Bible as the inerrant word of God.


e-mail this author at jimrobson@tp.net

Return to Watchman Front Page

return to April 1999 index