All text and images are protected under U.S copyright law.
Do not use without permission.
Up until the 17 and 18 hundreds most everybody believed that the earth was young. A mere 6 thousand years or so.
No where in the Bible does God tell us the exact year of Creation. But by simply studying the scriptures we can certainly get an idea of when this took place.
In the 1650's a well known bishop named James Ussher studied the genealogies in the old testament. By doing so he calculated that the earth was created in 4004 B.C. ("Get a grip on evolution" by David Burnie)
Now I don't think you can get it down to the exact year like Ussher's 4004 B.C. date, but we can look at Genesis and get a general idea of when God made the universe.
I believe we can also study some natural processes that agree that the earth is not millions or billions of years old.
Evolutionists claim that the Earth and the solar system is about 4.55 billion years old (plus or minus about 1%). They believe this amount of time is necessary for all the life forms on earth to evolve.
It is a rare thing for someone to publicly dispute the alleged "millions of years" age of the earth. When someone does they are often attacked or accused of being ignorant.
I believe we can use critical thinking skills to rule out a millions or billions of years date for the earth.
We can not look at current rates of rock formation, erosion, etc to determine the age of the earth because there may have been factors in the past that are not happening in the present. In fact the Bible tells us just that. A flood covered the entire earth (read my commentary on Genesis 6) this would alter, shift and mix up the entire face of the earth. This flood also altered the rate of sediments laid down, the formation of sedimentary rock and also the rate of erosion.
Something that may take many years to form today (the Grand Canyon for instance) could have formed quite quickly during the flood.
The Bible even predicted that in the "last days" there would be those who scoff at the bible, and claim that "all things continue as they were from the beginning" (II Peter 3:3). This seems to say that there would be a predominance of uniformitarianism thinking. Mountains form slowly today, so they assume that they must have formed slowly in the past. The Creation model tells us that mountains formed quickly as the result of the flood.
Everything we know of Science (entropy etc..) tells us that even if the world was millions or even billions of years old, evolution would still be impossible (the chapter on mutations will explain this).(opens new window)
In the popular press we are led to believe that the antiquity of the earth is a proven fact. We are told that all Scientists believe the world is old, and that all of our dating methods confirm this.
The truth is, many well qualified Scientists, and lay people alike are well justified in their belief that the earth, and universe is quite young.
A secret they have learned is one that you may never have been told. It is this: Though a few assorted dating methods give the age of the earth in millions of years, there are far more that limit the age of the earth to a mere few thousand years.
- Why are we not told of these?
It is because they go against the politically correct notion of Evolution.
Click HERE to see a picture demonstrating the drastic difference in time between the Theory of Evolution, and Creation.
Evolutionists believe that the universe slowly began to form 20 billion years ago. They believe the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. (references)
While many Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was Created instantaneously about 6 thousand years ago.
Both of these are belief systems. Neither one can be proven because no one was there to witness the event, and it can not be repeated. But we can examine the evidence and decide which one is more plausible.
This page will present you with the evidence for a young earth, and a young universe. I will then let you decide which one the facts better support.
There are many layers of rock all over the world. These rock are separated into layers one on top of the other in what is called "rock strata".
Can we tell how old the earth is by looking at this strata?
The layers of rock on the bottom would have to have been laid down before the layers on top. But how long before? This is one area that Creationists and Evolutionists disagree on.
Evolutionists believe that each layer represents a period of time.. or an era. A layer may have been laid down over a hundred or even a few thousand years.
Though it seems reasonable at first to think that you can look at the numerous layers of rock to estimate the age of the earth (estimating that each strata is hundreds or thousands of years old), those who do so will run into many problems.
First, we don't know how long it took for those layers to form. We weren't there. We can't assume a steady rate of accumulation based on how long it takes today.
If there was a world wide flood (as described in Genesis) then many layers of soft sediments would stratify at one time. These soft sediments would later harden as the waters receded and form rock.
If there was a flood, then you could have what appeared to be "millions of years" of strata formed in a period of a few months.
The study of such formations is called Catastrophic Geology. There are many excellent creationist books on this subject. A few are listed below:
1. "Field Studies in Catastrophic Geology" by Carl R. Froede Jr.
2. "Sea Floor Sediments and the Age of the Earth" by Dr. Larry Vardiman
3. "Studies in Flood Geology" by John Woodmorappe
There are also some excellent videos:
1. "Biblical Geology: Properly Understanding the Rocks" by Dr Tas Walker
2. "Geologic Evidences for Very Rapid Strata Deposition in the Grand Canyon (DVD)" by Dr Steven Austin
3. "The Geology Book" by Dr John D Morris
"Rock does not form in thousands of years. this CAN be proven. Go to a body of water that existed long ago that has dried up and tell me if the entire thing is rock. If rock could form in thousands of years, then any area(after the "flood" receded) not covered by water would be rock. how would you explain this? and how would the soft sediments produce many layers? Wouldn't there just be the one?"
from Sunny M. age 19, 11/8/01
My response: Like I said before we have different things happening today than happened at the time of the flood. The pressure of all these sediments would be enough to form rock. There would be many layers all formed at the same time. They are different layers (not just one layer) because the sediments were stratified while wet, based on their density. Take a jar, fill it with sand, and rock of different sizes. Then fill it with water, and shake it. As it settles the particles will separate based on their density, and will settle into layers. If the water receded (like in the flood) and a great deal of pressure was added (a million pounds of wet sediments laying on top of each other) then these would form rock in a very short period of time. We simply don't have the pressure exerted on the sediments today that existed at the flood.
Not all sediments would become rock.
If you look at the Grand Canyon you will see thousands of layers of sedimentary rock. The Creationist and the Evolutionist can both look at the same evidence but come to different conclusions.
The evolutionist who believes in an ancient earth will look at these layers of rock and determine that these layers formed slowly over millions of years.
The Creationist who believes the Bible looks at the same evidence but comes to a different conclusion as to how these layers were formed. The Creationist knows that these layers could not have formed over millions of years. As there is little or no erosion between the layers. This is consistent with all the layers being laid down at the same time (the flood).
The Creationist interpretation is that the Grand Canyon was formed as a result of the flood. The receding flood waters would cut through the soft sediments, leaving the canyon. These soft sediments later hardened into their present form.
The canyon may have formed while it was solidifying, as the waters receded (possibly very quickly) it would cut through these layers like butter. Some people claim that it took a little bit of water (the small river) a lot of time (millions of years) to form the canyon. But it could have been the opposite.
A lot of water (the flood) and a little bit of time.
For more information read:
1)"Grand Canyon: A Different View" Compiled by Tom Vail
2) "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe" by Dr Steven Austin
"The Grand Canyon Catastrophe: New Evidence of the Genesis Flood" by Keziah & American Portrait Films
"The Grand Canyon: Monument to the Flood" (VHS)
"Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe" (VHS) Dr Steve Austin
"The Grand Canyon: A Biblical View by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling
"Geologic Evidences for Very Rapid Strata Deposition in the Grand Canyon (DVD)" by Dr Steven Austin
| There are many fossils that go through several layers of rock, these are called polystrate fossils (the name polystrate means "many strata", pg 101 "The Young Earth" by John D. Morris, Ph.D.).
Polystrate fossils are a problem for those who believe rock layers take millions of years to form. Look at the picture at the right for example. If each of these layers of rock formed over millions of years, then why are there trees standing straight up through several different layers?
A tree would have died, fallen over and rotted in just a short time. It is clear that the layers were laid down and hardened in a short period of time
The rock encasing polystrate fossils is sedimentary rock. It is rock that was once soft sediment laid down by water, that later hardened.
All the layers of rock around the tree would have had to have formed at the same time. It would take a lot of water and a lot of mud for this to happen. I believe that during the flood, as described in the Bible, several layers of soft sediments were washed into place around the tree. A short time later, as the flood waters receded the sediments would turn to stone similar to the way cement hardens as it dries.
The Evolutionist who doesn't believe the Bible, and does not believe there ever was a flood can not allow himself to accept this interpretation. Because if there was a flood, then the Bible was right. And if the Bible is right, then there Is a God.. And if there is a God, then God has the right to make rules for us to follow.
So, the evolutionist tries to explain away or ignore polystrate fossils.
I am aware that there have been some polystrate fossils formed in the time since the Genesis flood. These formed by small floods like we have today in very localized areas. What I am talking about here is entire forests encased in rock. This could only take place in a flood of Global proportions. Just like the one described in Genesis.
According to John Morris Ph.D. some polystrate trees intersect more than one coal layer. (pg 101 "The Young Earth" by John D. Morris, Ph.D. Masterbooks, 1994).
The fossilized bodies of animals have also been found intersecting more than one layer of rock.
(pg 101 "The Young Earth" by John D. Morris, Ph.D. Masterbooks, 1994).
"According to the Bible the Earth is only about 6,500 years old. How can that be if there are trees that have growth rings that are older than that?"
Bristle cone pines are the oldest living things in the world. However they should not be used to determine the age of the earth, as they have been known to produce more than one tree ring per year. Using Bristle cone pines to determine the age of the earth would then be erroneous. ("Field studies in the ancient bristlecone pine forest" by John Woodmorappe TJ 17(3), 2003)
("The Oldest Tree in the World" by Carl Kerby, Creation Magazine 17(3):26, 27).
The oldest living tree then dates to about the time after the flood, when the first tree's would start to grow again.
| Here's what Carl Kerby has to say:
"If there was a global Flood around 5,000 years ago, no living thing should be older than that. There are still some uncertainties with tree-ring dating, which is by no means absolute (for example, trees can form more than one ring per year). Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the maximum tree ring ages for living trees fall just within this range. Apart from the biblical Flood, there seems no reason why, if certain trees are capable of living for 4,000 years, some should not have lasted much longer("The Oldest Tree in the World" by Carl Kerby, Creation Magazine 17(3):26, 27).
There has been recent research on the seasonal effects of tree ring growth. The plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that as many as five rings per year can be produced. Interestingly enough the extra rings are often indistinguishable (even under the microscope) from annual growth rings (Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) by Don Batten, Ph.D.)
Mt. St. Helen’s erupted in 1980. Several hundred feet of sediment was laid down in a few days.. not millions of years. These layers were stratified in the same way that the Grand Canyon is.
An examination of the trees at Spirit Lake show that waterlogged trees often sank in an upright position and could be fossilized in much the same way
(pg 102 "The Young Earth" by John D. Morris, Ph.D. Masterbooks, 1994).
Some great references for more information are:
"Footprints in the Ash" written by John Morris & Steven Austin
"Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe" a video by Dr Steve Austin
Would it take millions of years for the continents to separate? - No. This could all happen very quickly during the flood.
See my commentary on Genesis 1 for more info.
Open in this window or Open in a new browser window
"You claim that the earth is only 10, 000 years old but it takes millions of years to erode or build mountains."
from Sunny M. age 19, 11/7/01
This is not true. At today’s rate, yes. It might take a million years for a mountain to erode. But that is based on the assumption that the rate of formation and the rate of erosion have always remained constant.
Before the flood, we don't hear of any high mountains in the bible. There were some hills yes, but there may not have been any mountains.
If there were no large mountains when God created the world (a few thousand years ago) they could still form in a very short time during the flood (see Genesis). A flood as large as the one described in the Bible could cause a big chain reaction of upheavals post-flood.
As the flood waters receded and tectonic forces pushed them up. This is how the Bible says mountains were formed (insert verse). It says the valleys sank down, and the mountains arose - all from the weight, pressures etc of the flood.
One of the best ways to show that the earth is not "billions of years old" is to look at the sun.
We are all aware that the sun is burning. What you may not have thought of though, is that it can not burn forever. Though the sun does oscillate, it is also rapidly decreasing in size and mass.
For the last 300 years Boyal (sp) Observatory in England has been keeping records of the suns diameter (K. Hovind debate at the University of West Florida).
They have carefully recorded the rate the sun is shrinking. They have determined that the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 feet per hour. At this rate, the sun would have been twice its present radius only one million years ago. The farther you go back in time, the larger the sun would have been. This is true even though the rate of shrinkage may not have always been the same. In fact in the past, the sun would have burned faster than it does today.
"The shrinkage rate centuries ago would be determined by the balance of the solar forces. Since the potential energy of a homogeneous spherical sun varies inversely with the solar radius, the rate of shrinkage would have been greater in the past than it is now". (Dr. Russel Akridge, ICR impact article #82 )
This means that today’s rate of shrinkage (5 feet per hour) was faster years ago. Perhaps at the rate of 10 or 20 feet per hour.
The sun would have been big enough to touch the earth only 20 million years ago. Evolutionists claim the earth is 4 BILLION years old. You can see why this is impossible.
If the earth was Billions of years old, then the earth would have been destroyed by the sun.
The Evolutionists idea that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago is absurd. This is far too long ago for the sun to have allowed life on earth.
The earth can not be millions of years old.
Moon dust argument not valid
A measurement of the dust on the moon published in 1960 was the basis for the now discredited moon dust argument. A thin layer of dust was said to indicate a young age for the moon. However in a recent article: "Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System" Dr. Andrew A. Snelling and David E. Rush (Published in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 7(1):2-42, 1993) the authors advised against using this data because the original measurements given in 1960 are not accurate. More research should be done on this before estimates of the moons age can be determined. We must also remember that the rate of dust accumulation may not have always been the same, causing any age result to be questioned.
There are those who say that based on the size of the Great Barrier Reef the earth must be millions of years old. They say it would take millions of years for the coral to grow to this size. This simply is not true.
The Great Barrier Reef (Australia) is the longest in the world, and Eniwetok Atoll (Marshall Islands) is the thickest.
The rate of coral growth can be greatly increased by simply increasing the water temperature a few degrees, or increasing the carbonate content of the water.
Keeping these factors in mind, even the largest coral reef could form in only a few thousand years ("How long does a coral reef take to grow?" Creation Ex Nihilo 14(1):15, Dec.–Feb., 1991–1992)
The Magnetic Field
When we examine the earths magnetic field we realize that the earth can Not be millions of years old.
Here's what Dr. John Morris has to say about this:
"Observations have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying over the last century and a half. Precise measurements of the field's intensity, or strength, have been made on a worldwide basis since 1829 that determine the state of the field at any point in time."
He then goes on to say:
"From these measurements , we can ascertain that the fields overall strength has declined by about 7% since 1829. These measured data-points plot along a curved line, which best fits that of exponential decay, as do many natural processes. From this, it can be calculated that the half-life of the magnetic field’s strength is approximately 1,400 years. If this half-life doesn't change with time, the field must have been much larger in the past, and will be much smaller in the future." ("The Young Earth" by John D. Morris, Ph.D. pg.74-75)
What does all this mean? Well, just 20 thousand years ago the earths magnetic field would have been too strong to support life on earth.
Here's what Jonathan Sarfati has to say:
"In the 1970s, the late creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook, proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s metallic core.
Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth. So the earth must be younger than that." ("The earth’s magnetic field: Evidence that the earth is young" by Jonathan Sarfati First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 20(2):15-17,March-May 1998)
For further reading try:
Dr Humphreys – Creation Research Society Quarterly 27(1):15–17, 1990.
D.R. Humphreys, ‘Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis Flood,’ Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, 2:113–126, 1986.
D. Russell Humphreys, ‘ The creation of planetary magnetic fields’, Creation Research Society Quarterly 21(3):140–149, 1984.
Humphreys, D.R., Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, 2:129–142, 1991
Written records only go back 6 thousand years
The oldest known written records are only about 6 thousand years old. The Bible itself is only a few thousand years old.
I know that there are some people who think God made man millions of years ago. But if man has been here living in sin for millions of years, then why would God wait so long to send a Savior?
Why did he let them live so long without the scriptures?
The idea that God made man, and that man has been here for millions of years (to me) is incompatible.
The bible seems to indicate that man was created about 6 thousand years ago.
If you were to take the Bible on its own, and believe the words of God.. Ignoring what anyone else may have told you.. would you ever come to the conclusion, from reading your Bible that the earth is Millions of years old?
We must remind ourselves that we were not there in the beginning.. But God was. And we have his word on how and when the earth was created.
Stalactite and Cave Formation
Evolutionists claim that stalactites (stalactites hang or ‘stay tight’ on the ceiling) and stalagmites (grow up from the cave floor) prove that the earth is millions of years old, because it takes so long for these structures to form.
And while it is true that today many stalactites and stalagmites grow only a few inches over a long period of time from slow ground water action many have been seen to form quite rapidly.
Here are two pictures (out of hundreds of examples) showing rapid formation of stalactites and stalagmites.
In the first picture (published in the October 1953 edition of National Geographic) you can see a stalagmites that formed quickly. If you look closely you can see a bat encased in this structure. This stalagmite formed so quickly that the bat was not exposed long enough for it to rot away. This was discovered in Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico. (Mason Sutherland, Carlsbad Caverns in Color, National Geographic, October, 1953, p. 442.)
"How long does it take for a stalactite to grow? Many people, impressed by repeated statements of the extreme duration of geologic time, have made statements to the effect that it takes dripstone practically forever to grow appreciably. However there is more than a little evidence that growth is considerably rapid. First of all, stalactites are found in man-made tunnels that are only a few years old…. Second, certain conditions are so favorable to dripstone growth that as much as several cubic inches a year may be deposited in a single stalactite…. Third, there are many examples of large stalagmites growing on blocks of stone that have fallen from cave ceilings."
Hendrix, Charles E., The Cave Book (Revere, Massachusetts: Earth Science Publishing Co., 1950). p 26 (Taken from the book: "That their words may be used against them")
There are many more examples in "Rapid Stalactites? by Stephen Meyers, B.S., and Robert Doolan" Creation Magazine 9(4):6–8, September–November 1987 (article available online)
Apart from these, it should be remembered that caves formed after the flood, (Geology & Cave Formation: A Post-Flood Story (DVD) Dr Emil Silvestru) and thus, any stalactite or stalagmites found in these caves are even younger.
Oil and the Age of the earth
"Was the oil in the earth formed during the flood? If so, how can we support this?" Roger Evans
Answer: Oil can be formed from the heating of hydrocarbons. "Organic matter buried deep within the ground, in the absence of oxygen, is often exposed to elevated temperatures. This simple heating technology reaffirms that millions of years are totally unnecessary, given the right conditions." (source:)
(For more info on oil formation read: "Creation", Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 30-34).
Oil is under a great amount of pressure under the earths crust. When this page is updated, I will show how this is good evidence that it has not been there for millions of years.
The age of other planets
"I can reason in my mind, that dinosaurs walked with man. What is difficult for me to understand is how the appearance of the universe outside the earth is so old. I do not believe that God created a world, or universe with an appearance of age, that in my mind, walks hand in hand with deception."
Cory J. 8/15/01
The entire world is subject to decay and is running down as a result of Adam's sin. This would effect not just earth but other planets as well. The Bible says that mans sin reached up to the heavens (this would include the stars, other planets etc). This decay process effects everything.
If you have any questions on Creation, Evolution, or just want to say "Hi" please feel free to email me.
| Main Index |
as of 2/03