Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 1
CHAPTER SIX THE AGE OF THE EARTH Part 2
Next we shall consider
EVIDENCE FROM BENEATH THE SURFACE
that the earth is quite young:
34 - ESCAPING NATURAL GAS—Oil and gas are usually located in a porous and permeable rock like sandstone or limestone, which is sealed by an impermeable rock like shale. Fluids and gas can easily travel through the containing rock, but more slowly pass out of the impermeable cap. Evolutionary theory postulates that tens or hundreds of millions of years ago, the oil and gas was trapped in there.
But in the case of natural gas, it can still get through the shale cap. A recent study analyzed the rate of escapement of gas through shale caps. It was found to be far too rapid for acceptance by evolutionary theory. If the world were billions of years old, all the natural gas would already have escaped.
"Based on the above calculated rate of destruction of commercial-size gas fields, the concept is proposed that gas accumulations in the subsurface have only a limited life in terms of geologic time scales. If this is true, known gas fields in older strata like lower Paleozoic reservoirs can be explained only by assumption of a relatively young accumulation age or by the assumption of a much longer duration of the hydrocarbon generation process than currently accepted."—*D. Leythaeuser, *R.G. Schaefer, and *A. Yukler, "Role of Diffusion in Primary Migration of Hydrocarbons," in American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 66(4):408-429 (1982).
35-OIL PRESSURE—Frequently, when oil well drillers first penetrate into oil, a geyser ("gusher") of oil spews forth. Studies of the permeability of the surrounding rock indicates that any pressure within the oil bed should have bled off within a few thousand years, but this obviously has not happened yet. The excessive pressures within these oil beds refutes the "old earth" theory, and provides strong evidence that these deep rock formations and the entrapped oil are less than 7-10,000 years old. The great pressures now existing in oil reserves could only have been sustained for a few thousand years.
These fluids are retained in the reservoirs under cap rock, but often the pressures are extremely high. Their containing rocks are porous enough that to retain these pressures for periods longer than a few thousand years would apparently be impossible. The fluids should long ago have leaked through their cap rocks to the surface.
Even more extreme are the high-pressure wells. The Lucas gusher oil well at Spindletop, Texas, blew its top in 1901 when it was first drilled. The well was 1,020 feet [3,109 dm] when it began to flow. The oil pressure was so great that it pushed 700 feet [2,134 dm] of drill pipe out of the hole, and the oil gushed up to a height of 200 feet [610 dm] in the air. The flow of Spindletop was 84,000 barrels [133,543 kl] of oil a day. Modern Saudi wells generally flow at about 10,000 to 12,000 barrels [15,898 to 19,078 kl] a day.
Because modern drilling techniques control underground oil pressures, gushers no longer occur and barrels-per-day are now predetermined. But the pressure is still down there! Oil pressure is the result of the pressure of the oil under the cap being greater than the weight of the overlying rocks. Gradually it seeps away and dissipates through the impermeable bed. A young earth is the only explanation for these high pressure oil wells which still exist today.
*Hubbert and *Rubey have worked out an exponential formula for the exhaustion of such fluid pressures in the earth. It is much too low for the demands of evolutionary theory on the age of the earth.
"Because of this continual leakage, abnormal water pressures are thus transient phenomena and require some dynamical activity to bring them into existence and to maintain them." —*M.K Hubbert and *W. W. Rubey, "Role of Fluid Pressure in Mechanics of Overthrust Faulting, " in Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 70(2):115-205 (1959).
36 - OIL SEEPAGE—A 1972 article by Max Blumer ("Submarine Seeps: Are They a Major Source of Open Ocean Oil Pollution?" in Science, vol.176, p. 1257) offers decided evidence that the earth's crust is not as old as evolutionary geologists had thought. Blumer says that oil seepage from the sea floor cannot be a source of oceanic oil pollution. He explains that if that much had been regularly seeping out of the ocean floor, all the oil in offshore wells would be gone long ago if the earth were older than 20,000 years.
In contrast, geologists have already located 630 billion barrels [1,002 billion kl] of oil that can be recovered from off-shore wells. Yet if our planet were older than 20,000 years, there would be no offshore oil of any kind to locate and recover through oil rigs.
37 - LACK OF ANCIENTLY DESTROYED RESERVOIRS—All of the oil in the world must have been placed there only in the recent past. We can know this because if long ages of time had elapsed for earth's history, then we should find evidence of anciently destroyed oil reservoirs. There would be places where all the oil had leaked out and left only residues which would show in drilling cores! But such locations are never found. Coal is found in various stages of decomposition, but —oil reservoirs are never found to have seeped away.
"However, regardless whether one proceeds from organic or inorganic theory, one should observe geologically indisputable cases of ancient destroyed oil accumulations from the late Proterozoic to the present. One sees progressively metamorphosed coal accumulations in the stratigraphic record, but never comparably altered or destroyed oil accumulations."—*V. B. Porfir'ev, "Inorganic Origin of Petroleum," in American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 58(1) (1974), p. 23.
38 - MOLTEN EARTH—Deep within the earth, the rocks are molten, but if the earth were billions of years old, long ages ago our planet would have cooled far more than it now has.
"If the earth had initially been molten, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.6 billion years [the age applied to it by evolutionary theory]. This conclusion holds even after one makes liberal assumptions on the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within the earth. The known temperature pattern inside the earth is only consistent with a young earth. —"W. T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p 17.
39 - VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS—There are few active volcanoes today, yet at some time in the past there were thousands of them. In chapter 19, Effects of the Flood, we will learn that many of these were active during the time that the oceans were filling with water.
The greater part of the earlier volcanism apparently occurred within a narrow band of time just after the Flood. If it had lasted longer, our world today would have a far larger amount of volcanic material covering its surface. Instead we mainly find the sedimentary deposits laid down by the Deluge.
But even today's volcanoes are an indication of an early age for the earth. If even the present low rate of volcanic activity had continued for the long ages claimed by evolutionists for earth's history, there would be far more lava than there now is. Only a young age for our world can explain the conditions we see on earth's surface now.
"It may come as a surprise to the reader to learn that if only four volcanoes of the same size and activity as Paricutin had been erupting each year here and there, on the average, for the last 4 to 5 billion years, about 3 x 109 cubic kilometers of lava would have been produced. This is approximately the volume of the continental crusts (3.3 x 109 Km3). Now, if a minimum of 1,000 volcanoes, had been producing lava at the rate Paricutin did, then the earth's crust would have taken just 20 million years to be formed by volcanic action alone.
"Actually, geologists are generally agreed that there is evidence of a much greater rate of volcanic activity some time in the past during the great uplifts of the world's great mountain chains than has been observed in the last 5 thousand years or so. Thus, there are many great 'shields' and other types of rock and ash of volcanic origin. However, only a small percentage of crustal rocks are obviously lavas. It appears that on the basis of the volume of lavas in existence and the great volcanic activity in the past, that an origin of the earth some 10,000 years ago is not unreasonable at all." —H. M. Morris, W. W. Boardman, and R. F. Koontz Science and Creation (1971), p. 79.
40-ZIRCON/LEAD RATIOS —This and the next discovery were made by R.V. Gentry; and both are discussed in detail in chapter 5, Origin of the Earth, and in his book (Robert Gentry, Nature's Tiny Mystery).
Zircon crystals were taken in core samples from five levels of a very hot, dry 15,000-foot [45,720 dm] hole in New Mexico; with temperatures always above 313 C [595.4F): That is more than 200 C [392F] hotter than the sea level temperature of boiling water.
Radiogenic lead gradually leaks out of zircon crystals, and does so more rapidly as the temperature increases. But careful examination revealed that essentially none of the radiogenic lead had diffused out of that super-heated zircon. This evidence points strongly to a young age for the earth.
41 - ZIRCON/HELIUM RATIOS —When uranium and thorium radioactively decay, they emit alpha particles —which are actually helium atoms stripped of their electrons. Analysis of the helium content of those same zircon crystals from that same deep New Mexico hole, revealed amazingly high helium retention in those crystals. Yet helium is a gas and can diffuse out of crystals much more rapidly than many other elements, including lead. Since heat increases chemical activity, all that helium should be gone if the earth were more than a few thousand years old.
42 - SOIL-WATER RATIO —There is clear evidence in the soil beneath our feet that the earth is quite young, for it is still in the partially water-soaked condition it incurred at the time of the Flood. This evidence indicates that a Flood took place, and that it occurred not more than a few thousand ago. The following statement is highly significant, and is reprinted from chapter 19, Effects of the Flood.
"Did you know that the earth beneath you is something like a sponge filled with water? It is for the reason that it was laid down during a gigantic deluge and, because that Flood occurred not far in the past, the ground has been able to maintain that water content.
"Alviso, California back in the 20's and early 30's, was a small community on the southern shore of San Francisco Bay. Its altitude was originally just above sea level, but in the 30's had already sunk four feet [122 cm]. Now the area is 6 feet (183 cm] or so below sea level and only stays dry because of levees that have been built. Those levees were broken in March '83 and the area was flooded.
"A March '83 Smithsonian article on aquifers stated, 'The crust of the earth is porous like a sponge. It's just all filled with water.' However, in our area, if the water table level becomes lower than around 125ft. (381 dm), the weight of the dry, sedimentary rock 'sponge' causes a gradual collapse of the ground, or shall we say, of the 'sponge.' And once it has collapsed, it will not expand again, and it will not hold as much water as it used to even if it were pumped in.
"Because the 'sponge' collapses when the water table drops below a certain level, that means that the 'sponge' has never been dry before or it would not collapse now. Because the 'sponge' is sedimentary [fossil-bearing] rock, that means it was formed, or I should say solidified, under water. The only event that could produce the great depth of sediments is a world-wide flood.
"There are those who say that they do not see any scientific data that support the idea of a world-wide flood. For me, the very existence of 50 million or more cubic miles [80 million km] of sedimentary rock is proof. But now I also believe the subsidence of many areas due to removal of ground water is further proof that Noah's Flood was a historical event." —Everett H. Peterson, "Evidence for a Worldwide Flood?" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1983, p. 189.
Next we shall consider
EVIDENCE FROM ON THE SURFACE
that the earth is quite young:
43 - TOPSOIL —The, average depth of topsoil throughout the world is about eight inches. Allowing for losses due to erosion, it has been calculated
that it requires 300 to 1,000 years to build one inch [2:54 cm] of topsoil. On this basis, the earth could only be a few thousand years old.44 - NIAGARA FALLS —The French explorer, Hennepin, first mapped Niagara Falls in 1678. From that time until 1842, the falls eroded the cliff beneath them at a rate of about 7 feet [213 cm] per year. More recent calculations would indicate a rate of 3.5 feet [106.68 cm] per year. Since the length of the Niagara Falls gorge is about 7 miles, the age of the falls would be 5 to 10,000 years. But, of course, the world-wide Flood, the existence of which is clearly established by rock strata and other geological evidence, would have been responsible for a massive amount of initial erosion of the falls.
There are a number of large waterfalls in the world which plunge into gorges, which, over the centuries past, were dug out as the waterfall gradually eroded away the cliff beneath it. In each instance, the distance of the cut that has been made, in relation to the amount of erosion that is being made each year by the falls, indicates only a few thousand years since the falls began.
Next we shall consider
EVIDENCE FROM THE OCEANS
that the earth is quite young:
45 - RIVER DELTAS —Did you ever see an air-view photograph of the Mississippi River delta? You can find an outline of it on any larger United States map. That river dumps 300 million cubic yards [229 million cubic meters] of mud into the Gulf of Mexico every year—at the point where the river enters the gulf. For this reason, the State of Louisiana keeps becoming larger. Yet, for the amount of sediment dumping that occurs, the Mississippi delta is not very large. In fact, calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years.
The Mississippi-Missouri river system is the longest in the world and is about 4,221 miles [10,932 km] in length. Because, below Cape Girardeau flat-land inundation along the Mississippi has always been a problem, over a hundred years ago, Congress commissioned *General Andrew A. Humphreys to make a survey of the whole area. It was completed in 1861. The English evolutionist, *Charles Lyell, had earlier made a superficial examination of the river and its delta, and declared the river system to be 60,000 years old since, he said, the delta was 528 feet [1,609 dm] deep.
But Humphreys showed that the actual depth of the delta was only 40 feet. Below that was the blue clay of the Gulf, and below that marine fossils. His discovery revealed that the lower Mississippi valley used to be a marine estuary. Using
Lyell's formula for age computation, Humphreys arrived at an age of about 4,620 years, which would be approximately the time of the Genesis Flood.
"The age of the delta has been estimated at 4,400 years, upon the assumption that the river was of equal magnitude during the whole of the period of its delta-forming condition. This assumption implies that the river was suddenly brought into existence with its present condition, or was suddenly converted into that condition. The rapid, simultaneous upheaval of the whole basin of the river would have brought that river suddenly into existence with very much the same characteristics that it now possesses; but geologists do not admit the possibility of such a rapid upheaval."— "General A.A. Humphreys, U. S. Engineers Report: 1869-1870, pp. 446-447.
Less data is available for other world river systems, but what is known agrees with findings about the age of the Mississippi delta.
"The depth of delta deposits on modern sea coasts varies greatly, but is, on the whole, comparatively slight. Thus the mud of the Nile delta is not over 10 to 15 meters [10.93 to 16.395 yd] thick. It rests on loose sand. The delta deposits of the Rhine have a thickness of 60 meters [65.58 yd], those of the Rhone over 100 meters (109 yd], though near Venice 172.5 meters [188.54 yd] were penetrated without reaching bottom. The delta deposits of the Ganges and Bramaputra rest on the older sediments and average only 20 meters [21.86 yd] in thickness. The actual delta deposits of the Mississippi range from 9.5 to 16 meters [10.38 to 17.49 yd] at New Orleans, increasing to 30 [meters; 32.8 yd] at the head of the passes."—*E W. Grabau, Principles of Stratigraphy (1923), pp. 609-610.
Ur of the Chaldees was a seaport several thousand years ago. Today it is almost 200 miles from the Persian Gulf. That 200 miles was filled in as delta formation by fill from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Archeologists date the seaport Ur at 3500 BC Accepting it as that date the delta formed at 35 miles for every 1,000 years.
According to evolutionary theory, everything occurs at a uniform rate and the earth is billions of years old. But then 80,000 years ago, the Persian Gulf would have reached to Paris! At the same rate of delta formation, 120,000 years ago the Gulf of Mexico would have extended up through the Mississippi River—to the North Pole!
46 - SEA OOZE—As fish and plants in the oceans die, they drop to the bottom and gradually form an ooze, or very soft mud, that is built up on the ocean floors. This occurs at the rate of about one inch [2.54 cm] every 1-5,000 years. Measuring the depth of this ooze, it is clear that the earth is quite young.
47 - EROSION IN THE OCEAN—If erosion has been occurring for millions of years, why, below sea level in the oceans, do we find ragged cliffs, mountains not leveled, oceans unfilled by sediments, and continents still above sea level?
An excellent example of this is the topology of Monterrey Bay, California. It is filled with steep underwater canyons—so steep that small avalanches occur on them quite frequently. (See "Between Monterrey Tides" in *National Geographic, February 1990, pp. 2-43; especially note map on pp. 10-11.) If the earth were as old as the evolutionists claim, all this would long ago have been flattened out.
48 - THICKNESS OF OCEAN SEDIMENTS— About 29 billion tons [26.3 billion mt] of sediment is added to the ocean each and every year. If the earth were billions of years old, the ocean floor would be covered by sediments from land measuring 60 to 100 miles [96.5 to 160.9 km] thick, and all the continents would be eroded away. But, instead, we find only a few thousand feet of sediment in the ocean, and no indication that the continents have eroded away even once. Calculations on the thickness of ocean sediments yield only a few thousand years for our planet.
"The thickness of unconsolidated sediments on the ocean floor is much less than was anticipated in view of the probable great age and permanence of the great ocean basins. Why this is so is an unsolved problem at the present time." —*E. L. Hamilton, "The Last Geographic Frontier: the Sea Floor," in Scientific Monthly, Vol. 85, December 1957, p. 296.
The average depth of sediments on the ocean floor is only a little over 1/2 mile [.804 km]. But if the oceans were billions of years old, the rate of sediment deposit from the continents would have resulted in a minimum of 60 miles (96.6 km] of sediments on the ocean floors, and closer to 100 miles [160.9 km].
*Stuart Nevins, an oceanographer, has calculated that there is 8.2 x 10 to the 17th tons of sediment on the ocean floors. The present sediment deposit rate from the continents is about 2.75 x 10 to the 10th tons per year. Recent data from deep sea drilling in ocean sediments indicate that sedimentation rates in the recent past were 10 to 100 times greater than they are now. If to this is added the vast quantities of sediments dumped into the oceans at the time of the Flood, the present 1/2 mile [.804 km] sediment depth is understood.
Plate tectonics theory (see the chapter on Paleomagnetism) declares that gradually subducting plates bury themselves deep into the earth, carrying with them the sediments on top of them. But, according to that theory, this would only remove about 2.75 x 109 tons per year, or merely 1/10th of the annual new sediments being added from the continents!
The 60 miles [96.6 km] of ocean sediments needed by the evolutionists for their theory are hopelessly missing.
49 - OCEAN CONCENTRATIONS—We have a fairly good idea of the amount of various elements and salts that are in the oceans, and also how much is being added yearly by rivers, subterranean springs, rain water, and other sources. A comparison of the two factors points to a young age for the ocean and thus for the earth.
Of the 51 primary chemical elements contained in sea water, twenty could have accumulated to their present concentrations in 1,000 years or less, 9 additional elements in no more than 10,000 years, and 8 others in no more than 100,000 years.
As but one example of these various elements, let us consider nitrates: The nitrates in the oceans could have accumulated in 13,000 years. Compounds of nitrogen in the ocean, largely in the form of nitrates, are increasing in amount. The excess of input from rivers and rain is estimated at 77 million tons (69.8 million mt) per year, and the total oceanic content at about 1,000 billion tons [907 billion mt]. Dividing the content by the annual input, we obtain 13,000 years as the apparent age of the oceans. This is especially significant in view of the fact that nitrates are quite stable in the ocean: once they get into the world's oceans, they do not tend to leave. In addition, there originally had to be a sizable amount of nitrates in the ocean to begin with, for phytoplankton (the microscopic photosynthetic ocean plants which are the bottom of the food chain) require nitrates for their growth. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, who are trying to figure a way to explain away that 77 million tons (69.8 million mt) per year, blue-green algae in the oceans spend their time absorbing nitrogen from the atmosphere and changing it into ocean nitrates.
50 - GROWTH OF CORAL—Analysis of coral growth in the oceans reveals that ours is a young world.
"Estimated old ages for the earth are frequently based on 'clocks' that today are ticking at very slow rates. For example, coral growth rates were for many years thought to be very slow, implying that some coral reefs must be hundreds of thousands of years old. More accurate measurements of these rates under favorable growth conditions now show us that no known coral formation need be older than 3,500 years. (A. A. Roth, 'Coral Reef Growth,' Origins, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1979, pp. 88-95). "— W. T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 14.
Next we shall consider
EVIDENCE FROM LIVING THINGS
that the earth is quite young:
51 - TREE RINGS—The giant sequoias of California have no known enemies except man. And only recently did man (with his saws) have the ability to easily destroy them. Insects do not bother them, nor even forest fires. They live on, century after century. Yet the sequoias are never older than about 4,000 years. These giant redwoods seem to be the original trees that existed in their timber stands. Sequoia gigantea, in their groves in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, never have any dead trees ("snags') among them. Unless man cuts them down, there is no evidence that they ever die!
"Perhaps the most intriguing of the unanswered questions regarding longevity in conifers has to do with Sequoia gigantea trees, which, some believe, may enjoy perpetual life in the absence of gross destruction, since they appear immune to pest attacks . . Pertinent also is the well-known fact that standing snags of this species, other than those resulting from factors of gross destruction, are unknown. Does this mean that shortly preceding 3215 years ago (or 4000 years ago, if John Muir's count was correct) all the then living giant sequoias were wiped out by some catastrophe?"—*Edmund Schulman, "Longevity Under Adversity in Conifers," in Science, March 28, 1934, p. 399.
The University of Arizona has a department that specializes in tree-dating. *Edmund Schulman of its Dendrochronological Laboratory discovered a stand of still older trees in the White Mountains of California. These were bristlecone pines (Pinus longalva).
"Only recently we have learned that certain stunted pines of arid highlands, not the mammoth trees of rainy forests, may now be called the oldest living things on earth.
"Microscopic study of growth rings reveals that a bristlecone pine tree found last summer at nearly 10,000 feet [30,480 dm] began growing more than 4,600 years ago and thus surpasses the oldest known sequoia by many centuries . . Many of its neighbors are nearly as old; we have now dated 17 bristle-cone pines 4,000 years old or more."—*Edmund Schulman, "Bristlecone Pine, Oldest Living Thing," in National Geographic Magazine, March 1958, p. 355.
However, in the case of the bristlecone pine, the growth rings on some of them appear to date back to 7,000 years in the past. So, while the giant sequoias date back 4,000 years to about 2300 BC, there is one other tree that scientists said was longer lived: the bristlecone pine, some of which theoretically date back to 5000 BC
"The oldest living thing known is a bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California. the American Forestry Association estimates that it is 4600 years old. It is not a key element in any of the 'long chronologies.' Its age, however, is remarkably close to the probable time of the Flood, about 4300-5000 years ago. It should not be surprising that some trees, which started growing right after the Flood, might still be alive today."—W. T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 96.
Beginning in 1978, Walter Lammerts, a plant scientist, spent several years working with bristlecone pine seedlings in their native habitat of Arizona. He discovered that the San Francisco Mountain region in which they grow, has spring and fall rains with a very dry summer in between. Working carefully with the seedlings, and giving them the same type of watering and other climatic conditions that they would normally receive,—he found that much of the time the bristlecone pines produce two growth rings a year. This is an important discovery, for it would indicate that the sequoias—not the bristlecone pines—are probably the oldest living things on earth.
Think of it! Today we have just ONE generation of the Sequoia gigantea! Both the parent trees and their offspring are still alive. There is no record of any tree or other living thing that is older than any reasonable date given for the Genesis Flood. In the case of the giant sequoias, there is no reason why they could not have lived for many thousands of years beyond their present life-span.
In a detailed analysis of tree-ring dating, Tyler provides us with additional information indicating flaws in tree-ring dating prior to 600 BC.
"Tree growth-rings, especially from the Bristlecone Pine, have been used widely for calibration purposes because samples are readily available over a long period of time . .
"Glock and Ageder have studied trees in which many intrannual rings have formed in a growing season, and they report that these rings are as distinctly formed as true annual rings. However, intrannual rings are generally identifiable because, although the normal growth behavior is affected, the characteristic latewood/earlywood boundary is imperfectly formed . .
"LaMarche and Harlan describe the intrannual growth bands of Bristlecone Pine as having diffuse boundaries, and contrast them with the sharp boundaries observed in true annual rings. . .
"It is the argument of this paper that strong evidence for the inaccuracy of tree-ring chronology is found in the radiocarbon results of wood dated at about 600 BC, and the most likely source of error is the presence of intrannual rings in the chronology. These could only have been produced if the climatic conditions at the time of growth were substantially different to what they are today."—David J. Tyler, "Crisis in Radiocarbon Calibration, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1977, pp. 92, 96.
Apparently, climatic conditions prior to 600 BC were such as to produce highly inaccurate tree-ring dates prior to that time, but dating of ancient wood samples, prior to 600 BC, also reveal erroneous results. This was probably due to different atmospheric carbon-14 ratios before 600 BC. This would be another reason why bristlecone pines could appear to have such ancient ages.
"The discrepancy between the bristlecone pine calibrated Egyptian radiocarbon dates and the historical dates for Ancient Egypt from 1900-600 BC carries with it the implication that, within the error limits, both chronological systems [radiocarbon and tree-ring dating] are incorrect.. The best [tree-ring] results reveal anomalies which imply that, before 500 BC, the real ages assigned to the samples must be questioned." —Op. cit., p. 98.
For additional information on tree ring dating, see chapter 7, Dating Methods.
52- MUTATION LOAD—Before completing this section on the evidence from living things, it is of interest that one researcher, `H. T. Band, discovered in the early 1960s that natural selection was not eliminating the "genetic load" (the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms). Thus mutational defects are accumulating, even though some are only on recessive genes. Calculations based on genetic load indicate that life forms could not have continued more than several thousand years,—and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are.
Much more information on mutations, including a more complete discussion of genetic load will be given in chapter 14, Mutations.
Next we shall consider
EVIDENCE FROM CIVILIZATION
that the earth is quite young:
(The information given in this section is somewhat paralleled by material to be found in Ancient Cultures and As Far Back as We Can Go, near the end of chapter 18, Ancient Man. Additional material will be found there.)
53 - HISTORICAL RECORDS—If mankind has been living and working on Planet Earth for millions of years, why do we find records of man dating back only to about 2000-3500 B.C.? And these records, when found, reveal the existence of highly-developed civilizations.
As is shown more fully in the chapter on Ancient Man, the writings, language, and cultures of ancient mankind started off fully developed—but are not found to have begun until about 2-3000 B.C.
(1) Early Egyptian Records. The earliest historical books are those of the Egyptians and the Hebrews. The historical dates assigned to the beginnings of Egyptian and Sumerian history are based primarily on king-lists. The earliest records are the Egyptian king-lists, dating from about the First Dynasty in Egypt, between 3,200 and 3,600 B.C. But internal and external evidence indicates that these dates should be lowered. An Egyptologist writes:
"We think that the First Dynasty [in Egypt] began not before 3400 and not much later than 3200 B.C... A. Scharff, however, would bring the date down to about 3000 B.C.; and it must be admitted that his arguments are good, and that at any rate it is more probable that the date of the First Dynasty is later than 3400 B.C., rather than earlier. "—*H.R. Hall, "Egypt: Archaeology," in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1958 edition, Vol. 8, p. 37.
The problem with First Dynasty dates is they are based on the king-lists of Manetho, an Egyptian priest who lived many centuries later, in 250 B.C. Manetho's writings have only been preserved in a few inaccurate quotations in other ancient writings. Barton of the University of Pennsylvania points out the problem here:
"The number of years assigned to each [Egyptian] king, and consequently the length of time covered by the dynasties, differ in these two copies, so that, while the work of Manetho forms the backbone of our chronology, it gives us no absolutely reliable chronology."—George A. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible, p. 11.
Confusion in regard to Egyptian dating has continued on down to the present time.
"In the course of a single century's research, the earliest date in Egyptian history—that of Egypt's unification under King Menes [first king of the first Egyptian dynasty]—has plummeted from 5876 to 2900 B.C., and not even the latter year has been established beyond doubt. Do we, in fact, have any firm dates at all?"— *Johannes Lehmann, The Hittites (1977), p. 204.
It is difficult to obtain exact clarity when examining ancient Egyptian texts. A number of Egyptologists think that Manetho's lists dealt not with a single dynasty—but with two different ones that reigned simultaneously in upper and lower Egypt. This would markedly reduce the Manetho dates.
Manetho's king lists give us dates that are older than that of any other dating records anywhere in the world. But there are a number of scholars who believe that (1) the lists deal with two simultaneously-reigning sets of kings, (2) that they are not numerically accurate, and (3) that Manetho fabricated names, events, numbers, and history, as did many ancient Egyptian Pharaohs and historians, in order to magnify the greatness of Egypt or certain rulers. For example, it is well-known among archeologists and Egyptologists that ancient Egyptian records exaggerated victories, while never mentioning defeats. The Egyptians had a center-of-the-universe attitude about themselves, and they repeatedly colored or falsified historical reporting in order to make themselves look better than other nations around them.
In contrast, it is highly significant that well-authenticated Egyptian dates only go back to 1600 B.C.! Experts, trying to unravel Egyptian dating problems, have come to that conclusion.
"Frederick Johnson, coworker with Dr. Libby [in the development of and research with radiocarbon dating], cites the general correspondence [agreement] of radiocarbon dates to the known ages of various samples taken from tombs, temples, or palaces out of the historical past. Well authenticated dates are known only back as far as 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read (J. G. Read, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 29, No. 1, 1970). Thus, the meaning of dates by C-14 prior to 1600 B.C. is still as yet controversial. "—H.M. Morris, W. W. Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 85.
Because Egyptian dates are heavily relied on by cosmologists, chronologists, historians, and archeologists for their theories, Egyptian dating has become very important in dating the ancient world, and thus is quite influential. This is because it purports to provide us with the earliest historical dates. In the chapter on Archeological Dating, we will in detail explain all of this in much more detail. There is evidence available that would definitely lower archeological dates, and bring them into line with Biblical chronology.
For much more information on this, see chapter 35, Archeological Dating.
(2) The Sumerians. The Sumerians were the first people with written records in the region of greater Babylonia. Their earliest dates present us with the same problems that we find with Egyptian dates. *Kramer, an expert in ancient Near Eastern civilizations, comments:
"The dates of Sumer's early history have always been surrounded with uncertainty."— *S N. Kramer, "The Sumerians " in Scientific American, October 1957, p. 72
(We might here mention that the carbon 14 date for these earliest Near Eastern civilizations is not 3000, but 8000 B.C. In chapter 7, Dating Methods, a we will discover that radiocarbon dating seriously decreases in reliability beyond about 1500 years in the past.)
For additional information see the appendix topic, "1 — Ancient Historical Records," at the end of this chapter.
54 - EARLY BIBLICAL RECORDS—The Bible is valid history and should not be discounted in any scientific effort to determine dates of earlier events. It has been consistently verified by authentic historical and archaeological research. (For an in-depth analysis of a primary cause of apparent disharmony between archaeological and Biblical dates, see chapter 35, Archaeological Dating).
It is conservatively considered that the first books of the Bible were written by Moses c.1510-1450 B.C. (The date of the Exodus would be about 1492 B.C.) Chronological data in the book of Genesis would indicate that Creation Week occurred about 4000 B.C., and that the date of the Flood was about 2348 B.C.
Some may see a problem with such a date for the Genesis Flood. But we are dealing with dates which are quite ancient. The Flood may have occurred at a somewhat earlier time, but it may also be that the earliest-known secular dates should be lowered somewhat, which is probably the case here. It is well to remember that, in seeking to corroborate ancient dates, we can never have total certainty about the past from secular records, such as we find in Egypt and Sumer.
55 - ASTRONOMICAL RECORDS—Throughout ancient historical writings, from time to time scholars come across comments about astronomical events, especially total or almost total solar eclipses. These are much more accurate time dating factors! Because of the infrequency of solar eclipses at any given location, and because astronomers can date every eclipse going back thousands of years, a mention of a solar eclipse in an ancient tablet or manuscript is an important find. A solar eclipse is strong evidence for the dating of an event, when it can be properly corroborated by ancient records.
We can understand why the ancients would mention solar eclipses since, as such rare events, they involve the blotting out of the sun for a short time in the area of umbra—(the completely dark, inner part of the shadow cast on the earth when the moon covers the sun.) Yet, prior to 2250 B.C., we have NOT ONE record of a solar eclipse ever having been seen by people! This is an important item of evidence establishing a young age for the earth.
"The earliest Chinese date which can be assigned with any probability is 2250 B.C., based on an astronomical reference in the Book of History."—*Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (1955), p. 520.
56 - WRITING—The oldest writing is pictographic Sumerian, inscribed on tablets in the Near East. The oldest of these tablets have been dated at about 3500 B.C. and were found in the Sumerian temple of Inanna.
The earliest Western-type script was the proto-Sinaitic, which appeared in the Sinai peninsula about 1550 B.C. This was the forerunner of our Indo-Aryan script, from which descended our present alphabet.
57 - CIVILIZATIONS—It is highly significant that no truly verified archaeological datings predate the period of about 3000 B.C. When larger dates are cited, they come from radiocarbon dating or from methods other than written human records.
In Genesis 8:4, we are told that, near the end of the Flood, the ark came to rest in the region of the Ararat mountains. This mountainous area is located in the far-eastern portion of modern Turkey, close to Iran and Iraq (which anciently was Persia and Babylonia). In Genesis 10, we find "the Table of Nations, " a list of races and where they went after the Flood. William F. Allbright, considered the dean of American archaeologists, regarded this table as "an astonishingly accurate document." (W. F. Allbright, "Discoveries in Bible Lands," in Young's Analytical Concordance, p. 30.)
We shall consider this topic in somewhat more detail in the chapter, Ancient Man, but let us here note that in the raising of crops, animal husbandry, metallurgy, and building of towns and cities,—all of our earliest records, in every instance, go back to the Near East! The exception to this would be the notoriously inaccurate early Carbon 14 datings assigned to objects recovered from various parts of the world.
"The civilizations spring into view suddenly. 'The Great Pyramid of Khufu is constructed of more than two million enormous blocks of limestone each weighing two and a half tons in a structure nearly 500 feet [1,524 dm] high and 570 feet [1,737 dm] square at the base. The burial chamber lies at the bottom of a shaft beneath the structure, and as in other pyramids there are additional passages and chambers. Completed about 2885 B.C. by 300,000 men working for twenty years (St. Paul's took 35 years to build), this was the largest structure ever erected by man, and even today it is only exceeded by the Grand Coulee Dam in the United States. Yet only a century before the Great Pyramid was built, no stone building existed anywhere in the world.' Does this look like Evolution?"—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1967), p. 131.
For additional Information see the appendix topic, "2 - Dating Early Man," at the end of this chapter.
58 - LANGUAGES—Mankind is so intelligent that languages are soon put into written records which are left lying about on the surface of the earth. We know that dialect and language differences suddenly developed shortly after the Flood, at which time men separated and traveled off in groups whose members could understand one another (Genesis 11:1-9).
The records of ancient languages never go back beyond c. 3000 B.C.. Philological and linguistic studies reveal that a majority of them are part of large "language families," and most of these appear to radiate outward from the area of Babylonia.
For example, the Japhetic peoples, listed in Genesis 10, traveled to Europe and India, where they became the so-called Aryan peoples. These all use what we today call the Indo-European Language Family. Recent linguistic studies reveal that these languages originated at a common center in southeastern Europe on the Baltic. This would be close to the Ararat range. Thieme, a Sanskrit and comparative philology expert at Yale University, gives this estimate:
"Indo-European, I conjecture, was spoken on the Baltic coast of Germany late in the fourth millennium B.C. [c. 3000 B.C.]." —*Paul Thieme, "The Indo-European Language, " in Scientific American, October 1958, p. 74.
For more information on languages, see chapter 18, Ancient Man.
59- POPULATION STATISTICS—Our present population explosion is especially due to better sanitary conditions at childbirth and thereafter. In earlier centuries, many more children died before the age of three.
It is thought that the period between 1650 and 1850 would be a typical time span to analyze population growth prior to our present century, with its many technological advantages. One estimate, based on population changes between 1650 and 1850, provides us with the fact that at about the year 3300 B.C. there was only one family! (See also J.C. Whitcomb and H.M. Morris, Genesis Flood, p. 398.)
"The human population grows so rapidly that its present size could have been reached in less than 1 % (3200 years) of the minimum time assumed (1/2 million years) for man on the basis of radiometric dating."—Ariel A. Roth, summary from "Some Questions about Geochronology," in Origins, vol. 13, no. 2, 1886, p. 59-60.
The rate of world population growth has varied greatly throughout history as a result of such things as pestilences, famines, wars, and catastrophes (floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, fires). But with all this in mind, estimates generally focus on 300 million as the population of the earth at the time of Christ. Based on small-sized families, from the time of the Flood (c. 2300 B.C.) to the time of Christ, the population by that time would have been about 300 million people.
If, in contrast, the human race had been on earth for one million years, as the evolutionists declare, even with a very low growth rate of 0.01 (1/100) percent annually, the resulting population by the time of Christ would be 2x1043 people, which would be an extremely large number of inhabitants! (2x1043 is the numeral 2 followed by 43 zeros!) A thousand solar systems, with nine planets like ours could barely hold that many people, packed in solid.
60 - FACTS VS. THEORIES—In 1862, Thompson said the earth was 20 million years old. Thirty-five years later, in 1897, he doubled it to 40 million. Two years later, *J. Joly said it was 90 million. *Rayleigh in 1921 said the earth has been here for 1 billion years. Eleven years later, * W.O. Hotchkiss moved the figure up to 1.6 billion (1,600,000,000). *A. Holmes In 1947 declared it to be 3.35 billion (3,350,000,000), and in 1956 raised it to 4.5 billion (4,500,000,000). Just now, the age of the earth stands at about 5 billion years. Pretty soon, someone will raise it again.
"These [dates for the age of the earth] have changed, doubling on average every fifteen years, from about 4 million years in Lord Kelvin's day to 4500 million now."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 235.
"Dr. A.E.J. Engel, Professor of the California Institute of Technology, comments that the age for the earth accepted by most geologists rose from a value of about 50 million years in 1900 to about 5 billion years by 1960. He suggests facetiously that 'if we just relax and wait another decade, the earth may not be 4.5 to 5 aeons (1 aeon - 1 billion years], as now suggested, but some 6 to 8 or even 10 aeons in age.' "—H.M. Morris, WW Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 74 (referring to *A.E.J. Engel, "Time and the Earth," in American Scientist 57, 4 (1969), p. 461.]
Those long ages were assigned primarily because of radioactive dating (the serious problems of which are discussed in the next chapter), and fossil and strata dating (which will be dealt with in the chapter by that name).
In this chapter, we have seen a surprising number of solid evidences for a young earth. They all point to a beginning for our planet about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.
There are also some evidences, which we did not mention, which would point to an origin 50 or 100,000 years ago—but even that would be far less than the 5 billion demanded by evolutionists.
If one evidence points to an age of 100,000 years, while another indicates an age of less than 10,000 years, which should have priority of acceptance? For example, some elements could have taken as long as 100,000 years to deposit into the ocean, but under worldwide flood conditions, they could have arrived there very quickly. The amount of certain other elements in the ocean, in comparison with their present rate of deposition, indicates that the earth could not be older than 10,000 years—and a worldwide Flood could have reduced that considerably.
When certain lines of evidence point us to an earth—age of not over 100,000 years, while others require not over 10,000; all other things being equal, we should take the lower age. This is obvious. Someone may reply, "Well, the Grand Canyon is so deep it must have taken millions of years to cut through at present rates of water action in the Colorado River. And bones have been found which potassium-argon dating places at over a million years old."
Under Flood conditions the Grand Canyon could have been rapidly cut. Examination of the strata in relation to the serpentine pattern of the river indicates that those sedimentary levels must have been newly-laid and soft when the river cut them all (see chapter 19, Effects of the Flood.) As for the bones, we know that potassium-argon dating is notorious for the erroneous dates it produces (chapter 17, Fossils and Strata ).
In contrast with such weak arguments, the young earth evidence is powerful. As discussed in this chapter, (1) ultra violet light has only built up a thin layer of moon dust; (2) short half-life radioactive non-extinct isotopes have been found in moon rocks; (3) the moon is receding from earth at a speed which requires a very young earth; and on and on the solid evidence goes through out the remainder of the chapter you have just completed. Read it again. It is solid and definite.
(4) The lack of ancient human records on solar eclipses is alone enough to date man's existence on the earth. Men are so intelligent that, in various places on earth, they have always kept written records—yet such records do not exist prior to about 4,300 years ago.
The evidence for creation science is clear and forthright. In a word, it is scientific. The evidence for evolutionary theory is speculative, self-contradictory, and generally based either on inference or erroneous dating methods (see chapter 23, Evolutionary Showcase.)
Since scientific facts point us to between 4,300 and 10,000 years for the age of the earth, we should recognize that the correct date probably is about 6,000 years in the past. And that date agrees with the earliest historical record that mankind has, the book of Genesis, a volume which provides us with historical accounts dating back to approximately 4000 B. C.
"If the Bible tells us. . that it does not allow for millions or billions of years as the age of the earth, then God is not fooling man; rather man [by rejecting the fact] is going on a vain search in spite of what God has said . . Biblical revelation as well as science is a means of gaining knowledge for a Christian."— Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, June 1968, p. 83.
Let us now draw
CONCLUSIONS
from the evidence:
KELVIN SPEAKS—Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), a contemporary of *Charles Darwin and a master at geophysical calculations, towers head and shoulders above most scientists of the past 200 years. He was astonished at the attempt by 19th century evolutionists to postulate long ages to the earth. Kelvin proved that such long dates for earth's history were geophysically impossible. But no matter; the evolutionists cared little for facts. They were intent on speculative dating based on rock strata.
"In reference to the President of the Geological Society [in London], Kelvin stated: 'I believe . . Professor Huxley . . did not know that there was valid foundation for any estimates worth considering as to absolute magnitudes' [the greatest possible age for the earth].
"When Kelvin pressed Sir Andrew Ramsay for strict physical limitations on geological time, Ramsay begged the question with the remark, 'I am as incapable of estimating and understanding the reasons which you physicists have for limiting geological time as you are incapable of understanding the geological reasons for our unlimited estimates.' Kelvin replied, 'You can understand perfectly, if you give your mind to it!' and 'Physicists are not wholly incapable of appreciating geological difficulties."—Thomas Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to 'Geologic Time' " in Battle for Creation (1976), p. 231, quoting Lord Kelvin's Mathematical and Physical Papers (1911).
BENTON'S SUMMARY—In this chapter we have viewed a large number of evidences pointing to a recent creation for our planet. Another writer concluded that there were eleven special ones; here is his listing:
"(1) Decay of Earth's magnetic field. (2) Misalignment of Uranus' magnetic field. (3) Solar shrinkage. (4) Spectrum (power vs. wavelength) of light from sun/stars does not match spectrum of 'man-made' fusion. (5) 'Tight focus' (near-sun) comets. (6) Thin layer of lunar dust. (7) Lunar escape [lunar recession]. (8) Polonium (and other radio-) halos indicating rapid creation. (9) Lack of build-up of helium in the atmosphere. (10) Concentration of trace elements in runoff higher than in oceans. (11) Human population (a mere 32 generations 6 (2)32 a 4.3 billion people)."—Dudley J. Benton, reader comment, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1987, p. 154.
In the concluding portion of this chapter, we have dealt with the dates of ancient civilizations. At the back of this chapter is the section, Ancient Historical Records.
Additional information relating to ancient civilizations will be found near the end of chapter 18, Ancient Man. Included there will be additional data on human and man-made remains in coal. Another section, entitled Dating Early Man, at the end of that same chapter will provide more data.
You have just completed
THE AGE OF THE EARTH part 2