1 Corinthians 9:11
Back to: Old Testament Historically Reliable
Taken From the Book:
Based on what can be touched, seen, measured and calculated concerning the Universe, Solar System, fossil layers, the DNA molecule and the simple living Cell, the experimental measurable facts of science and the science of probability, the facts are that there is no evidence whatsoever in support of the Big Bang or Evolution. The fact is, as I will demonstrate later in this Chapter, that the Evolutionary Paleontologists who run the museums of the world, the ones who have studied the fossil records and have had hands on study of all the known fossils, are themselves saying that all evidence indicates that Evolution is not possible. What they are saying instead is that life from other planets came to earth in a spaceship and placed life here. To explain the fossil records they are saying that a catastrophe occurred like a huge meteor hitting the earth and resulted in rapid deposition which prevented decay. What I present in this Chapter is a brief highlighted summary, after several years of research (1973-2000), of the tangible measurable facts of science which have led to these present conclusions.
GOD: THE ONLY
Yehovah, the name of God who created the Universe, tells us about Himself through the Prophet Isaiah:
"‘You are My witnesses,’ declares Yehovah, ‘And My servant whom I have chosen, in order that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no El formed, and there will be none after Me. I, even I, am Yehovah; and there is no Savior besides Me.’" (Is 43:10-11)
In this passage God, El—short for Elohim, makes plain to us that He is eternally existent, He had no beginning. He also makes plain that no one existed before Him or will after Him. There is only one God from eternity past.
*God Created the Universe & Man
Moses wrote in Genesis 1:1, "In-the-beginning7225 Elohim 430created1254 853 the heavens8064 and the-earth776." Before anything existed, God, Elohim, existed and Moses tells us that God created the heavens and the earth.
Who is this God who created all that is? Jesus speaking said in John 5:46-47,
"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"
Jesus tells us that Moses was writing about Him: Our God and Creator! The Apostle John writes about Jesus, "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being" (John 1:3).
*Why God Created the Universe and Man
After God has finished creating all that was created, Moses tells us in Genesis 1:31, "And Elohim430 saw all which He had made, and behold, it was very good. and-there-was2051, 1961a evening and-there-was2051, 1961a morning1242, day3117 sixth." God declared that what He had created was good. He stated this before there was sin and death in the world. Therefore, before Adam and Eve sinned and brought death into the world, Creation reflected God’s character and Person and thus He was glorified through His Creation.
John wrote in Revelation 4:11 about the twenty-four elders before God’s throne in Heaven that they bowed down to God and said,
"Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You did create all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."
Paul tells us that God the Creator was Jesus Christ. He wrote in Colossians 1:16
"For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created by Him and for Him."
Again he stated in Romans 11:36, "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things."
Scripture shows us that the purpose of Creation is to bring glory to God. What He did He did according to His will, His purpose and His idea to bring His plans into reality.
God creating, however, does not mean God lacked anything. Again, He created to his own glory. He was perfectly satisfied in and of Himself, eternally happy and self-sufficient, thus needing nothing outside of Himself. Therefore, the reason God created was so He would have creatures that saw Him in His true glory. Secondly He created the universe to show His love and His love for us. Before creation there was perfect love in all eternity between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. As we look at the world we can see the great beauty and love that God has.
God’s Creation brings Him glory by making Him known. Psalm 19:1-4 states,
"The heavens are telling of the glory of El; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their utterances to the end of the world."
The Psalmist tells us that the Creation reveals God to us continually without words: His care, beauty and provision. God’s Creation also testifies to His Character and power. Psalm 148 states that all of Creation praises and exalts God.
However, there is a difference between all of God’s Creation and His creation of man. While the rest of creation glorifies and praises God by their very existence, man was created in God’s image and thus glorifies Him with His intellect and words. Creation is a dumb, non intelligent, non verbal praise, but man praises God with his words. This means that man is the crown of His Creation, the choir director if you please. Therefore the whole thrust and teaching of Genesis one on Creation climaxes with the creation of man.
Creation is also so designed to draw us to God our Creator. Paul brings this out in Romans 1:20 when He states,
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
Here Paul tells us that there is no such thing as an atheist because God has clearly revealed His existence through what has been made. That is what this chapter is all about, the revelation of God our Creator through Creation. God’s end intent is that His creation would lead us to desire to know Him and have a relationship with Him. The best way we can glorify God is to come to know Him, to then seek His will and then carry out that will through our lives. Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:10, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Jesus talking about His own humanity and purpose on earth in John 17:1 & 4 stated,
"Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You. . . . I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do."
In creation God did three things: He set forth to accomplish something He designed to do. Because of sin, the creation is not what God intended. For this reason the Book of Revelation reveals to us that God will create a new heavens and a new earth (Rev 21:1). Peter tells us that righteousness will rule over this new creation. Peter wrote, "But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells" (2 Peter 3:13). Among other things it means that there will be no sin or death in the new creation.
"And He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying or pain; the first things have passed away." (Rev 21:4)
Secondly, Creation reveals God to us. It tells us who He is and what He has done. Third, He created us to have a relationship with Him and to know Him.
God’s Creation also involves our accepting His sacrifice of Himself for us on the cross. God is ultimately glorified through His redemption of man through the God-Man Jesus Christ on the cross now and throughout eternity.
THE LAWS OF
The primary evidence of a Creator of the Universe is the fact that the universe is running down; that is, the energy that it is expending is not retractable. Once all the suns of the universe have expended their energy, the universe will experience heat death. This is known as the 1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics.393/152 The first law is the law of conservation of energy. This law states that the amount of energy in the universe is a constant. Energy may be transformed from one form into another and energy may be transformed into matter and matter into energy, but the total quantity remains constant—energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
The second law relates the usability of that energy to do work. This law was first understood through the study of the energy consumed and the work produced by heat engines. As these engines were used to perform work, without exception some energy became unavailable for further work. In other words, energy can never be 100 percent converted into work. Later it was discovered that this second law of thermodynamics applied to the construction and maintenance of complex systems. All organized complex systems, from molecules to man made machines, in time become more random and disorderly, not more orderly, and eventually break down—death, decay, dust. To maintain these systems requires expenditure of energy and as this energy is consumed to perform work, some of the energy becomes no longer available and thus the system eventually runs down and deteriorates. This also applies to the transmission and storage of information. In time information becomes lost or garbled. This is called informational thermodynamics.
All around us every day we see the laws of thermodynamics in operation: every time we have to go out and buy new clothes, new cars, replace computer parts, see a love one die. Observation of life shows us clearly that things do not move from less complex to more complex spontaneously, but rather require lots of energy to produce the complex machines and more energy to maintain the order and workable complexity.
Evolutionary Scientists will try to tell you that the universe and life as we know it came about spontaneously. Laying belief in Creation aside, this is a demonstrable scientific impossibility as we will clearly show under the heading in this chapter "Miller’s Spark Chamber" and under "DNA & Information"
Scientists like Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov have tried to get around the laws of thermodynamics by postulating the idea that the universe is an oscillating universe meaning that the universe expands then collapses upon itself and then expands again repeatedly through time. This however still does not answer the question of how the Universe started in the first place because each time the universe would expand and collapse it would expend energy that is not retrievable, so eventually it would still end up in heat death. Also, it is now known that there is far too little mass to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, and no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical "big crunch". The only answer is that something or someone placed the energy in the universe we see. "In-the-beginning God created the heavens and the-earth" (Genesis 1:1).
The Lord said to Abraham, "‘Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.’ And He said to him, ‘So shall your descendants be’" (Genesis 15:5). The unaided human eye can see a little over a 1,000 stars. With a pair of binoculars man can see over 3,300 stars. Up until 1915 astronomers believed that our galaxy composed the entire universe. In 1925 the astronomer Edwin Hubble used his new one-hundred-inch mirror telescope on Mount Wilson to discover whole galaxies of stars that were as numerous as the stars in our Milky Way Galaxy. Recently, due to the Hubble Telescope we have discovered a universe five times larger than recently thought and Astronomers are now aware of more than fifty billion galaxies with each containing more than two hundred million stars. The Psalmist David wrote,
"By the Word-of-Yehovah the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast" (Psalm 33:6,9).
*The Big Bang Theory
The theory of the Big Bang teaches that at one time there was nothing and then suddenly there was a quantum fluctuation that led to an explosion which expanded outward and resulted in the universe as we now know it. The concept was first developed by the Belgian astronomer, Georges Lemaitre, in 1927. Later it was popularized by Sir Arthur Eddington and George Garnow. Lemaitre called it the "Primeval Atom," but Garnow, as well as Sir Fred Hoyle, who popularized the opposing "Steady State Theory", began calling it the "Big Bang." As a result of the discovery of background radiation in the universe in 1964, the majority of astronomers have become committed to the Big Bang theory. This completely violates the first Law of Thermodynamics of cause and effect. It also violates the second law of Thermodynamics which teaches that ordered things move toward less ordered. This theory is also in contradiction to the teachings of Genesis Chapter One which teaches us that the earth was first created and then the Sun, Moon and Stars.
*The Big Bang Violates Confirmed Laws of Science
Initially the Big Bang is said to have produced hydrogen and helium which through later explosions changed into heavier elements. However, atomic gaps make this scenario a scientific impossibility. In the sequence of atomic weight, numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. This means that there is no stable atom of mass 5 or 8. How then can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? They cannot. The process is not able to go beyond helium 4.
Dr. Auto Berg has served as astro-physicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Center. He works with the theories of planet formation. He states that they cannot explain how planets could form with the higher elements based on the Big Bang theory. As a result of this and numerous other problems he has come to reject the Big Bang theory saying that it is based on poor science. This is discussed further down under the heading "The Solar System Confirms a Creator" concerning the formation of planets and what they are made of.
Based on the theory of the Big Bang there should be uniform clusters of galaxies throughout the universe in any direction. what have cosmologists found? Not uniformity, but super clusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. In other words, not a uniform universe but a non uniform clumpy universe.
R. Brent Tully of the University of Hawaii in 1986 began to discover that there were ribbons of super clusters of galaxies 300 million light-years long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a billion light-years, and separated by voids about 300 million light-years across. These are too big for the Big Bang theory to have produced.
In November of 1989 Margaret Geller and John Huchra of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced the discovery of what they called a "Great Wall". This is a huge sheet of galaxies 200-million light years across and 700 million light years long.391/897-903 Many more have been discovered since then. These large clusters stretch across ¼ the known universe.
This huge shell and void pattern could not possibly be produced through a Big Bang cosmology. In an explosion all things move out radially. Therefore they cannot assume any radial or circular motion according to the conservation law of angular momentum,91/521-523 let alone produce super clusters of galaxies. Some Big Bang scientists have tried to explain that these large clusters of galaxies are the result of the gravitational pull of cold dark matter they claim 90% of the universe is made of. These clusters of galaxies, however, are so large that this hypothesis cannot account for them. What we see is only ten percent of what would need to be there to substantiate the Big Bang theory. Twenty years of research has not been able to show any evidence of the dark matter needed to support this theory.
Another problem is that if the universe is too clumpy it then collapses into black holes. As a result you don’t get stars, planets or people. If in a Big Bang the Universe was spreading out smoothly as it should be, this also would not produce stars, planets or people.
Most Big Bang cosmologists say the universe is 20 billion years old. However, due to the Hubble telescope they are finding stars that appear to be older than the universe. The universe is full of contradictions to the cosmologists holy grail.392/22
In 1998 Science Magazine announced that the Universe is expanding faster than previously believed and announced it as the break through of 1998.398 Unfortunately, this does not support the Big Bang theory.
At the beginning of the century the universe was viewed according to Einstein’s theory of relativity. Einstein taught that the universe was eternal and infinite but that this fact would not save it, that it would still eventually collapse upon itself. Therefore Einstein came up with the theory that the universe was static, not contracting or expanding. To express this in formula he used the expressionl, lambda, which is called "The Cosmological Constant." However it was discovered by Ebin Hubble in the 1920s using a 100 inch telescope that the universe was expanding. As result of this discovery, scientist abandoned the cosmological constant. However in the early fifties people resurrected the idea of the cosmological constant and that the universe had a beginning. Later it was discovered that the universe was much older than the earth and so they decided again they did not need l. For the last forty years scientists have seen l as having no real value, a value of zero, and formulas have been built upon this assumption.
In 1998 new measurements were added to the view of the universe. Scientists started using the light of super novas to measure the distance of galaxies. The end result is that many galaxies have been discovered to be much further away than expected. This indicated that the universe is accelerating outward, that the universe is not steady but expanding in ever increasing speeds with time which has brought back thel term for the third time now driven by direct observations. As a result l no longer has a zero value, but a positive value indicating the accelerated expansion of the universe.
Ordinarily, based on the laws of gravity, the expanding universe should be slowing down and eventually collapsing upon itself. Whenl however is not equal to zero this gets turned around and you end up with a repulsion term. This means eventually the universe will expand to a point were gravity no longer has any effect on its expansion which means it will not collapse back on itself. The big question is what is the cause behind this? This unfortunately is a challenge to the Big Bang Theory, but a support to Creation.
Evolutionists want no tension in space time and so wantl to be zero to save the Big Bang theory. The problem, however, is that they have not been able to find enough dark matter in the universe to support their theory; in fact, as a result of the new evidence, the current thinking is that this missing matter doesn’t exist at all. Even the neutrinos have not provided for the missing mass. It seems that each new piece of information rather than supporting the Big Bang theory are only further discrediting it.
Despite these facts, evolutionists are not abandoning the Big Bang theory but continue to look for ways to get around these inconsistencies. However, the more facts that come in the more scientists are coming to a creationist’s view of cosmology. God created the universe an expanding universe to keep it stable.
How did the Big Bang come about according to these scientists? David Darling wrote,
"Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either. ‘In the beginning,’ they will say, there was nothing—no time, space, matter, or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which—whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something—and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats."389/4
Some other scientists made the following statement concerning the Big Bang theory: "Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on a very few facts."390/812
If one, despite the facts just stated, wants to hang onto the Big Bang, then please answer these questions for us: Where did that "dot" or quantum fluctuation come from? While creationists cannot explain the beginning of God, the big bang cannot explain the beginning of "the dot." Creationists believe, "In the beginning, God..." and believers in the Big Bang believe "In the beginning, the dot..." Where was the dot located? Where did all of that matter come from? Why, or by what force was all that matter crushed into one dot believed to be smaller than a period in a sentence? Where did the law that caused it to explode come from? Where did the space for the universe come from? What made the dot start to spin? And why did it spin? Where did the energy that spun the dot come from? How did all the other laws of the universe (gravity, inertia) come into existence? This includes hundreds of other laws. After the explosion, how did the matter get so perfectly organized? Don’t "big bangs" create "big messes" instead of a perfectly organized universe? Where did the energy come from to do all of that organizing? What held the dot of matter in it’s place? Big Bang scientists have no answers to this, only blind faith that it happened this way.
Background Radiation is very weak microwave radiation flowing throughout space in all directions. Although called the "dying breath of the Big Bang," it is not an evidence for several reasons: First, it is omnidirectional. Background radiation flows toward us from all directions; yet if it was from the Big Bang it would come from only one direction. Second, it is too weak. The radiation should be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than it is. Third, It lacks the proper spectrum. It should have total light obsorption capacity and it does not. Fourth, Its spectrum should be far hotter (5 degrees K) than it actually is: 2.73 degrees K. If the explosion had occurred 15 billion years ago, the background radiation should now be emitting a far higher temperature heat. Fifth, It is too smooth. Research proves that this radiation is definitely too smooth to agree with the Big Bang theory. It is not clustered enough, and even if it was, it could not produce stars. Gas in outer space (and on earth) always pushes outward, never inward. Sixth, a failure from the beginning: predictions made as to the nature of the required radiation, its temperature and its single directional source, were not fulfilled even when background radiation was first discovered in 1964. Seventh, What is the source of the radiation? Everything in the universe is lumpy, except the gas in outer space. The two abundant sources of radiation in space are background radiation which is microwave radiation and infrared radiation. It appears that the source of both types of radiation is nothing more than the out flowage of radiation from the stars and galaxies on all sides of us.
The speed theory of red shift is said to be the other primary evidence that a Big Bang occurred. However, scientific facts clearly disprove this theory also. According to how far away they are, light from the stars is pushed toward the red end of the color spectrum. The amount of skewing is proportional to the distance to the star which sent the light ray to us. What is the cause of this shift toward the red? Evolutionists rely on a disproved theory of the red shift in an effort to show there was a Big Bang. Accepting the speed theory makes it appear that the universe is expanding. The evolutionists need an expanding universe, because their theory teaches that everything flowed outward from the Big Bang.
There are better explanations in science for the red shift based on solid, known scientific facts: first, gravitational red shift. Light rays from the stars must travel vast distances to reach us. It has been proven that the pull of gravity, from the stars the light rays pass, could indeed cause a loss in light-wave energy, thus moving that light toward the red on the spectrum. Einstein was the first to predict that gravity would affect starlight, and this was shown to be true in the 1960s. Albert Einstein was the first to predict that gravity would be able to affect the transmission of light.
Second, order Doppler shift. It is known that a light source moving at right angles to an observer will be red shifted. Compare this fact with the known fact that all stars are definitely in galaxies that are circling. In addition, many scientists suspect that, just as all planets and stars are kept in position by orbiting, so, for purposes of stability, the entire universe is probably circling a common center!
Third, Energy loss shift. Light waves could themselves lose energy as they travel across the long distances of space. This is called "tired light."
Bridged galaxies also disprove the speed red shift theory. Halton C. Arp, of the Mount Wilson and Las Campanas Observatories, has found connected galaxies which have different red shifts. Quasars disprove the speed red shift theory. Quasars with one red shift have been found alongside galaxies with a different red shift. Arp has found over 260 galaxies with differential red shifts. He believes that energy loss is the primary reason for red shifts. For presenting this evidence that contradicted the Big Bang theory, Arp was fired.
Other evidences against the speed theory are the following: Slight blueness of distant galaxies. According to evolutionary theory, the bluest stars are the youngest, and, therefore, the most distant stars should be the bluest but they are just like the nearest ones.
Galactic shape factor. When elliptical galaxies are in the same cluster with spiral galaxies (and therefore the same distance from us), the spirals will have a higher red shift. The second order Doppler shift would explain this, but not the speed theory.
Photons slow down. Arp and his associates have shown that photons actually do slow down as they travel toward us. Evolutionists refuse to accept this fact, because it would destroy their "expanding universe" theory as the cause of red shift.
Quasars create headaches for evolutionists because they clearly disprove the speed theory to explain red shift. Quasars must be the most distant objects in the universe, yet light from them is quite bright, and some can be seen through optical telescopes; therefore, they cannot possibly be very distant. Another factor about quasars which disprove the speed theory is that if the speed theory is true, quasars travel too fast, and some go faster than the speed of light!
In 1962, a quasar was found which, according to the speed theory, is moving away from us at the amazing velocity of 16 percent of the speed of light! This just cannot be true, and thus disproves the speed theory of red shift. Since then, quasars have been found with speed theory red shifts of 200 and 300 percent of the speed of light! If the speed theory was correct, this would be recession speeds exceeding 90 percent of the speed of light! In 1973, a quasar was found which had a speed red shift of 350 percent. In 1986, one had more than 400 percent! If the speed theory was true, these quasars would be fantastic distances of 15 billion light-years away, and traveling outward at impossibly high speeds. Three quasars have been found which, according to the speed theory of red shift, would be moving eight times faster than the speed of light! As of 1990, over thirty faster-than-light quasars have been found.
For Further Reading:
Evolutionists teaches, as we have already discussed, that the end result of the bang was free floating hydrogen and helium. The theory teaches that the hydrogen condensed into stars and then these stars exploded resulting in more stars. Since hydrogen floating outward in free space would continue until it reached heat death and since hydrogen does not force itself down into itself to condense into stars, this evolutionary theory is nothing more than a fairy tale.
Many reputable scientists agree and provide us with the following reasons why: first, where did the gas come from? Hydrogen gas is supposed to have made itself into stars, but where did it come from? Second, how do random gas movements produce stars and galaxies? The complicated design of galaxies makes this impossible. While existing stars may draw gas into themselves, gas does not condense itself into stars. Third, the birth of a star has never been observed. If stars are also formed from exploding stars, why don’t we observe any of this happening in the universe today? Fourth, gas cannot push itself into stars. Gas in outer space only expands; it does not contract. The pull of gravity within the gas is not strong enough to push it together. Fifth, A super-nova would push everything outward, it does not compress gas into new stars. Sixth, stars are too far apart for even combined explosions to push gas into more new stars. Seventh, explosions cannot produce what we find in the skies. All about us are the complicated orbits and careful balancing of the stars around galaxies. Eighth, This theory completely ignores the working of gravity. What we know of gravity cannot produce stars in this way. Ninth, this theory requires that stars are fueled and give light by hydrogen explosions, but that cannot be true since not enough neutrinos are formed. Evolutionists deliberately ignore this fact. Tenth, stars shine because of solar collapse, which is supported by the Solar shock waves of 160 minute oscillations, not by hydrogen explosions. This indicates a young universe, not an old one.
WHY GENESIS & EVOLUTION
In the Advanced Textbook titled Relationship With Jesus The Key To Effective Ministry and my book on the Book of Genesis titled The Literal Historical Reliability of Genesis I cover extensively the scientific evidence of six days of Creation. All I want to cover here is what Evolution teaches on the beginning of the Universe and why it is not compatible with what is taught in the book of Genesis Chapter 1.
Some Christians trying to mix popular unsubstantiated scientific theory with the Creation account in Genesis will tell you that these days refer to periods of time, like in "the day of Jesus" referring to his 33 years on earth. John D. Morris in his book, The Young Earth, provides the following documentation on the use of the word "day" in the Old Testament: The word!/y,387 yÇm, in Hebrew meaning "day" can have a variety of meanings:
The word occurs 2,291 times in the Old Testament and it almost always means a literal day. The plural form!ym/y, yÇmim, occurs 845 times and always refers to a literal day. When modified by numeral or ordinal in historical narrative (359 times in the Old Testament outside of Genesis 1), it always means a literal day. When modified by "evening and/or morning" (38 times outside of Genesis 1) it always means a literal day. The Context of Genesis 1 is a tight chronology. It forms a basis for our work week of six literal 24 hour days (Ex 20:11). Proper interpretation is a solar day, not an indefinite time period.
When God created the heavens and the earth, the Bible tells us that He first created the earth (1:2), and that to start with it was a sphere of water (2 Pet 3:5). This is in contradiction to evolutionary teaching which teaches that the dry land first existed before the oceans existed. This is also a contradiction to the Big Bang theory which teaches that the stars and galaxies formed first, then the planets.
After creating this sphere of water, God then created light (1:3). This was not the light of the Sun because the Sun was not created until the fourth day after He created the granite serface of the earth and after He created the plant life. This is in no way compatible with what evolution teaches which is that the sun was formed first and that the earth along with the other planets of our solar system were a spin off from the sun.
It was necessary for God to create the plant life before creating the animal life because only plant life can take the raw energy of the sun and turn it into useful chemical energy our bodies are then able to use. In other words, if there was no plant life on earth, animal life would soon become extinct. See "Photosynthesis."
Evolution teaches that the cycle of life and death has been from the first life, that life has evolved over six-hundred million years until man came on the seen. Genesis teaches that God created each species after their kind which included the apes. However, Genesis teaches that man was created in God’s image and likeness and did all this on the fifth and sixth solar days. Genesis also teaches that death and decay were never God’s intention in creation but the result of man’s sin. Paul wrote: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin" (Romans 5:12). This teaching also contradicts the Bible’s teaching that Eve is the mother of all living humans. It was because Adam and Eve brought death and destruction into the world that God promised Eve that through her seed would come a deliverer. The seed always comes from man, thus the first prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus. After Adam and Eve brought death into the world, God promised He would send Jesus Christ to die for man’s sin so that the enemy, death, would be abolished. Paul wrote:
"For the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23)
"But now. . . by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel" (2 Tim 1:10)
The whole purpose of Jesus’ coming, death and resurrection were for the purpose of nullifying sin’s effect of death over man and creation, to reverse the process and bring creation back to its original place of immortality. This is absolutely incompatible with the teaching of Evolution which teaches that death has always been a part of nature, that death is normal. The Bible teaches that death is not normal and thus why God sent Jesus to reverse sin’s effect on the world (See Section 1, Chapter 8). Again Paul wrote concerning this:
"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this corruptible will have put on the incorruptible, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, ‘Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?’ The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor 15:52-57)
If you try to mix evolution with creation then Jesus’ death and shed blood for our sins loses all meaning. This is in fact what Jesus said would happen in John 5:46-47:
"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:46-47)
Higher education denies Moses’ inspired authorship of the first five books of the Bible, and thus denies belief in what Moses taught. As a result they also deny that the words given credit to Jesus in the New Testament were spoken by Jesus at all. If you do not take what Jesus said in the New Testament as His words and as absolute truth, neither will you take Jesus’ message of salvation for your sins literally either. The end result will be because you do not believe it you will not be saved, you will go to hell for ever.
This is why the writer of Hebrews tells us in Hebrews 11:3 that what Moses wrote about Creation in Genesis must be accepted by faith. He wrote: "By faith we understand that the ages were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." We are to accept the account of creation by faith, not blind faith of course, but through God’s absolute proof to us: Jesus’ physical resurrection from the dead (John 2:22). Taking a literal Creationist view of Scripture is not an option. Any other view destroys the credibility of the message of Salvation in the Bible. The end result is that men will not take its message literally and then come to Jesus to be saved. This in fact is exactly what has taken place in our society today and why the Christian message is not taken seriously because most ministers and theologians in our country today do not take the message of Genesis seriously. The end result is that even though they preach the Gospel of the New Testament, their message falls on deaf ears and only gains ridicule and mockery. There is no place for compromise when it comes to the word of God.
Often times ministers and Christians will mix the Bible with fickle science at the expense of the literal teaching of Scripture thinking it will help bring people to Jesus. They also do it because they don’t want to suffer hardship with the people of God but rather live a safe and costless Christianity. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a safe and costless Christianity, not if you want to bring men and women to the truth and saving faith in Jesus Christ (John 5:46-47). Many ministers compromise the literal creationist teaching of Scripture to succeed, to get needed donations and to be accepted by men. The Bible states in Proverbs "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death" (Prov 14:12, 16:25). The upholding of God’s truth spelled out in the Bible is more important than success, money or the acceptance of men.
"Better is a little with the fear of Yehovah, than great treasure and turmoil with it." (Prov 15:16)
"Better is a little with righteousness than great income with injustice." (Prov 16:8)
"The fear of man brings a snare, but he who trusts in Yehovah will be exalted." (Prov 29:25)
"For who has despised the day of small things?" (Zech 4:10)
"Be careful, do not turn to evil; For you have preferred this to affliction." (Job 36:21
God’s kingdom does not come through compromise, but through upholding what is true. Jesus said "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). Brethren, do not fear suffering for the sake of the Gospel. It is the fact that Jesus suffered for us that we came to saving faith in Him. If God had not sacrificed Himself on the cross for our sins, we never would have turned to Him. It is the sacrifice of Himself that causes us to turn to Him. Jesus said in John 3:14 and 12:32:
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up. . . . And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."
Peter wrote in 1 Peter 1:21-23,
"For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously."
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body (which is the church) in filling up that which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.." (Colossians 1:24)
For Further Reading:
Kruse, Dale P. The Literal Historical Reliability of Genesis. Tulsa, OK: Layman Evangelism Ministry Book Series, © 1997 by Dale P. Kruse.
Kruse, Dale P. What It Will Take To Bring America Back to God. Tulsa, OK: Layman Evangelism Ministry Book Series, © 1997 by Dale P. Kruse.
THE SOLAR SYSTEM
In order to understand just the size of our Solar System, picture a football field with the Sun the size of a marble in the center of the 50-yard line. Mercury, the first planet from the Sun, is an invisible speck of dust 18 inches away. On the 49-yard line is a small grain of sand called Venus. Moving further out to the 48½ yard line is another grain of sand called Earth. Another half a yard away is a speck of dust called Mars. On the 46 yard line is an asteroid belt a few atoms thick. A large grain of sand 1/25 of an inch in size is on the 44 yard line called Jupiter. Another large grain of sand is on the 38 yard line called Saturn. A smaller grain of sand is on the 26 yard line called Uranus. Finally near the goal line are two small specks of dust called Neptune and Pluto.200/32
Planet Types: Terrestrial & Jovian
Terrestrial: Mercury, Venus, the Earth, and Mars because they are solid bodies.
Jovian: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, so called because they are made up of gases with no solid surfaces.
It is believed that the sun and the planets supposedly were formed from the same dust and gas cloud. What we observe, however, does not support this.399 The sun is 6/7% of the mass of the solar system, yet it possess only 2% of its angular momentum. The planets, however, contain only 1/7% of the mass of the solar system, yet they revolve around the sun at much higher speeds than the sun rotates on its axis. The planets also possess 98% of the angular momentum of the solar system. If the sun and planets were formed from the same dust and gas cloud, some outside mechanism would be required to explain the transferring angular momentum from the central part of the nebula to the periphery. No plausible mechanism has yet been proposed.
Uranus is another problem. While all the planets rotate around the sun in the same direction, the axis of rotation of Uranus is nearly in the plane of its orbit. Therefore the inclination of the equator of Uranus to the plane of its orbit is 98o, and its axial rotation is opposite to that of the other planets in the solar system. This means that the direction the axial rotation of Uranus and the motion of its satellites is opposite to that predicted on the basis of an evolutionary origin.
Saturn has nine satellites. The motion of the outermost, Phoebe, is moving in a direction opposite to the other eight moons and opposite to that predicted by an evolutionary origin.
Jupiter has twelve satellites. The five inner moons revolve around their planet in orbits only slightly inclined to the planet’s equator at distances from about 110,000 miles for the innermost to about 640,000 miles for the outermost. Then there is a group of three moons whose orbits are inclined to the planet’s equator by almost 30o at distances of about 7 million miles from Jupiter. these three moons also revolve around the planet in the predicted direction. The four outer moons, however, move around the planet in opposite motion, or opposite to that of the other eight satellites, at distances from about 12 to 13 million miles from the planet.
Neptune has two satellites. Nereid, a small moon, moves around Neptune in the predicted direction, but Triton, one of the larger satellites in the solar system with a mass almost twice that of the earth’s moon, moves in an opposite orbit.
Of the 31 satellites around the planets in the solar system, eleven exhibit opposite orbits. Venus rotates very slowly, about one rotation every 240 days. These problems cannot be explained as minor exceptions to the theory of evolution. They do, however, point to created design.
Mercury has a light weight crust. Since Mercury’s density is 4.5-5.0 g/cc, as compared to earths 5.5, it must have a heavy core. To have a heavy core means that these planets had to be originally in a molten state. However, when scientists look at the crust of Mercury, they find that no change has taken place in these surface features since Mercury was formed, since its creation. Evolutionists cannot explain this based on evolutionary theory. Another problem with Mercury evolutionists cannot explain is that it has a magnetic field. Scientists teach that in order to have a magnetic field you must have a fairly fast rotation of a planet. Mercy has a very slow rotation on its axis, once around every 88 days. Therefore the self-generating dynamo theory won’t work for mercury.
These facts create other problems. Now that we know Mercury has a magnetic field, scientists agree it cannot be the result of a self-generating dynamo. If this is true of mercury, why not also of the earth? The absence of such a dynamo requires that the earth’s magnetic field must be generated by the flow of an electric current. Since we know that the earth’s magnetic field is decaying, extrapolation back into the past more than about 10,000 years predicts a current flow so vast that the earth’s structure could not survive the heat produced. Therefore the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old.
Methane has been discovered on the satellite Titan. This is surprising on such a compact planet since it is contrary to an evolution which teaches the oxidation of terrestrial planets. Because the gravity of Titan is not strong enough to hold hydrogen, the hydrogen is flying away at a fast rate. This gives absolute evidence of a young solar system, not an old one. The temperature of Titan is 125oK. Absolute zero is 0oK. This is very much higher than the equilibrium temperature which corresponds to its rate of rotation and other features. Since Titan exhibits a surface temperature in excess of that predicted, this strongly indicates a greenhouse effect. This means Titan has an atmosphere capable of absorbing and retaining solar radiation. If Titan is billions of years old, the hydrogen cannot be a remnant of its beginning. Its original atmosphere would have been depleted billions of years ago. Where is all this hydrogen coming from? Some propose a core of methane, ammonia and water. The problem being: where did this body of methane, ammonia and water come from? If science teaches that the earth is too small to retain these gases, how then has Titan, which is 0.0235 the mass of earth, retained its methane, ammonia and water?
The sun is a noisy place which would be very deafening if we did not have the 98 million mile space gap between us and the sun. The sun produces a solar wind which would be fatal to us if not for our magnetic field around the earth. The sun gives off ultraviolet light. This is stopped by the ozone layer made from oxygen in the atmosphere which filters out the ultraviolet light. The sun gives off x-rays which are absorbed by the atmosphere. It is now known that as many as thirty comets per minute the size of a house are hitting our upper atmosphere. This results in about 40,000 comets a day hitting the upper atmosphere. These comets are made up of water and break up and melt in the upper atmosphere and settle down to the earth. This would result in a one inch depth of water upon the earth every 10 to 20,000 years. If the earth were 5 billion years old this would result in 8 to ten miles of water over the serface of the earth. We don’t have this much water.
The moon is 400 times closer to us than the Sun. The Sun is 400 times larger than the moon. This results in the sun and the moon appearing the same size to us as we look at them from earth. This also gives us the sensation of a total solar eclipse when the moon passes in front of the sun. This makes it possible for us to see the outer corona of the sun.
Our distance from the sun in relation to its size are critical, how much ultraviolet light penetrates our atmosphere is critical. The temperature range and electromagnetic strength of our earth are all critical for life to exist on earth as we know it.
The Moon causes tides on earth. These tides are very important for our benefit. If there was no moon, tides would be gone and ocean currents would be diminished. The oceans could no longer function to break down poisons and would become unhealthy. Life in the oceans would probably die without the tides. Many small plants in the ocean make oxygen that we breath. They would die without the tides from the moon. The tides of the moon also act on ground water like a pump keeping the water moving and thus keeps our water fresh and usable.
Another effect of the moon on the earth is that it is slowing the rotation of the earth down. As the earth’s rotation slows down this increases the distance of the moon’s orbit around the earth. At present the moon is moving away from the earth about 4 centimeters per year which is about two inches. If the solar system was 4½ billion years old as evolutionists claim, 4 ½ billion years ago the moon would have been very close to the earth and the title wave affect on the earth would have been devastating to the continents. If this were the case we would find evidence of it in the fossil record. What do we find? No evidence in the fossil record. Based on evolutionary theory the earth and moon relationship would only be around 1 ½ billion years old. This proves that the earth and moon are much younger than 4 ½ billion years old.
This has resulted in a new collision theory. This teaches that sometime in the past a large object struck the earth and broke off a part of the earth which became our moon. This has resulted in many attempts of computer simulations of how this could come about and they have not been able to produce a scientific scenario of how a moon could be produced under these circumstances. There is also the fact, however, that the substance of the moon is completely different from that of the earth. There is no relationship to them in their material make up.
If the planets of the solar system and the sun where formed of the same material, they would all have the same material and characteristics. What we find is that the planets in our solar system are made of completely different materials. Even the sun is made up of completely different material than the planets. Our solar system was obviously made by design not only by a creator but with His intent to reveal His creative hand.
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Rom 1:20)
Concerning the Apollo asteroids in our Solar System, the time between collisions of these asteroids with the earth can be called the half-life. This means that in one period of time, or one half-life, half the asteroids of the Apollo group will collide with the earth. In another such period, half the remaining asteroids will collide with the earth and so on. Running this backwards, One half-life ago there were twice as many asteroids in the Apollo group as there are now. Another half-life, twice as many again. Going back 4.5 billion years ago, the total mass of Apollo asteroids would have been 100 times the mass of the Sun! This is not possible. What we know tangibly and Measurably concerning the Apollo Asteroid group tells us plainly that we have a very young solar system, not an old one.200/50
The visible part of a comet, its tail, is about 100,000 miles in diameter and is made up of dust and gas evaporated from the comet as it passes the sun. The solid part of the comet can only be seen when it is far away from the sun. No one knows for sure what comets are made of, but it is estimated that a comet looses about 1/200 of its mass each time it passes the Sun. This indicates that a comet like Halley’s, which passes the Sun often, would be exhausted after only 10,000 years or so. Short period comets have always been so, indicating a several thousand year old Solar System, not in the billions of years.200/58-60
In orbit around the Sun is a cloud of dust flattened into a disk in the plane of the ecliptic. This can be seen shortly before sunrise and just after sunset as the Sun reflects off of it. The light reflected off these dust particles indicates that they are .00004 inches in diameter. Particles this small can be influenced by the pressure of Sun light. The Poynting-Robertson effect tends to slow these particles down so that they gradually spiral in towards the Sun. This process cleans the solar system of this dust. Based on measurable figures, we know that this dust should be completely cleaned from our Solar System within about 10,000 years. Its continued existence gives absolute evidence of a young Solar system, not an old one.202/170
It is a well known scientific fact that dust particles enter the earth’s atmosphere from space at an essentially constant rate. Hans Peterson has made accurate measurements of this influx and has determined that the earth receives about 14 million tons per year. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old as evolutionists insist, there should be a layer of meteoritic dust that is about 182 feet thick all over the world! This of course does not exist anywhere.
This should also be the case on the moon. When the astronauts landed on the moon and walked on to the surface of the moon, they stepped into one-eighth of an inch of dust. NASA honestly believed that the astronauts would sink out of sight as was demonstrated in the 1963 movie The Mouse on the Moon. They did not. Further evidence of a young solar system, not an old.196/277
*The Earth’s Magnetic Field
The earth has a magnetic field which is losing its energy exponentially. In 1835 Carl Gouse of Germany for the first time in history measured the earth’s geo-magnetic field. In 1839 he begin to measure it regularly the rest of his life.331/14 After his life others took up the task and we have 160 years of data in the U.S. publishing office in Washington, D.C. giving historically the actual calculations of the strength of the earth’s magnetic field in any of these 160 years.
Dr. Thomas Barns, who was head of the physics department of the University of Texas in Elpaso, took this data and put it into a computer and found that not only is the magnetic field of the earth losing its intensity and extending its lines because it is limber, looser because it is losing energy, but Dr. Barns put this data into a computer and found that we are losing this energy exponentially.332/171 This is extremely significant for the reason that it also tells us something about the strength of the magnetic field in earth’s past. According to these calculations, the strength of the magnetic field doubled about every 1400 years going backward in time with an exponential decay. That means that if you go back as far as ten-thousand years ago, the intensity of the earth’s magnetic field would have been so powerful that enzymes necessary for life processes and enzymes inside the functioning cell could not have held together due to the intensity of that energy. If you go back as far as fifteen to twenty-thousand years ago the energy of the earth’s geo-magnetic field would have approximated that of a magnetic star. As a result many of the atoms of the earth could not have held together. What is the significance of this data? The significance of this data is that the earth could not be billions of years old with life dating back billions of years. The data indicates a very young earth not more than 10,000 years ago. This supports the Bible’s record and the genealogy of man’s existence on the earth not being more than 6,000 years.
The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing down. Dr. Huse states concerning this,
"If the earth is billions of years old, as uniformitarian geologists insist, and it has been slowing down uniformly, then its present rotation should be zero! Furthermore, if we extrapolate backwards for several billion years, the centrifugal force would have been so great that the continents would have been sent to the equatorial regions and the overall shape of the earth would have been a flat pancake. But, as is commonly known, the shape of the earth is spherical; its continents are not confined to the equatorial regions, and it continues to rotate on its axis at approximately 1,000 miles per hour at the equator. The obvious conclusion is that the earth is not billions of years old."191/25
*The Earth’s Magnetic Field
Essential For Life Processes
The earth’s geomagnetic field is extremely important. It is essential for life processes. An outstanding Russian scholar and an American scholar Robert Obeker, a Nobel candidate, have collectively provided some impeccable data to show that all biological systems function on the energy of the earth’s magnetic field.333/61 The exchange of information on the cellular level is both chemical and electromagnetic.334/55 One reason today we have a decay in episodes of life and functions of life is that we are losing the strength of that magnetic field.335/39 Without this field in sufficient strength, we don’t have sufficient chemical and electromagnetic communication on the cellular level.336/103
A Junior high school student suggested to NASA to do a very important experiment. She suggested that they incrementally fertilized 64 chicken eggs. She suggested that they keep thirty-two of these in a control and send thirty-two of these into space on the shuttle.337/46, 316/61 She further suggested that four of these eggs be fertilized a couple of days before the shuttle is launched and that two remain on earth and two go with the shuttle.339/248
They did this. They kept thirty-two eggs on earth and sent the other thirty-two eggs in space above the influence of the geomagnetic field and the earth’s gravity. When they brought the eggs back, all eggs that were in the control chamber on earth hatched and all the eggs on the shuttle hatched except the two eggs fertilized two days before the launch. This means that Mitosis in the division of the cell to function properly requires the earth’s magnetic field.340/1
*Granite Rapid Forming
On Day number three of creation, Elohim said: ". . . let the dry land394 appear; and it was so." The dry land involved the entire infrastructure, it involves the core of the earth, the surface structure and it involves particularly the granite structure.341/199, 342/68
According to the evolutionary model this granite which is world wide, which today averages eight to sixteen miles in thickness depending on whether it has been crumbled into mountain formations or is underlying the basic strata of the earth, took three-hundred-million years to crystalize. But according to the Biblical record on day number three, God said let the dry land appear and it appeared instantly.
What does the tangible evidence of science show? Dr. Robert Gentry showed that the circular rings of energy found in the granite were left by polonium 218, 210 and 214.395 The half-life of polonium 210 is twenty-two days. After seven-half lives all of this particular radio active material is gone. If this were the case, the granite could not be more than a couple of weeks in forming into a crystalline structure. Dr. Gentry, however, also found hallows of polonium 218. The half-life of polonium 218 is less than three minutes. All the polonium 218 in a body of polonium 218 would be gone in twenty minutes. Therefore, in a manner of minutes that granite would have to be intact completely formed. But it gets even better still. Dr. Gentry also found polonium 214 whose half-life is 0.000164 seconds, 16.4 microseconds. With in seven half-lives this would be gone. This means that faster than you could snap a finger, all the polonium 214 would be gone. This means that the crystalized structure would have to be functional and recording in a very brief period of time. Therefore the Genesis account of God speaking the dry land into existence has to be literal and especially within the third day.
Sir Fredric Hoyle stated, "Observing the universe, I have to believe it is an intellectual structure. I am looking at not mere chance, it is designed, it is orchestrated."92/141-144 Frank Tipler, interviewed in Omni Magazine, stated, "If you do a consistent physical analysis, God just falls out. He is there in an intrinsic essential way, not just put in there to cover our ignorance."396/109 This is a man who was an atheist who wrote in various journals about his atheism. But now he has done an about face in light of the evidence. George Ellis, co-author with Stephen Hawking of the large scale structure of space-time, one of the world’s great physicists and astrophysicists stated, "The construction of nature points to a purposeful designer."397
*Petroleum and Natural Gas
Petroleum and natural gas are contained under high pressure under impermeable cap rock. Presently known calculations of the permeability of the cap rock reveal that the oil and gas pressures could not be maintained for much longer than 10,000 years in many instances. This totally contradicts the evolutionary assumption that first these oil and gas deposits were made over millions of years. If they had been, there would be no reservoir of oil and gas for us to discover. It would be completely absorbed in the surrounding rock.192/159
Evolutionists propose that coal was formed millions of years before man evolved; yet, human skeletons and artifacts, such as gold chains, have been found in coal deposits. Soon after man’s beginning, Genesis Chapter 4 tells us that metal working was already highly developed. The flood spoken of in Genesis Chapters 7 and 8 tell us that civilizations were buried in sedimentary layers of the earth’s crust.198/163 This is the explanation for oil and gas deposits and for human skeletons and artifacts being found in coal deposits and fossil layers.
*Helium in The Earth’s Atmosphere
Helium is released into our atmosphere through the natural radioactive decaying process of uranium and thorium in our earth’s crust. Through scientific calculations we know as a fact that in order for there to be the present 1 part in 200,000 of helium in our atmosphere, helium would have to be released for no more than 10,000 years. This totally refutes the evolutionist’s claim of a several billion year old earth.146/455
Relative dating is governed by three laws: first, by the law of super position. If you have three layers of rock, the bottom one had to form first. If you have three layers of mud and then they are cut by a fault, the three layers of mud had to exist first in order for the fault to cut through them. This gives us an indication about what happened first.
The second law is the called the law of original horizontality. This says that sedimentary units of layers of mud and sand where originally deposited flat. This means that if we go up to a mountain and we see layers of rock that have been bent over or are standing straight up, we know that something happend to push them into this position because they had to have been originally deposited flat.
The third law is called the law of uniformitarianism. This states simply that the present is the key to the past which means that geological formations of the past were formed the same way they are being formed today: gradually and very slowly. If we see gradual erosion in the grand canyon now, that is how it was formed from the beginning. This has been used to say that the earth is very very old. However, there is question as to the validity of this assumption.
As Creationists we say that many of the formations we see in the geologic record today were placed there through catastrophism, through the world wide Genesis flood for example. Catastrophism teaches that the earth’s features were formed very rapidly by very powerful and sudden bursts of geological energy: floods, volcanoes, earth quakes, and meteor impacts. Evolutionists will allow some catastrophism but will say, "Hey, lets not get to carried away with this! Most formations happened through hundreds of millions of years."
The next category of geo-chronology is called The Absolute Dating Methods. Unlike Relative Dating methods, this allows you to give a specific number of years on the object you are dating. There are three types that are very popular: Dendrochronology which is the study of tree rings. This includes dark and light layering of sediments connected with glacial activity and radioactive decay such as carbon and potassium dating. Even in the evolutionary use of this dating method only goes back thousands of years, not millions of years.
The third Absolute Dating Method used to indicate that the earth is billions of years old is called radiometric dating or radioactive decay properties of some elements that will allow us to date far back into the past.
Radiation was discovered in 1896. It was discovered that certain atoms in nature are radioactive. This means that they are unstable. This means that sooner or later they decay into different elements. For example: carbon 14 turns into nitrogen. These radioactive elements have what is called a half-life. The half-life is the amount of time of how long their radioactivity lasts. For example lets say you have a thousand atoms of carbon 14, then after one-half-life, about 5,700 years, you will only have half as many atoms as you started with which is 500. After another half life only 250 atoms. After another half life only 125. After ten half-lives there will be very few atoms left.
How is this used in dating methods? If you know how many radioactive atoms of the element you had in the object when it was new, the amount of atoms you have left when found will determine how old the object is.
Radio-carbon dating is one of the better known methods in this category. neutrons in cosmic radiation strike nitrogen atoms in the upper atmosphere to produce a proportion of radioactive carbon-14 atoms. These combine with oxygen atoms to become part of the carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed by vegetation and goes into the food cycle. All living matter therefore contains a proportion of carbon-14, which carbon exchange maintains at a constant value. When an animal or plant dies, the exchange ceases. After they die the amount of carbon 14 taken in slowly disintegrates. This dating method is only reliable to about one-half life of the carbon 14 atoms which is about 6,000 years. Those who give dates of 12-50,000 years are manipulating the dating results. Also, one of the flaws of this dating method is that it is assumed that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere today is the same as it was in the past. According to the book of Genesis, before the flood there was a water canopy around the earth which filtered out any cosmic radiation from the sun and outer space. The end result was virtually no carbon-14 produced in the earth’s atmosphere.
Other radioactive dating methods are used to date rocks and sediment layers. This includes potassium which decays into argon, rubidium that turns into strontium, uranium to lead. These represent stable radioactive atoms. Their half-lives are more than a billion years. Many scientists, however, are very skeptical of the dates applied to rocks using these dating methods. Unlike Carbon 14, we are much less certain about the results using these dating methods. We know nothing about the corruptions and what calibrations are needed to gain honest results.
Also these dating methods produce inconsistent results when applied to many different objects. Rocks found buried deep in the Grand Canyon are dated, using these methods, by evolutionists to be a billion years old. If this is true, then using many different radioactive methods should produce the same results. However when Creation scientists applied these different methods they came up with completely different results. Using the sumarian-adenium technique produced an age of 1.7 billion years old, 1.1 billion years using the rubidium-strontium technique, and 0.7 billion years using the potassium-argon method.432
The fallibility of these dating methods was also demonstrated at Mount St. Helens. Ten years after this event, the last burp of lava was dated at 350,000 years old using the potassium-argon method. What caused this rock to appear to be so old when only ten years old? Individual mineral grains were discovered in the rock which dated at 2.8 million years old. Therefore, it is the course crystals in the lava rock which are giving it the appearance of being 350,000 years old rather than 10 years old. This tells us that other rocks dated at millions of years old may only be a few hundred or thousand years old, not millions or billions.
Why do the crystals in the rocks give indications of being millions of years old? This is because the argon gas in the lava leaks out like the gas in soda pop. However, there are processes in the magma which lock the argon gas into the crystals giving it the appearance of being millions of years old rather than ten years old.
What does all this tell us? It tells us that these dating methods are not reliable for telling us how old the earth is. As Christians we have to decide whether we are going to rely on scientific claims by scientists who deny the existence of God using unreliable methods of dating the universe or whether we put our faith in Jesus who claimed that what Moses wrote was absolutely true truth backed by His Physical Resurrection from the dead to confirm it. Genesis and what we know of recorded history tells us that the earth and man have only been around for about six thousand years.
Evolutionists tell us that the universe took 20 billion years to form. If this is true, then when Jesus in Revelation Chapter 21 creates a new heaven and a new earth, will we just be standing still in space for 20 billion years waiting for it to form so we can settle down and get back to business, or will Jesus do this instantly like he did with the current heavens and earth? Revelation 21 tells us that he will do this instantly, not over 20 billion years. How do we know that what the Bible teaches is true? Because of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Apostle John wrote,
"When therefore He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken."
For Further Reading See:
It is presently known how fast the moon is pulling away from the earth. If the solar system was 4.5 billion years old the moon would be much farther away from the earth than it is now. All the visible measurable evidence points not to an old solar system, but to a very young solar system.
There is a lot of hype lately at NASA and in the news media about Mars today and the possibility of life on mars all staged to get public financial support for an expedition to Mars, but there is very little truth in these reports. What is NASA and the news media not telling us? What they are not telling us is that on July 20, 1976 at 4:53 A.M., PDT Viking 1 landed on the surface of Mars on the lowland plains of the western Chryse basin and that its cameras and experiments went immediately to work photographing the Martian landscape, sniffing the air, and as time went on feeling for Mars quakes, analyzing the soil and much more. What did these probes find? No evidence of life on Mars. The way NASA and the news media are reporting about Mars and the so called Mars meteorite, you would think they had not already done past experiments showing clearly they already know there is no evidence of current or past life on Mars. Why this big deception then? Because it is the only way they can get the public to support and encourage funding for a manned expedition to Mars.
Concerning Mars Atmosphere, Viking 1 determined that it consists of about one or two percent of the inert gas argon. If, however, Mars has proportions of potassium-40, which decays radioactively into argon, similar to those of the earth, there should have been 25 times as much argon observed if Mars is 4.5 billion years old as evolutionists claim. What has been discovered on Mars so far demonstrates a very young solar system, not a very old one.201/153