HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? AGE OF THE EARTH
Age of the solar system
In this section, we will consider the arguments of evolutionists and their opponents of creationists regarding the age of the Earth. As you know, materialists calculate the age of our planet, as well as the entire solar system, in billions of years. A common figure is 4.5 billion years. And creationists are not sure about the venerable age of the Earth, because God did not need a huge period of time to create. A number of creationists are convinced that the Bible is not wrong, and according to the chronology given in it, the Earth and the Sun are approximately 6,000 years old. There is a huge difference between 6,000 years and 4,500,000,000 years. Let us now consider the arguments of both these sides.
The Big Bang Theory
There is a theory that the universe is expanding. According to materialistic views, the universe was formed billions of years ago as a result of a big bang. However, the explosion theory has obvious shortcomings. According to the law of conservation of angular inertia (conservation of angular momentum), after an explosion, all its parts must rotate in the same direction. However, Pluto, Uranus and Venus rotate in different directions; this proves that there was no explosion. In addition, Neptune, Saturn and Jupiter have several moons that orbit their planets in different directions.
meteor dust
Tens of thousands of tons of meteor dust fall to Earth every year. These tiny particles from space contain more than 2% nickel. If we count the amount of nickel in the ocean, where it enters directly from the atmosphere and where rivers bring it, washing it off the soil surface, we will see that there is little nickel there. A huge "lack" of this element was also found in the earth's crust, which, over billions of years, should have accumulated much more than what is available today. Creation scientists argue that, based on the amount of nickel in the soil and ocean, our planet is several thousand, not billions of years old.
All this speaks of the young age of the Earth and the Moon. Given the above, is it possible to answer the question: "How old is the earth?". Answer: "The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years"!?
Comets. Oort cloud
Comets are rather small astronomical bodies, up to several kilometers in diameter. Based on the Big Bang theory, their age should coincide with the age of the solar system, which, according to materialists, we recall, is 4.5 billion years.
Comets are made of ice, gases and grains various metals; revolve around the sun in elongated orbits. Passing near the Sun, these cosmic bodies, heating up, lose part of their mass, which, breaking away from the core, forms a plume called a tail. Naturally, due to such losses, the comet disappears over time - it evaporates. According to scientists, a comet with a small rotation period is enough for a few thousand years to disappear. But for some reason, there are many comets in the solar system, and the vast majority of them have not disappeared anywhere, which confirms the young age of our solar system.
In order to somehow explain this fact, material scientists have suggested that there is a certain area that "hid" somewhere on the outskirts of the solar system and periodically exposes new comets to us. This imaginary part of the universe has even been given a name - the Oort cloud. And now the materialists peer into the sky with faith, hoping to find there the "parent" of all comets.
Given the above, is it possible to answer the question: "How old is the earth?", unambiguously say: "The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years"!?
The radiocarbon method is wrong
Currently, several methods are used to determine the age of archaeological finds, the most reliable of which is considered to be radiocarbon. However, even this most reliable method has huge errors. Thanks to the analysis of the data obtained, scientists realized that the rate of radioactive decay is not constant, as previously thought, since it is influenced by many external factors. This means that the "atomic clock" gets off depending on external conditions.
Here are just a few examples of the dating of the "most accurate" method. Carbon-14 (14 C) dating showed: the freshly killed seal died 1,300 years ago; the shell of live snails was 27,000 years old; the age of the shell of a living mollusk is 2,300 years, etc. In the Belt cave (Iran), the underlying layer is dated at about 6,000 years old, and the overlying one is 8,500 years old. That is, the reverse sequence of layers is obtained, which, of course, is impossible. And there are many such examples.
How to explain such a magnitude of the error of the most accurate method?
Given the above, is it possible to answer the question: "How old is the earth?", With confidence, answer: "The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years"!?
Radioisotope dating
With regard to radioisotope dating, there are no less problems. essence this method in the fact that in the rock the number of atoms of a radioactive decaying element is compared with the number of atoms of a stable element that arose as a result of its decay. Mainly methods based on reactions are used: uranium → lead; potassium → argon; rubidium → strontium.
Radioactive decay can be compared to an hourglass. However, this method has serious drawbacks: we cannot be sure of the decay rate being constant, since observations have been made for less than 100 years, and scientists operate with billions of years of age; the initial amount of the test substances in the sample is unknown; external factors that could change the ratio of the studied chemical elements and affect the reaction rate are not taken into account. All these reasons, both individually and in combination, can radically change the results of calculations.
It was found that the method of radioisotope dating can lead to erroneous results hundreds of thousands of times! Creation geologists gave samples for study, the age of which was known for sure. As a result of studying the rock of a volcanic eruption that occurred in 1800 (that is, a little more than two hundred years ago) in the Hawaiian Islands, they erroneously dated the age from 22 million to 2 billion years ...
Given the above, is it possible to answer the question: "How old is the earth?". unambiguously say: "The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years"!?
Earth's magnetic field is weakening
According to observations, over the past one and a half hundred years, the intensity of the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing. Since the German scientist Carl Friedrich Gauss began making these observations in 1845, it has fallen by 10%. It is reasonable to believe that tensions have been decreasing before, although perhaps at a slower rate. That is, several tens of thousands of years ago, the planet's magnetic field should have been much stronger, which would have made life on Earth impossible. This means that our planet is relatively young.
There is a theory among materialists that the weakening is due to the slow reversal of the poles: the South Pole moves to the place of the North, and vice versa. A number of researchers believe that the magnetic polarity reversal is not new for our planet and occurs without a certain periodicity...
Moon close to Earth
The moon is slowly moving away from the Earth - at least 4 cm per year. So she used to be closer. As you know, the moon is the cause of the ebb and flow. Millions of years ago, all the inhabitants of our planet would have died from frequent tides, because water would cover the entire Earth at least once a day. How could land animals survive?
Given the above, is it possible to answer the question: "How old is the earth?". unequivocally state: "The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years"!?
It is known that during the decay of uranium, lead and helium are formed, which escapes into the atmosphere. As the lightest gas, helium accumulates in the upper atmosphere. Over billions of years, it should have accumulated in huge quantities - hundreds of thousands of times more than today. This confirms that the age of our planet is calculated in thousands, not millions of years.
Ice rings show not years
Today you can hear about dating the age of the Earth using ice rings. It is believed that in the Greenland ice sheet every year a dark ring (melting snow) is allegedly formed in summer, and a light one (ice buildup) in winter. However, an incident during World War II disproved this hypothesis. The aircraft made an emergency landing in Greenland. When, after 48 years, an expedition was sent there to seize documents, the planes were buried under a large layer of ice - 75 m, that is, the growth was about 1.67 m in 1 year. A well was drilled to get to the cars, and then it was discovered that the ice rings are not annual, like trees. It turned out that the dark rings of glaciers are formed not in summer, but during the thaw period, which can occur dozens of times a year.
Age of the coral reef
The largest coral reef, the Great Barrier Reef, is located in the Coral Sea on the northeast coast of Australia. It gained attention after being partially destroyed during World War II. As you know, coral reefs are formed by living marine colonial invertebrate polyps that have a calcareous skeleton. Therefore, after the destruction of the reef continued its growth. His "wounds" began to heal, and the growth rate began to be monitored regularly. Knowing the size of the reef and the rate of growth, creationists were able to determine its full age - 4.5-5 thousand years. Materialistic scientists estimate the age of the reef at 8,000 years. Both dates are not far from biblical chronology, but do not fit well into the theory of a billion years of age of the planet.
Understanding the seriousness of the voiced arguments, is it possible to answer the question: "How old is the earth?". say with conviction: "The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years"!?
Polonium radiohalo
Radiohalos are visible traces (in the form of rings) that are left in the mineral by emitted alpha particles during the decay of a radioactive element. Geologists were very surprised when they examined the structure of granite through a microscope. In this solid material, they found a radio halo of polonium-218.
Polonium-218 (218 Po) - a product formed during the decay of uranium - has a very short half-life - only 3 minutes. Researchers have found it in huge quantities in granite on all continents...
soil erosion
Many researchers believe that if the age of our planet was several billion years, then its surface would have been equal to sea level a long time ago, because the earth is washed away by rains into the ocean. The process of soil destruction by winds, water and other natural factors is called erosion. But we still see mountains, hills and fells. This means that erosion occurs for a rather short time.
Well-preserved coastlines also indicate a relatively recent division of one large continental mass into continents. look at the form South America and Africa, they can still be “connected” (especially considering the shelf), as when folding puzzles. But if we accept the theory of materialists, then in the hundreds of millions of years since the split (presumably 200-750 million years ago), erosion would have eroded the coastlines long ago.
Today, the rate of coastal erosion of the oceans (sliding, breaking, washing off) is different in different places - from several tens of centimeters to several tens of meters per year. But even its lowest rates do not fit into the multi-million age of the continents. For example, 10 cm x 1,000,000 years = 100 km. That is, in 200 million years, 20,000 km of land on each side should have disappeared. If we apply this calculation, then the modern map of the world should clearly look different: islands and peninsulas would have already disappeared under the ocean water in hundreds of millions of years and the continents would have lost most of their land. Note that many countries are investing a lot of money to strengthen their coastlines.
One more fact. Rains wash off the soil into an ocean of salt. Today, the salinity of ocean water is only 3.2-3.5% (32-35 ppm). According to the calculated rate of salt accumulation, modern seas and oceans cannot possibly be billions of years old. Lakes, like seas and oceans, accumulate salts in themselves, but their salinity is low, which indicates their young age and indirectly confirms the young age of the Earth. Also, a number of scientists point to the insufficient amount of barium, cobalt, nickel, antimony and other chemical elements in the seas and oceans, which enter there in greater quantities than they are removed.
geological column
The geological column as a sequence of layers of the Earth was proposed at the beginning of the 19th century. Today, with its help, evolutionists are trying to explain the multibillion-year age of our planet, during which, allegedly, these layers (layers) of the earth's crust were formed.
However, this same geological column is evidence against evolution. The fact is that geological layers in the form in which they are presented on the geochronological scale generally accepted by materialists are extremely rare. In the vast majority of cases, they are significantly confused and many of them are missing. According to geologist John Woodmorappe, 80 to 85% of the Earth's surface does not even have 3 geologic periods presented in the "correct" sequential order. Of course, materialistic scientists try to explain this by the displacement of layers as a result of the movement of the layers of the earth. Such an argument could be accepted if this "confusion" of layers were rare. But, as noted, the situation looks exactly the opposite.
Is it possible, after analyzing the above information and understanding this possibility, to the question: "How old is the earth?". answer with conviction: "The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years"!?
Canyons
Often, as evidence of the great age of our planet, materialists demonstrate canyons - deep ravines, on the slopes of which the layers of the earth are clearly visible. In their opinion, such canyons were formed by rivers, which long time flowed in one place and washed these ravines to a depth of several tens of meters to one and a half kilometers.
However, creationist geologists, on the contrary, see in the canyons confirmation of a grand catastrophe. For example, in the Grand Canyon in the United States, at an altitude of more than 1.5 km, you can find sea shells, although this area is far from the ocean. By the way, the remains of marine life are found even on Everest, the highest mountain in the world. This can only be explained by the fact that earlier these earth layers were covered with sea water. It is also indicative that the layers of sandstone and limestone of the Grand Canyon contain breccias - pebbles from crumbled hard rocks. They could appear inside the layers only as a result of a catastrophe and the subsequent "mixing" of the consequences of destruction. At the same time, pebbles have sharp corners, and oblong breccias are oriented in one direction. These facts prove that the breccias were in a liquid medium, but for a short time, since the water did not have time to “grind” their edges. Obviously, this picture could well have formed after the retreat of the waters of the flood. In addition, in the canyons there are sharp bends in parallel layers. It is very clearly seen from them that the deformation occurred when the rocks were still unhardened, soft, since there are no large cracks, breaks and ruptures in the places of bends.
Mutual responsibility
As for the names of geological layers, sonorous names were often invented by him without a direct connection with science. For example, a number of layers were named after the areas in which they were discovered (for example, Cambrian, Devonian, Permian, Jurassic), and some, in honor of the ancient peoples living there (for example, Vendian, Ordovician, Silurian). Recall that materialistic scientists imagined a possible vertical evolutionary development of organisms and arranged them in layers of the earth, in which, theoretically, their dead remains should have been located - each in its own era. But in reality, it is practically impossible to find places on Earth where the layers are arranged in the same sequence as shown in textbooks.
Therefore, the work of geologists, paleontologists and archaeologists is always complicated by one problem - to determine the name of the layer that they are exploring. Both have no tools for their own precise dating of the layer. Therefore, until now, scientists geologists determine the geological layers by the fossilized remains of organisms found there. And accordingly, archaeologists and paleontologists determine the age of the finds by the name of the layer that geologists told them. It turns out "mutual responsibility", or rather a circle closed on itself. Of course, this practice is not scientific, but based solely on the evolutionary worldview. But there is no other data for a reasonable and at least somehow proven dating of the layers.
Is it possible, thinking about the arguments presented here to the question: "How old is the earth?". with all 100% to declare with conviction: "The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years"!?
Oil, coal, peat. Pierced Layers
It is no secret to anyone today that oil, coal and peat are organic matter. Mostly these are former forests. These natural resources are dated back hundreds of millions of years by materialists, because, in their opinion, this was the time needed for their formation. Therefore, some evolutionists consider minerals as one of the proofs of the venerable age of our planet. However, not all scientific materialists are categorical in this matter. The fact is that there are indisputable facts that make one think about the objectivity of the widespread opinion.
As mentioned above, all the most ancient organic substances studied, including minerals, contain a decent amount of carbon-14, which cannot be according to the evolutionary model, since this radioactive substance should have completely decayed in fifty thousand years.
In addition, studies have shown that millions of years are not needed at all for the formation of these fossils. The above-mentioned volcanic eruptions on Mount St. Helena destroyed many of the arguments of the materialists. Landslides caused by the volcano filled the large Spirit Lake with tens of thousands of broken and uprooted trees. Floating on the surface in large groups, the trunks, rubbing against each other, dropped the bark to the bottom. After some time, the trees began to sink. The researchers, who went down under the water a few years later, saw an interesting picture: at the bottom of the lake, in some places, there was a three-meter layer of bark, which began to turn into coal or peat ...
Here it is worth stopping a little in the discussion of minerals and switching to another topic. The fact is that divers were surprised not only by the rapidly forming fossil fuels ... The bottom landscape was a strange forest - tree trunks protruded vertically from the sedimentary layers. The physics of the formation of this "forest" is simple: some trees were uprooted, so they drowned with their rhizomes down, where their base quickly skidded, so that they seemed to have grown into the bottom sediments. The speed of their flooding was different and the depth of the lake, where they found their refuge, too. Therefore, these trees were something similar to the remains of petrified forests, which supposedly previously inhabited the Earth at different stages of time: below - more ancient, above - closer to us. Until this discovery was made, the US Yellowstone National Park was proud of its petrified forest, located at various heights, allegedly demonstrating different time spans of the life of the Earth. As it turned out, such a forest could have arisen quickly as a result of a disaster, which is why Yellowstone trees have the same short, broken rhizomes as the sunken trunks in Spirit Lake.
The upright petrified trees are good evidence for the rapid deposition of layers. Today, in hard rocks, vertical tree trunks are often found, as if “piercing” several layers of sandstone, coal, limestone ..., indicating the rapid formation of layers. Such a situation is possible only in the case when, during the flood, some trees sank with a heavy rhizome down, and then the soil settled to the bottom in fractions. And this happened quite quickly, otherwise the upper part of the trunk would have had time to rot.
Rice. Petrified trees permeate several layers
Let's now go back to minerals. There are several other facts related to them, confirming the young age of our planet.
For example, many oil and gas fields are located in porous rocks. However, until now they are in the bowels of the earth under very high pressure. If these minerals were formed many millions of years ago, then this pressure would have dissipated long ago in a porous medium.
There is also a clearly beneficial effect of practical application Creation theories: Realizing that it took a short time for oil and coal to form, they discovered the process of rapidly making liquid combustible materials from organics and coal from wood. It was enough just to subject the samples to pressure at high temperature. The results of these studies are now widely used in entrepreneurial activity V different countries peace. That is, fossil oil and coal are organics (animals, plants), somehow found themselves in one place and modified under the influence of pressure and temperature. It is difficult to imagine how this could have happened over millions of years. After all, if trees and living organisms died gradually over a long period of time, then, as today, they would simply rot, forming the soil - the upper layer of the Earth. But the catastrophe of the flood explains this phenomenon well. During the flood, huge masses of vegetation and animal remains were carried by streams of water and currents to certain places, where they were subsequently filled up with erupting hot rocks, moving landslides or layers of earth, and then covered with huge layers of water that created pressure of thousands of atmospheres, forming in a matter of months peat, coal or oil (depending on conditions). After the catastrophe, during the uplift of the soil, such deposits turned out to be in different places and at different distances from the surface.
It is surprising that, seeing the presence of such facts, many people are asked: "How old is the earth?". say with complete confidence: "The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years"!?
Layers contain the results of human activity
In coal and limestone seams, allegedly "hundred million people", periodically find human products and traces of human life. They even received the scientific name "Paleoartifacts" or Unidentified Fossil Objects (FIO). These include, in particular, a metal parallelepiped correct form(“Salzburg parallelepiped”), found in a piece of hard brown coal; an iron nail embedded in a block of sandstone recovered from the Kingudi quarries; an iron hammer “imbedded” in the rock, the wooden handle of which was petrified on the outside, and turned into coal inside, discovered in Texas in sandstone dating back 450 million years. At the Museum of Creation in Texas, next to the hammer, there is also a bowler hat found in a lump of coal. There are so many such finds that a number of books have already been written about them. Human footprints imprinted on petrified rocks can also be attributed to unidentified fossil objects. Of course, all these findings can only be explained if the Biblical flood theory is accepted.
Rice. An iron mallet whose wooden handle is petrified on the outside and turned into coal on the inside and a cooking pot are at the Texas Creation Museum
Dinosaurs are reliable witnesses
According to accepted materialistic theory, dinosaurs lived over 65 million years ago. According to creationists, lizards were created along with all animals, which means that their remains cannot be more than 6-7.5 thousand years old. And this chronology is confirmed by numerous facts. Thus, many found dinosaurs have a low degree of bone fossilization. Due to their increased thickness, apparently, they simply did not have enough time to fully mineralize. There were even bones with soft tissues and red blood cells. It is clear that such organic matter has not been preserved for millions of years.
How can one, having studied and analyzed this question, continue to assert that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years, realizing that it is impossible to know exactly how old the earth is and that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago...?!
All humans are descended from "Adam" and "Eve"
Eve's mitochondrial DNA and Adam's Y chromosome are now the scientific concepts of geneticists. Many scientists, including materialists, agree today that all women of the Homo Sapiens species that have survived to this day are descended from one "first" - "Eve", and similarly all men from one "first" - "Adam". Attempts to determine their age give conflicting results ... However, one thing is clear - the genetic paths lead each to its own point, which is extremely difficult to imagine if you follow the logic of Darwin's theory, according to which the population of monkeys has gradually evolved into humans for millions of years.
In addition, it is also interesting that the age of the "first" man is determined at 60 - 90 thousand years, and the "first" woman - 140 - 230 thousand years. According to materialistic scientists, it turns out that a woman of the genus Homo (people), 50 - 170 thousand years after the emergence of man, met a man of the same genus Homo, but of a different species, from which they went modern people species Homo sapiens. And the descendants, that is, entire clans and peoples ... from other men and women of the Homo genus, who multiplied on the planet before and after this meeting, in a strange way, subsequently all died out. Even a non-specialist understands that such a picture in real life is simply impossible to imagine. But scientific materialists are forced to believe in it, otherwise the platform of their evolutionary theory will collapse.
Population Growth Corresponds to the Biblical Age of the Earth
To determine the approximate population growth, it is necessary to know two basic quantities: the average number of children in a family and the average age of a generation. Using these parameters, you can at least approximately calculate the population of the Earth. If we accept the theory of evolution, according to which a person has existed on Earth for about 200,000 years, then with an average generation age of 25 years, it turns out that 8,000 generations have changed on the planet. And if we assume that for each generation the population of the Earth increased by 20% (this figure can be reduced, which will not change the order of numbers much), then it turns out that by our time the number of people on the planet should have been an immeasurably fantastic figure! So, the twentieth generation from the first two people should have numbered about 60 people, the fiftieth - already about 15,000, the hundredth - about 140,000,000, and the one hundred and twenty-second - already exceed the current population of the Earth - 7,600,000,000. And if we are talking about thousands of generations, even an engineering calculator cannot calculate this figure ... And the area of \u200b\u200bthe entire Earth would not be enough to simply put people living on it nearby. According to the modern study of the growth of the population of the Earth, taking into account wars and epidemics, people may well live on our planet for about 4.5 - 6 thousand years, that is, the time after the biblical flood.
Also interesting is the fact that there are no numerous burial places on our planet of people who, according to materialists, lived on it for 200 thousand years. We find many skeletons of a wide variety of dinosaurs and other fossils... but not so many human bones. Although, logically, the earth should abound with human skeletons, since a rational being, which is a person, should have been more attentive to the corpses of their ancestors. Even if all human bones rotted away, how could the numerous stone tools that people used, according to evolutionists, for tens and even hundreds of thousands of years, have decayed into dust?
Ancient civilizations no more than 5.5 thousand years old
The most ancient well-known human civilizations, as well as their writing, according to the most daring calculations, date back to no more than 5.5 thousand years old. Note - not 10 thousand, not 20 thousand, and even more so not 200 thousand years, how long, according to evolutionists, there is a reasonable person. It is hardly possible that mankind lived for tens and even hundreds of thousands of years without leaving behind the facts of intelligent life and writing, and then abruptly, no later than 5.5 thousand years ago, began to actively cover the earth with evidence of its existence.
How can one, having carefully studied these objective arguments, continue talking not on the topic "How old is the earth?", and insist that the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years?!
Unique living conditions
The Bible says that God created the earth specifically for living on it:
“The Lord, who created the heavens, ... formed the earth ...; He approved it, not in vain ...; He formed her for living" 1
Often, we - people do not even think about how unique we are surrounded by conditions for life. Even materialists do not hide their surprise at the miraculous positive random "coincidences" that allegedly contributed to the emergence of life on Earth. The combination of these conditions even received the scientific name "Anthropic principle".
For example, if you change the distance from the Earth to the Sun up or down, then staying on our planet will become less comfortable, or completely impossible. The same goes for many other factors. For example, the composition of the air is only as it is, optimally suitable for life on Earth. If you slightly reduce oxygen and add a little carbon dioxide, or vice versa .., which also applies to other gases that make up the atmosphere, then all life on the planet will immediately feel it. And with a change of a few percent in the ratio of gases in the air, everything breathing on the planet will expect the end!
Not only the lower layer of the atmosphere is unique. In general, the entire atmosphere - external and internal - is extremely important for the planet. If its "protective" composition were "weaker", then radiation from space could kill all life on Earth. Or, on the contrary, if the atmosphere to a greater extent than now, retained the sun's rays, then the planet would not have enough heat, energy and ultraviolet (which, in addition to negative, has positive properties for the Earth and earthlings).
It is worth recalling photosynthesis. The composition of air suitable for living beings includes oxygen. But they breathe out carbon dioxide. That is, logically, certain time, everything breathing on the planet had to die, since oxygen would run out in the atmosphere and carbon dioxide would multiply ... But plants help maintain a sufficient content of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the air. On sunshine With the participation of water in them, the process of photosynthesis occurs, the result of which is the absorption of carbon dioxide and the release of oxygen.
I think, dear reader, you have understood that it is possible to list the unique facts of the Anthropic Principle further. That is, all the basic parameters of the Sun and the Earth, the subtle coherence of physical laws and world constants, cannot but make one admire either “your majesty the case” or the intelligent Creator of heaven and Earth.
1 Bible. Old Testament, Isaiah 45:18Lack of scientific evidence
There is a fact confirming that materialistic scientists cannot provide unambiguous evidence for their theory of the random formation of the Earth, life on it and vertical evolution. More than 10 years ago, renowned scientific creationist Kent Hovind publicly offered $250,000 to anyone who could provide a single piece of empirical evidence (scientific evidence) for evolution. So far, there has not been a single applicant for this money!
Really, realizing that there is no real evidence, people to the question: "How old is the earth?". will consider: "The age of the earth is more than 4 billion years"!?
Section Conclusion
If you look at the facts impartially, it becomes objective that materialists do not have irrefutable scientific evidence of the evolution and great age of our planet. To all the theoretical arguments of the adherents of the theory of Darwin and the Big Bang, there are weighty counterarguments of creationists. And let me remind you that it is not scientists who argue with the ministers of the church, but scientists with scientists. In the hands of opponents are diplomas, titles and regalia, as well as scientifically based evidence in favor of their position.
And at the same time, the materialists lack real indisputable evidence, but their theory has many contradictions and gives rise to questions that have no answers. Only a few of these issues have been addressed in this book. I'm sure the readers are convinced that the questions posed are extremely important, since reasonable answers to them refute evolution and the many billions of years of the Earth, but at the same time confirm Intelligent Creation. And since there is a possibility of the existence of an alternative, it is simply impossible to turn a blind eye to it. That is, the concept of creationism should be perceived as competitive - scientific, despite the fact that in essence it is religious.
How old is the earth, geological layers, the age of the earth, the Cambrian explosion, when did the dinosaurs live, DISCOVERING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
1. DNA in "ancient" fossils. These DNAs, derived from bacteria believed to be 425 million years old, cast doubt on this age, as DNA cannot survive for more than a few thousand years.
2. The Lazarus bacterium, a bacterium reanimated from salt inclusions that is believed to be 250 million years old, indicates that the salt is not millions of years old.
3. The degeneration of the human genome due to numerous mutations in each generation is consistent with the theory that life arose several thousand years ago.
4. Data on "mitochondrial Eve" correspond to data on the common origin of people several thousand years ago.
5. The very limited variation in the DNA of the human YY chromosome around the world is indicative of a recent human origin—thousands, not millions of years ago.
6. Many fossils that are "dated" to be millions of years old have barely mineralized, if mineralization has taken place at all.
7. The surviving red blood cells, blood vessels and proteins of dinosaurs do not match their estimated age, but rather testify to the youth of these fossils. (Fig.1)
8. Lack of 50:50 amino acid racemization in fossils dated to millions of years, moreover? that complete racemization could occur over thousands of years.
9. Living "fossils". That hundreds of species have been able to remain so unchanged for hundreds of millions of years suggests that this age cannot be real.
10. Intermittent sequence of fossils. For example, the Celecant fish, the Wollemia pine, and many of the index fossils that are thought to be in "ancient" rocks are missing from layers many millions of years later, but are alive today. Such discontinuity testifies against the antiquity of the rocks. How could a Celecant fish escape burial for 65 million years?
11. The age of the longest-lived organisms in the world - trees - corresponds to the time period of the Earth's existence of thousands of years.
Geological evidence
12. Insufficient amount of fossilized plants in many formations containing a large number of remains of herbivores. These layers do not represent the ecosystems of an entire "epoch" of organisms that have been buried in their place for millions of years. The facts are more consistent with the theory of the catastrophic transfer of the remains and their subsequent burial during the Flood. And this crosses out the evidence of the multimillion-year age of the Earth.
13. Thick rock layers that have been flexed without any evidence of melting or fracture indicate rapid flexing that occurred before the sedimentary rock layers solidified. This fact erases millions of years of time and confirms the extremely rapid formation of rocks during the Flood.
14. Polystrate fossils. Trunks that cross many layers can be found all over the world. Such tree trunks are also found in coal, which also indicates a rapid burial. organic material, which later became coal.
15. Coal forms quickly: experiments that mimic natural processes confirm this. Brown coal is formed in weeks, and black coal in months. Long periods of time could prevent coal from forming, due to the increased likelihood of overmineralization of the wood, which would interfere with its coalification.
16. Oil forms quickly: experiments that simulate the effects of natural processes confirm this - millions of years are not needed.
17. Opals form quickly: Experiments have shown that opals form within weeks, not millions of years as claimed.
18. Evidence for catastrophic formation of coal seams is against hundreds of millions of years. Z-shaped coal veins, among other things, also indicate that all these layers were formed during the same accumulation event.
19. Evidence for the rapid petrification of wood argues against the theory of long periods of time.
20. Clastic dikes and pipes (intrusion of sediments into the overlying sedimentary layer) indicate that the overlying layers were still soft during this process. This drastically shortens the time scale for the deposition of layers where such intrusions are found.
21. Stratigraphic unconformity - when one rock layer is located on another layer, but there are no signs of millions of years of geological time, and the contact surface does not bear traces of significant erosion.
22. The presence of short-term traces (traces of raindrops, waves, traces of animals) at the boundaries between the layers indicate that the upper layers of rocks were deposited immediately after the lower ones, and this confirms the absence of millions of years.
23. Adjacent layers wedged into each other, which, presumably, were formed with a difference of many millions of years, also disprove the existence of many millions of geological years.
24. Insufficient biotubation (channels dug by worms and tree roots) in the unconformity of rock occurrence further supports the fact that much less time has elapsed there, evolutionists insert millions of years.
25. The almost complete absence of clearly distinguishable soil layers anywhere in the geological column. Geologists claim to have discovered great amount relic soils (paleosalts), however, they are completely different from modern soils. Each of these samples, which has been subjected to careful examination, proves the absence of the characteristics of real soil. If life has thrived on Earth for hundreds of millions of years, there must have been a huge amount of opportunity for soils to form.
26. Limited extent of unconformity (surface eroded and separating young from older layers). Surfaces erode quickly, but there are few uncoordinated strata. There is a "great unconformity" at the base of the Grand Canyon, but there are layers (probably formed over 300 million years) on top of it without any significant erosion between them - evidence that these layers were deposited rapidly.
27. The amount of salt in the oldest salt lake in the world contradicts its estimated age and indicates that it most likely formed after the Flood.
28. The discovery of underwater landslides (the so-called "turbidity flows"), which occur at a speed of about 50 km / h and can form huge areas of sedimentary rocks (which were previously attributed to millions of years) in a few hours.
29. Experiments in artificial channels with water flows carrying grains of sedimentary rocks of various sizes indicate that layered rock strata, which were thought to take enormous periods of time to form, actually formed very quickly.
30. Observable examples of rapid canyon formation. They cast doubt on the supposedly ancient age of the canyons, the process of formation of which no one observed.
31. Observed examples of rapid formation and aging of islands. Contrary to the view that long periods of time are needed for the formation of such islands.
32. The rate of horizontal erosion of the coastline.
33. The rate of vertical erosion of the continents.
34. The existence of huge, flat plateaus, "dated" by many millions of years ("elevated ancient plains"). In light of observed erosion, the longevity of these plains and their flat forms belies ancient age.
35. Recent and near-synchronous formation of all major mountain ranges around the world: they are believed to have formed only about 5 million years ago, while continents are claimed to have existed for billions of years.
36. Deep valleys cutting through mountain ranges are found all over the world and are considered part of an ecosystem that evolutionists call the "discordant drainage system" because it does not fit into the time span of their belief system. Evidence suggests that they formed quickly, over a shorter period of time, during the recessive stage of the Flood.
37. The erosion of Niagara Falls and other similar places supports the theory that only a few thousand years have passed since the biblical Flood.
38. The growth rate of river deltas corresponds to an age of thousands of years (after the biblical Flood), and not to long periods of time.
39. Dying rivers. River valleys are too large for the water streams that flow through them. They are distributed across all continents. The source of rivers in the past was often 20060 times more powerful than today. This means that the river valleys formed very quickly, and not over long periods of time.
40. The amount of salt in the ocean. Even assuming the initial absence of salt in the ocean and taking the maximum time for the accumulation of salt, the maximum age of the oceans will be 62 million years - only 1/50 of the age attributed by evolutionists to the oceans.
41. The amount of sedimentary rocks on the ocean floor at the current rate of erosion of the continents indicates a maximum age of 12 million years. And this is just an instant compared to the estimated age of the ocean floor at 3 billion years.
42. Iron-manganese granules on the ocean floor. The calculated growth rate of such granules indicates their age of thousands of years.
43. Age of loose deposits. The calculated rate of deposition is indicative of their age in the thousands, not the supposed millions of years.
44. Pressure in oil and gas wells indicates the recent origin of oil and gas. If they were millions of years old, we would expect the pressure to balance over such a period even in rocks with low gas permeability.
45. Evidence that oil is still being produced today comes from observations in the Guaymas Basin and Bass Strait. Their results are consistent with the theory of a young age of the Earth.
46. Rapid polarity reversals in paleomagnetism discredit the use of paleomagnetism in determining the ancient age of rocks and favor fast processes, compressing the time scale enormously.
47. The pattern of magnetization of magnetic stripes in places of magma outflow in craters in the middle of the ocean contradicts the traditional interpretation of the many millions of years of the Earth's age and, rather, indicates a rapid course of processes, which corresponds to the theory of the young age of the Earth.
48. The observed rate of growth of stalactites and stalagmites in limestone caves is consistent with the theory of a young age of the Earth of several thousand years.
49. Weakening of the Earth's magnetic field. This is in line with the theory of decline since creation and suggests that the earth is less than 20,000 years old.
50. Excessive heat transfer from the Earth is consistent with the theory of a young, and not a multibillion-year-old Earth, even taking into account the heat released during radioactive decay.
Radiometric dating
51. The presence of carbon 14 in coal confirms its age of thousands of years and clearly contradicts the theory of its age of millions of years.
52. The presence of carbon 14 in oil confirms its age in thousands, not millions of years.
53. Carbon 14 in ancient fossil wood indicates an age of thousands of years and contradicts an age of millions of years.
54. The presence of carbon 14 in diamonds confirms their age in thousands, not billions of years.
55. Conflicting dates from radiometric dating using the same technique argue against the reliability of dating methods that show ages in millions of years.
56. Conflicting dates of radiometric dating using different methods argue against the reliability of dating methods that show ancient ages.
57. Clearly non-radiogenic "isochrones" of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions of isochron dating, giving the age of the Earth in billions of years. "False" isochrones are a widespread phenomenon.
58. Different surfaces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons mined from the same stone give different ages, thereby undermining the reliability of all ancient dates established with the help of zircons.
59. Evidence for rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (concentrations of lead and helium, as well as diffusion rates in zircons) indicate that the young age of the Earth is the logical explanation for these facts.
60. The amount of helium, a product of the alpha decay of radioactive elements, preserved in granite zircons, indicates the age of the Earth at 6000 ± 2000 years, and not billions of years.
61. The amount of lead in crystals of zirconium mined from deep wells, compared with its content in crystals mined from shallow wells, is the same, although there should be less lead in zircons from deep wells, since more heating causes a greater intensity of diffusion. If the age of the Earth is only thousands of years, then there should not be much difference, which is what we observe.
62. Pleochronic halos confirm the rapid nuclear decay in the past and the rapid formation of granites.
63. Squeezed radiohalos formed by the decay of polonium (an element with a very fast half-life) in charcoal from layers of different geological eras confirm the rapid formation of all layers at about the same time, during the same catastrophic process.
64. "Burning Mountain" in Australia refutes the data of radiometric dating and the entire system of views on the multimillion-year age of the Earth. (According to radiometric dating of the magma intrusion that caused the fire, the coal on the "burning mountain" has been burning for 40 million years, which is completely impossible).
Astronomical evidence
65. Evidence of recent volcanic activity on the Moon contradicts the theory of its ancient age, since if the age of the Moon were indeed billions of years old, it would have cooled long ago.
66. Distance of the Moon from the Earth. Tidal friction causes the Moon to move away from the Earth by 4 cm per year. In the past, the receding speed would have been even greater, since the Earth and the Moon were closer to each other. The Moon and Earth would be in catastrophic proximity to each other (Roche limit) if their age was even 1/4 of the estimated age.
67. Earth slowdown. The rate of tidal dissipation of the Earth's rotational momentum: an increase in the length of the day by 0.002 seconds/day per century (meaning that billions of years ago, a day would have been impossibly short, but immediately after the formation of the Earth and before the supposed impact with a giant meteorite that formed Moon, the day would be very long).
68. Ghost craters on lunar dark "seas" of massive lava flows are a big problem for ancient age theory.
69. The presence of a powerful magnetic field of Mercury does not correspond to the theory of its estimated age of billions of years.
70. The planets Uranus and Neptune also have magnetic fields, but they should have been "dead" long ago if they were as old as evolutionists claim. By assuming a young age for the solar system, physicist Russell Humphreys successfully predicted the intensity of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune.
71. Large satellites of Jupiter, Ganymede, Io and Europa also have magnetic fields, which should not be if they were billions of years old, since they have solid cores, and no dynamo mechanism could generate these magnetic fields.
72. Volcanically active satellites of Jupiter (for example, Io) confirm the theory of a young age. If volcanic eruptions occurred on the satellite of Io for 4.5 billion years, then even with 10% of their current activity, the mass of eruptions would exceed the mass of the satellite itself by 40 times. Io does not fit into the age of the solar system in billions of years.
73. The surface of the moon of Jupiter called "Europe". Studies of some craters have shown that up to 95% of small craters and most of the medium-sized craters were formed by fragments from large meteorites. This means that there were far fewer meteorites in the solar system than previously thought. This means that the age of other objects, determined on the basis of the intensity of cratering, should be significantly reduced.
74. The presence of methane on Titan (the largest satellite of Saturn). Methane should have disappeared long ago, since its decay into ethane, provoked by ultraviolet radiation, would have to occur in just 10 thousand years. However, ethane is not observed in large quantities there either.
75. The intensity of the change (disappearance) of the rings of Saturn does not correspond to the theory of their ancient age, but testifies in favor of his youth.
76. Enceladus (Saturn's moon) looks young. Astronomers who believe in billions of years believed that this satellite must be cold and dead. However, it is a very active satellite, spewing massive jets of water vapor and ice particles into space at supersonic speeds.
77. Miranda, a small moon of Uranus, would have been a dead satellite for a long time if its age was billions of years, but pronounced features on its surface indicate the opposite.
78. The planet Neptune would have become “cold” long ago and there would be no wind movements on it if its age was billions of years. However, the Galileo probe confirmed the opposite in 1995: Neptune has the strongest wind movement in the entire solar system.
79. In the rings of Neptune there are both thick and thin sections. Such heterogeneity suggests that their age cannot be billions of years, since collisions of objects within the ring would eventually make the ring uniform.
80. The age of the young surface of Neptune's satellite Triton, calculated on the basis of the intensity of meteorite impacts, even on evolutionary assumptions, cannot be more than 10 million years.
81. The magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune are significantly off their axis, which indicates the instability of the situation. When this fact was established in connection with Uranus, evolutionists assumed that Uranus was going through a reversal of the magnetic field. However, when the same was found on Neptune, this situational explanation was refuted. These observations support the theory that planets are thousands, not billions of years old.
82. Pluto's orbit is chaotic on a time scale of 20 million years and affects the entire solar system, which would become unstable on that time scale, indicating that it is much younger.
83. The existence of short-period comets that last less than 20,000 years confirms the theory that the solar system is less than 10,000 years old. To circumvent these proofs, one has to invent special hypotheses.
84. The near infrared spectrum of the Kuiper Belt objects - Quaoar and the proposed object belonging to the Kuiper Belt - Charon, indicates that crystallized water and ammonium hydroxide are present on both objects. This watery material cannot be older than 10 million years, which is consistent with the theory that the solar system is young.
85. The lifespan of long-period comets indicates that they could not have formed with the solar system 4.5 billion years ago. However, their existence is consistent with the theory of the young age of the solar system.
86. The maximum lifetime of near-Earth asteroids is in the order of one million years. After that, they collide with the Sun. The Yarkovsky effect causes asteroids to move from the main belt to Earth orbit faster than previously thought. This calls into question the origin of asteroids along with the formation of the solar system (the usual scenario), or solar system much younger than its claimed age of 4.5 billion years.
87. Lifespan of binary asteroids (when a small satellite asteroid orbits a larger asteroid) in the main belt. Binary asteroids make up about 1517% of the total number of asteroids. Tidal effects limit the lifespan of such binary systems up to about 100 thousand years.
88. The observed high frequency of changes in stars contradicts the theory of ancient age, which is attributed to stellar evolution.
89. The paradox of a young dim Sun.
90. Cometesimals. Astronomer Louis Frank, based on the results of his research, states that cometesimals (small comet remnants) annually bring 100 million tons of water to Earth. If this theory is confirmed, it will make a big difference in the estimated age of the oceans.
91. Giant gas planets Jupiter and Saturn radiate more energy than they receive from the Sun, which indicates their recent origin. Jupiter radiates nearly twice as much energy as it receives from the Sun, suggesting it may be less than 1% of its 4.5 billion years old.
92. The existence of ultra-fast stars confirms the theory of the young age of the Universe. For example, many stars in the dwarf galaxies of the Local Group move away from each other at an average speed of 10,012 km/s. At these speeds, the stars should have dissipated in 100 million years (only 0.6% of the 14 billion years of the estimated age of the universe).
93. The aging of spiral galaxies does not correspond to the theory of their age in billions of years. The discovery of completely “young” spiral galaxies draws attention to the problem of the lack of evidence in favor of their supposed evolutionary age.
94. The number of Type I supernova remnants that can be observed in our galaxy confirms the theory of an age of thousands, not billions of years.
95. The growth rates and sizes of supernovae indicate that all studied stars are young (less than 10,000 years old).
Human history
96. Human population growth. An annual increase of less than 0.5% from six people could provide today's population for 4500 years. Where are all the people if we have been on Earth much longer?
97. Human skeletons of the "Stone Age" and artifacts. They are not enough even for 100 thousand years with a population of only 1 million, and what can we say about even more (10 million?)
98. Length of documented history. The origin of various civilizations, writing, etc. around the same time, several thousand years ago.
99. Languages. Similarities in languages claimed to be separated by many tens of thousands of years argue against their supposed age.
100. Common cultural "myths" speak of the recent division of the peoples of the world. An example of this is the frequency of flood stories that destroyed the earth.
101. The origin of agriculture. It is believed that Agriculture was founded 10 thousand years ago, while, according to the same chronology, it is believed that man has been living on earth for more than 200 thousand years. Obviously, someone should have figured out how to plant plants and get their own food much earlier.
Guys, we put our soul into the site. Thanks for that
for discovering this beauty. Thanks for the inspiration and goosebumps.
Join us at Facebook And In contact with
Like all life on Earth, we continue to evolve. If you don’t believe me, remember the story of wisdom teeth, which were well developed in our distant ancestors, eating rough food. With us, they were reduced as unnecessary.
We are in website wondered how a person would look like after millions of years of evolution, if the conditions on planet Earth roughly correspond to the emerging trends and likely forecasts.
- Height. Over the past 200 years, the population of developed countries has grown by 10 cm due to improved living conditions, quality nutrition. If this goes on, the growth of men will reach 2 meters, but hardly higher. (Sources: Mean Body Weight, Height, and body mass index, United States 1960–2002, wikipedia)
- Leather will become darker as the races mix intensively. And dark skin will better protect against ultraviolet radiation, which will penetrate the Earth in excess. (Source: livescience, nickolaylamm)
- Body. Man will reduce his physical costs with the help of machines and robots. Physical strength will not be required, the muscles will contract. Technology will become integral part our body, embedded chips and gadgets will become commonplace. (Source: futurehumanevolution)
- Hands. Constant use keyboards and touch screens will make hands and fingers thinner and longer. (Source: the-scientist)
- Legs. The body will change to match the sedentary lifestyle, long strong legs will not be needed. The fibula is reduced, which is typical for terrestrial animals. This bone is used to turn the foot, which was important for our tree-climbing ancestors. But for us, lateral mobility of the ankle became rather harmful, often leading to dislocations. (Source: futurehumanevolution, anthropogenez)
- Toes. Our ancestors also used them for climbing trees. In the series from Australopithecus to us, the fingers have noticeably shortened, it is obvious that this is not the limit. Probably, their number will also decrease. Land animals always come to a decrease in their number, and the horse is the champion here. (Source: anthropogenez)
- Rib cage. If it becomes more and more difficult to extract oxygen from the atmosphere, the lungs will increase in size. The chest will also increase.
- Head. It is still unclear whether the man of the future will have a smaller or larger volume of the skull than now. On the one hand, compared with the Cro-Magnons, the human brain has become, oddly enough, smaller. It becomes more compact, which only contributes to its fast operation. On the other hand, more and more caesarean sections allow children with large heads to survive. This will affect the increase in its average size. Therefore, it is likely that there will be no natural childbirth in the future. (Sources: anthropogenez, bbc, vox)
- Teeth. Humanity is switching to softer food. The number of teeth and their size will decrease, this will entail a decrease in the jaw and mouth. (
Scientists all over the world are trying to predict what a person will become in the distant future. We offer you a generalized description of our descendants who will live in a million years.
Head like the House of Soviets
The volume of the brain has already tripled in the last 3 million years from 400 to 1400 cubic centimeters. Presumably, it will triple or quadruple even more! The cerebral cortex will become little by little the most working part our body, which bears the greatest load.
Leave barbers out of work...
Finer and sparse than our ancestors, our hair will eventually disappear altogether. Blondes are not often seen now, in the future they will give way to brown-haired women and brunettes, but all of them will eventually completely lose their hair. After all, hair no longer performs the previously necessary functions of protecting the brain from the sun, temperature effects, shock absorption ...
…and facilitate the work of dentists
In the process of evolution, we have already lost six teeth (remaining 32 instead of 44), and their number will decrease. This is probably due to changes in diet: boiled food and less and less meat. Think about wisdom teeth - they serve nothing, but only give us trouble. Scientists suggest that over time we will limit ourselves to twenty-six teeth.
But this is in vain!
The mammary glands, alas, will disappear. And now a rare mother can boast that she breastfed her baby. At first, the glands will stop secreting milk, and then they will disappear altogether, giving way to a cute boyish torso.
Hands at the seams!
The habit of swinging our arms in time with our steps goes back to the old days when we ran on all fours. It's time to stop...
Gimme five!
No, give me three. The fingers will become thinner and more sensitive. We will probably lose one or two fingers, since the remaining three are enough for everyday activities: holding a pen or a spoon, pressing buttons ... The thumb will lengthen until it equals the rest.
Bodybuilding will go out of fashion
Despite playing sports, our muscles will become thinner (muscularity gene disappears) as they have become absolutely useless. There is no need to rescue children from wild animals, nor to hunt for food. But the arms will lengthen significantly and will be more firmly attached to the collarbones.
The joints will become stronger and the bones thinner...
Now they are rather weak, since we very recently - only 3 million years - walk on two legs. Cartilage will lengthen and strengthen, depreciation will improve, pain in the back and neck that bothers us, especially in old age, will disappear .... and the bones will become thinner
Today it is not unusual for a person to suffer one or two fractures in a lifetime. For our ancestors, this was an exceptional phenomenon. Bones will become increasingly brittle due to increased human height and lack of calcium. It can be assumed that subsequently they will become more flexible, thinner and less brittle.
We will grow up a lot
Our growth in the future will be more than two meters, although no one really knows why a person is getting taller and taller.
Eyebrows will disappear
Eyebrows protected the eyes of a primitive man from the sun's rays and retained drops of sweat flowing from his forehead during a hunt. Changing climate, lifestyle and the advent of sunglasses make them completely unnecessary.
Everyone will become myopic...
In ancient times, good eyesight was necessary for a hunter and a warrior. With each generation, visual acuity decreased. It is assumed that we will all become nearsighted, but scientists, quite possibly, by that time will create artificial eyes, allowing not only to restore vision, but also to see in the currently inaccessible regions of the spectrum - infrared and ultraviolet. Blue and gray eyes will give way to black and brown.
Another loss...
We need less and less ears. They will disappear. leaving room for small holes, which over time will completely cover up with folds of skin.
The stomach will shrink
The stomach becomes more and more compact, because the share of high-calorie and easily digestible boiled food in our diet is growing.
Body hair will disappear
The ones we have now are nothing more than memories of primate ancestors. We no longer protect ourselves from the cold with hair, and over time, the remnants of this vegetation will be replaced by smooth, satin skin.
Very small feet
The feet of girls and boys will be small - no more than 21 sizes, while flat and square. Big toes, once used for grasping and climbing trees, will disappear.
Fast doesn't mean good
The gestation period will probably be reduced to three months. The baby of the future will become even larger-headed and, at nine months of development, will not be able to be born in the usual way. As a result, children will leave the mother's body earlier and earlier and develop outside of it. This will make them even more vulnerable after birth.
And now about the main thing...
Another important organ is still lagging behind in its evolution. The vagina has already changed and corresponds to upright posture, but the uterus is located in the female body as if we still walked on all fours. Little by little, she will straighten up to facilitate pregnancy and childbirth.
By the word of the Lord the heavens were created, and by the spirit of his mouth all their host: he gathered, like heaps, the waters of the sea, he laid the abyss in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all who live in the world tremble before him, for he spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it appeared (Ps. 32:6-9).
Obsolete methods for determining age in archeology
First of all, it is necessary to deal with the methods that provide science with dating in millions of years, describing the existence of the planet Earth.
Now, when determining the age of archaeological finds, both human bones and ceramics, the following methods are used: radiocarbon, potassium-argon, uranium-thorium, rubidium-strontium, ionium-radium, etc. The radiocarbon method is considered the most trustworthy by everyone.
Western scientists, who, unlike the Soviet ones, were not subjected to censorship, write the following: “The radiocarbon dating method undoubtedly has deep and serious shortcomings. Although it has been greatly improved and mastered over the past thirty-five years, the underlying assumptions are still very controversial and there are many indications that it may soon find itself in a crisis situation ... It is not surprising, therefore, that a good half of the dating results are in doubt ”( Robert E. Lee Radiocarbon Ages in Error, Anthropologial journal of Canada, 19, 1981, 9.).
“Regardless of the usefulness of the radiocarbon method, it must be recognized that it is not able to provide accurate and reliable results. The contradictions encountered within the framework of this method are enormous, the chronological data obtained are unsystematic and dependent on each other, and the dates considered correct are essentially taken from the ceiling ”(Ydid, p. 29.).
“In recent years, scientists have realized with horror that the rate of radioactive decay is not as constant as previously thought, and, moreover, is subject to the influence of external factors. This means that during global catastrophes, the “atomic clock” can go wrong, and as a result it may turn out that the end of the Mesozoic period did not come 65 million years ago, but quite recently, when man already existed on Earth ”(Frederic B. Jueneman,“ Secular Catastrophism", Industrial Research and Development (June 1982), p. 21.).
Here are some dates of the most accurate, according to evolutionists and atheists, method.
"Carbon-14 dating showed that only the killed seal died 1300 years ago" (Antarctic Jornal, Vol. 6, 1971, p. 211.).
Checking the shells of live snails showed that they died 27,000 years ago! (Science, Vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61.).
"The age of the shell of a living mollusk has been determined to be 2300 years" (Science, Vol. 141, 1963, P. 634-637.).
Also in Soviet time it was believed that "... the radiocarbon method can only be applied in a limited chronological range ... dates over 35-40 thousand years must be treated very carefully ..." (Geochronology of the USSR, Latest stage, L., vol. 3, 1974, p. 21- 22.).
In turn, with other dating methods, the situation is even narrower. This was recognized even by Soviet scientists, but Western scientists speak out uncompromisingly: “When using the potassium-argon method, it is common practice to discard those dating results that significantly differ up or down from the rest of the sample of results or from other available data, such as, for example, the existing geochronological scale. The difference between taken into account and discarded data is unreasonably attributed to the capture or loss of argon" (A. Hayatsn "Pottassium-Argon Ysocron Age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 16, 1979, p. 974.).
Thus, with the collapse of the USSR, which was the center evolutionary theory, discussions about the age of the earth in billions of years have become quieter.
You can see on the example how the dating of the finds contradict each other. Until now, the period of the reign of King Hammurabi has not been precisely established. There are three options in academic circles: 1955-1913. to R. Khr.; 1792-1750 BC, and, finally, 1728-1686. to R. Chr.
There are other options in which the dates of his reign are presumably named according to the British Encyclopedia - 2067-2055. to R. Chr., according to the French encyclopedia "Larus" - 2003-1961. to R. Chr. So you can see that even with a large number of finds (as in this case with the reign of Hammurabi) and the age of the finds is not more than 4000 years, the disagreements reach 400 years. The science of the Soviet era, despite the restrictions on the impossibility of dating more than 35 thousand years, managed to date the remains of a person and his tools at hundreds of thousands and even millions of years.
Material evidence refutes the billion-year theory
There are irrefutable facts that confirm the youth of our planet. Let's consider them without delving into physical, chemical, astronomical scientific evidence.
– Earth's magnetic field. Everyone knows the fact about the intensity of the earth's magnetic field, which falls twice in 1400 years. It turns out that 1400 years ago the planet's magnetic field was twice as strong as it is today. 2800 years ago - the magnetic field was four times stronger than today. According to these indicators, the maximum age of the Earth was determined, which amounted to about 10,000 years, since further the strength of the earth's magnetic field would be unacceptable.
– meteor dust. Dozens of tons of meteoric dust fall on the earth, given this, the conclusion is obvious that if the age of the earth were millions of years, then our planet would be, first of all, under a large layer of cosmic dust (up to several tens of meters in height), and secondly, the earth's crust would have very large deposits of nickel (meteor dust includes up to 2.8% nickel). According to today's indicators of nickel content and the amount of meteoric dust, we can safely say that the earth has an age of no more than 6000-7000 years.
– Age of the Moon. When sending an American spacecraft to the moon, there were fears that it could fall deep into meteor dust, since the moon, according to the theory of evolution, was formed several billion years ago, just like the Earth, according to these conclusions, the dust should have been very a large number of. To everyone's surprise, when the crew landed on the surface of the moon, they found that the moon was covered thin layer dust, it was discovered that the moon has a magnetic field, seismic activity, thermal radiation, and thus it was revealed that its age does not exceed 6000 years.
– Silicon supply to the ocean with river water, does not make it possible to set the age of the earth more than 8000 years. The amount of nickel supplied to the ocean with river water indicates the young age of the planet - this age can be a maximum of 9000 years.
– The slow removal of the moon at a rate of 4 cm per year from the Earth. Previously, the speed was higher. If we assume that the Moon was in contact with the Earth, then it took 1.37 billion years to move away to today's distance. This age is not real, but the maximum possible, but even this age does not suit evolutionists, because they claim that the Moon is 4.6 billion years old. In addition, this age is much less than the ages obtained by radiometric dating of the Moon's rocks.
– Salt is entering the oceans much faster than it is leaving them.. If we assume that the processes took place over billions of years, then the water in the seas and oceans would be much saltier. Even with a variety of assumptions, the seas cannot be more than 62 million years old (this is not a real, but the maximum possible age), evolutionists claim an age of billions of years.
– Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (non-fossilized) dinosaur bones. This gives the right to claim that the last dinosaurs existed no more than a few thousand years ago, and not 65 million years, as evolutionists say. (Humphreys, D. R., 1986. Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis Flood. Proc. First ICC, Pittsburgh, PA 2:113-126.)
– Evidence for Rapid Formation of Geological Strata after the Flood Period: absence of erosion between rock layers, which are supposedly separated by millions of years; the absence of a disturbed rock structure, which appears as a result of the existence of organisms (worm passages, plant roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystratic fossils (they cross vertically several layers of rock - if we assume that the burial was slow and gradual, then it turns out that they were in an upright position for millions of years); curved, but solid, layers are of great thickness, indicate that earlier the rock was soft and flexible and many other examples.
– population growth. To correctly calculate population growth, it is important to know three indicators: the average number of children in a family, the average age of a generation, and average life expectancy. Using these generally accepted parameters, we can calculate, taking as a basis the 5th chapter of the book of Genesis, the approximate population in the antediluvian world. When counting, the following numbers come out: average duration life is 500 years, the average age of a generation is 100 years, and suppose that the average number of children in a family is six, then we get that 235 million people lived on the planet before the Flood. Provided that a person exists for a million years according to the theory of evolution, and the average age of a generation is 35 years (taking into account epidemics, wars, accidents), then it turns out that there were 28,600 generations on earth. If we assume that each family had an average of two children (this figure is deliberately underestimated), then it turns out that by now the population of the earth should have corresponded to an over fantastic sum: ten to the five thousandth power! In turn, studying the growth of the earth's population, we can say that our planet has more than 4000 years after the Flood, and this exactly matches the data of the Bible (H. M. Morris ed. Scientific Creationism (public school), San Diego, 1974, p. 149- 157; 185-196.)
In his pamphlet Evidence for a Young World, Dr. Russell Humphreys gives examples of other processes that do not agree with the billion-year theory.
Only 6 thousand years
While studying at school, from an early age we were diligently invested in the theory of evolution with billions of eras. It is important to note that the number of theories of evolution was about a thousand, and all of them often went in opposite directions, contradicting each other. We indicated that "it was" in the past tense, because the theory evolution in the West is no longer taught in most schools and universities, since this theory does not correspond to the data of science and does not even have scientific justification.
Often in the territory of the former Soviet Union, the topic of the origin of life on earth was hushed up, because upbringing in an atheistic spirit did not allow talking about the Creator.
The Bible, on the other hand, reveals a completely different picture to us. It says that man was created on the sixth day of creation about six thousand years ago. Thus, according to the time scale, which is based on Biblical data, places man at the beginning of the history of the world, and not at the end, as the theory of evolution claims.
Now Eastern philosophy is very popular, which is admired by many and is elevated in the understanding of the universe above the Bible. It is worth referring to the "sacred" texts of Hinduism, which describe the state of the world at the very beginning: "When the world began to exist several million years ago, it had a flat triangular shape with high mountains and many reservoirs. He rested on the heads of elephants, standing on a turtle, "resting", in turn, on a giant snake. If the elephants started to shake themselves off, there would be an earthquake.” In turn, the Bible tells about the structure of our world in this way: “He is the One who sits above the circle of the earth ...” (Is. 40:22) and “hung the earth on nothing” (Job 26:7).
That is, the Bible for another 2500 years, before the discovery of Copernicus, already said that the earth has a round shape. About 1700 BC. Job wrote that the earth was "hung on nothing." Such information from Scripture was difficult to understand for many centuries, and today we can confidently say that God gave understanding to the ancient patriarch about the structure of our planet.
So on the scales on one bowl there are turtles and elephants that make you smile, and on the other bowl there are very accurate scientific data. For all that, the Bible describes the water cycle in nature many centuries before the advent of scientific conclusions. “All rivers flow into the sea, but the sea does not overflow; to the place from which the rivers flow, they return to flow again ”(Eccl. 1: 7), it is also said that“ air has weight ”:“ When He gave weight to the wind, and arranged the water according to measure ... ”( Job 28:25).
Which is correct 6 days or 6 periods?
There are those who perceive the 6 days of the creation of the Earth as 6 great periods. Where is the truth? Everything was as described in the book of Genesis in the first chapter, and there are constantly used a few words "... and there was evening and there was morning ..." (Gen. 1:5). "Day" in this case equals days, namely 24 hours. Leviticus 23:32 says that the day is counted "from evening to evening." This confirms that the earth was created in six calendar days. Such information is justified by the logic of creation. It is important to remember that vegetation was created on the third day, and the sun on the fourth. The existence of vegetation would not be possible if it were not a literal day, a long time, would it?
The fourth commandment again says that the days of creation were literal: “... for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it” (Ex. 20:11).
Every day and every night they talk about the Creator as the Creator of time for man - day and night, and a week of seven days.
