Need a reason not to buy into the mountain of assumptions upon which the theory of evolution is based? How about 101 of them?
Creation Ministries International just published 101 evidences for a young age of the earth.
If you’re used to accepting all the “wisdom” that comes from most of the “scientific” community, from news outlets, from Hollywood, and from every major corner of society today, you may consider it a foregone conclusion that the earth is billions of years old. You might consider it laughable to even think of anything to the contrary.
But have you ever stopped to ask your self why you believe this? Have you ever stopped to ask yourself how scientists can know the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Have you ever stopped to ask yourself if this assertion is based on objective, unimpeachable fact…or merely based on a lot of assumptions? When you “assume” something, you accept it without knowing for certain, don’t you? And you know what they say happens when you ass-u-me, right?
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself if there might be some genuine, logical reasons why some people don’t accept the assumption that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, why they in fact believe it is only a few thousand years old? Have you ever stopped to ask yourself if they might have some reasons based not just on the Bible, but on scientific data itself?
Whether you have or haven’t, I invite you to do so for a few minutes right now.
Here are just a few of the 101 reasons from CMI:
- DNA in “ancient” fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
- The data for “mitochondrial Eve” are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
- Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen) are not consistent with their supposed age, but make more sense if the remains are young.
- Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the Kaibab upwarp in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood. SeeWarped earth.
- Polystrate fossils—tree trunks in coal (Auracaria spp. king billy pines, celery top pines, in southern hemisphere coal). There are also polystrate tree trunks in theYellowstone fossilized forests and Joggins, Nova Scotia and in many other places. Polystrate fossilized lycopod trunks occur in northern hemisphere coal, again indicating rapid burial / formation of the organic material that became coal.
- Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.
- The amount of salt in the world’s oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah’s Flood.
- Observed examples of rapid canyon formation; for example, Providence Canyon in southwest Georgia, Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington, and Lower Loowit Canyon near Mount St Helens. The rapidity of the formation of these canyons, which look similar to other canyons that supposedly took many millions of years to form, brings into question the supposed age of the canyons that no one saw form.
- Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
- Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
- Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
- Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
- Lifetime of long-period comets (orbital period greater than 200 years) that are sun-grazing comets or others like Hyakutake or Hale–Bopp means they could not have originated with the solar system 4.5 billion years ago. However, their existence is consistent with a young age for the solar system. Again an AD hoc Oort Cloud was invented to try to account for these comets still being present after billions of years. See, Comets and the age of the solar system.
- Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today’s population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer?
- Common cultural “myths” speak of recent separation of peoples around the world. An example of this is the frequency of stories of an earth-destroying flood.
Is any of this conclusive proof that the claims of the Bible are correct, and that the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old? No.
But then, nothing proffered by evolutionist and materialists is conclusive proof that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, either. No one living now was around at the beginning of the earth, and there is no clear, verifiable record of what happened and when it happened.
The truth is, whether you believe in creation, intelligent design or evolution/materialism, you’re making a lot of assumptions. The real question is: how closely does the evidence fit your assumptions?
Interestingly, materialists and evolutionist typically make a lot of claims that are impossible with in the framework of their own theory. A fundamental assumption of materialism and evolution is that the universe came about through completely unguided, naturalistic events and that no supernatural force was involved anywhere along the way, from the beginning to today. This requires everything that has happened in the theoretical 14 billion year age of the universe to have come about without supernatural causation, in full compliance with the laws of science. The problem is, several pivotal assumptions of materialism and evolution are impossible according to the laws of nature: matter coming from nothing, stellar matter defying entropy and spontaneously organizing into higher forms, life from lifelessness, etc.
Meanwhile, creationism and intelligent design are completely possible within the framework of their own theories. Unlike evolution/materialism, there is no fundamental reason why creation or intelligent design are impossible according to their own key assumptions.
What’s more, as CMI’s list of only 101 items points out, the evidence tends to fit creation theory much better than evolution theory.
I used to believe in evolution…until I realized its weaknesses and all the insurmountable problems it faces within itself. And when I became aware of how well the evidence fits the Genesis account, and of the multitude of highly technical creationist studies and theories which have examined the evidence in detail, I ended up becoming a young earth creationist.
If you aren’t afraid to admit you’ve been wrong, if you aren’t afraid to go beyond what people have been feeding you all your life, if you aren’t afraid to confront the facts head on and weigh them objectively, if you aren’t afraid of the possibility that your worldview could shift radically, I invite you to do as I did several years ago and take an honest look at the strengths and weaknesses on both sides of this argument. You can start by going to CMI and reading all 101 reasons; see what you think.
You might just be amazed…