Search This Blog

Friday, June 21, 2013

More Dismissing Darwinist Lies...The Long Ages Myth...Actually the Earth, Solar System and Universe is Young!!!

Nobody says it better than in this case!

I am not going to even use blue for quotes.  Just going to give it to you the way it is found on the website.  If you have any doubt that Darwinism is dead as dead can be, begin researching ANY aspect of origins on this site.   Then consider I have probably listed over 50 excellent creationist sites in my links list.   Millions of people have abandoned Darwinism because of the science and thereby find their worldview gets a change as well.   Sometimes it happens the other way around.  No Creationist has any excuse for believing ANY aspect of Darwinism, it is just Pantheism in disguise.  Three articles for your perusal:

Deep time doesn’t make sense! Kokarev
Published: 20 June 2013 (GMT+10)
The Bible rejects ‘deep time’ (see Did God create over billions of years?). There is no hint of deep time within its pages; it says the universe is thousands of years old, not billions. But deep time is the mental furniture of our age. Our culture automatically thinks in terms of ‘millions of years’. It’s just assumed that science has proved deep time.
But what if deep time is fundamentally an irrational idea? No matter how much ‘science’ seems to ‘prove’ it, the point would be moot because deep time in itself simply wouldn’t make any sense. Logic is more foundational than science—science doesn’t have to exist (since nature doesn’t have to exist), but logic does. We can’t talk or reason without logic. Not even science can save an illogical idea.
Of course, deep time is not obviously irrational. It seems to make sense. But how can we test its logical consistency? First, we need to know what sort of idea ‘deep time’ is and what it specifically says. Next, we must remember that deep time is an interpretation of data. Data does not speak for itself. It is always interpreted according to our starting assumptions or axioms. Deep time is no different; it is an interpretation of the data that rests on a few basic axioms. This provides us with the crucial test: if those axioms are false or don’t make sense, deep time has no logical foundation to stand on, regardless of how impressive the ‘science’ of deep time seems.
Not even science can save an illogical idea.

What is deep time?

The timeline of deep time

What exactly is ‘deep time’? It’s a historical framework—a basic history of the universe. Its basic features are practically unquestioned today (Ga = billions of years ago; Ma: millions of years ago; ka = thousands of years ago): c. 14 Ga origin of the cosmos, c. 4.6 Ga origin of the earth, c. 3.8 Ga origin of life, c. 600 Ma origin of animals, c. 200 Ma origin of mammals, c. 2 Ma origin of humans, c. 200 ka origin of modern humans, c. 10 ka origin of agriculture. Its absolute length has varied somewhat over the last 200 years or so, but the basic events and sequence have remained the same. It has always been couched in timespans far longer than a biblical 6,000-year chronology of the universe.

Deep time: science or history?

When we ask, ‘Is deep time true?’, what sort of question are we asking? Is this a scientific question? After all, the ‘science of geology’ supposedly proves deep time. Still, the answer is no. Science has to do with how nature works, and is studied by repeatable experiments and observations done in the present. Rather, it’s a historical question. It’s about events in the past. We can’t repeat them. We can’t observe them. We can’t do experiments on them. Science can be a useful tool in studying history (see CSI … and CMI), but it provides only secondary and circumstantial evidence.
Testimony has some unique advantages over physical evidence.
Eyewitness testimony is the primary source of knowledge about the past. It is where someone who was there tells us what happened, when, where, and even why based on what they saw and/or heard. Now, we all know that witnesses can lie or be mistaken. That is a problem in courts of law, but it is not a problem when the testimony comes from God, as with Genesis 1–11 (and the rest of Scripture). But it’s not just that biblical testimony is involved in natural history. Testimony has some unique advantages over physical evidence. It provides us with a conceptual context in which to understand what happened—something physical evidence can never do by itself. Evidence can’t speak at all, let alone for itself. When someone says ‘the evidence speaks for itself’, they are really saying that they think the evidence can only be reasonably interpretedone way. Rather, people tell us what happened, not the rocks or fossils. And when people tell us what happened, based not on what they saw or heard but on what they inferred from physical evidence, their story is automatically at the mercy of what they think could have happened—their axioms. But when different people have different assumptions about the past, they produce different stories from the same evidence. Testimony is the only independent way to test these stories. It is a unique type of evidence to history; it is not scientific evidence. Testimony can’t be tested scientifically; it has to be tested in other ways (internal consistency, consistency with other witnesses, credibility, etc.). Testimony repeated doesn’t give us new data. And it provides a conceptual context in which to interpret the evidence, and doesn’t just assume one. Testimony is a crucial difference between science and history. As such, science and history are not the same thing, so we must be very careful in the way we apply scientific findings to history.

The axioms of deep time

Testimony is the only independent way to test these stories.
Unlike the timeline of deep time, the axioms of deep time have not changed in over 200 years. So what are the axioms that are used to justify this historical framework?

The premise of prehistory

Every historical framework works from a basic premise about the past. For deep time ‘history’ this is the notion of prehistory: that there is a (long) history for the cosmos prior to the start of recorded history. There are only two types of evidence used in history: physical evidence and testimony. Prehistory rules out testimony by definition.

Matter’s all that matters

The premise of prehistory entails that physical evidence is all that matters for prehistory. It’s the only thing we can investigate! So we have to presume that matter (and energy) is all that matters in prehistory. Natural cause and effect is all that applies in our study of nature (seeThe rules of the game). And from this starting point we have to assume that matter behaves with absolute uniformity in time and space.

The supremacy of science

If matter is all that matters, then the study of matter’s behaviour, science, is the only method we can use to find anything out about prehistory. This means we must be able to inherently trust science to give us the right answers (when we have enough data, of course). This idea is called positivism, which says that science is the supreme way to know anything about nature.
Battle of Bunker Hill by Howard Pyle (1853–1911), circa 1897.
The Battle of Bunker Hill
The Battle of Bunker Hill, early in the American Revolutionary War, took place on 17 June 1775. We know about this event through the testimony of those present at the time.

The ‘clocks’ of constancy

In history we need a way to tell the time so we can know when events happened. With nobody in prehistory to tell us, how can we even begin to investigate? We have to assume the present is the key to the past—an idea called uniformitarianism. In other words, we assume the observed rates of certain natural processes are constant through time. A constant rate plus known conditions in the present provides a way to calculate a time. And when we measure current conditions and rates of processes like erosion, rock formation, and isotope decay, and extrapolate them into the past, we obtain an age for the earth much older than human history records. This supposedly justifies the premise of prehistory.

Deep time: coherent or confused?

It all sounds so nice and neat; a simple set of axioms to prove deep time. Do these ideas make sense? Do they hold together in a coherent way?

Is matter all that matters?

Three reasons are given for why matter is all that matters for prehistory: 1) physical nature is all there really is, 2) whatever is outside nature had nothing discernible to do with prehistory, and 3) matter is all we’ve got to go by in prehistory even if there were miracles in prehistoric times. Do any of these ideas make sense?


The first idea is called naturalism, and is the simplest starting point. If physical nature is all there is, then it follows that physical nature is all that matters for prehistory. However, naturalism is self-refuting. If physical nature is all there is, then a person’s belief in that idea is produced purely by the workings of inanimate nature. Their brain chemistry made them believe it; they didn’t reason to the belief—reason had nothing to do with it! So why trust your brain? Especially when someone else’s, by the same laws of brain chemistry, tells them that nature is not all there is. Again, your brain could just be fooling you to keep you alive, and you’ll never know the difference. If nature is all there is, we can’t know it, which means belief in that idea is self-refuting.

Methodological naturalism

The second idea is called methodological naturalism,1,2 which says that science can only explain what happens in the universe in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. It’s doesn’t tell us if nature is all there really is, but it does say that science operates as if nature is all there is. The upshot is that if there are any supernatural beings, they never interfere directly in nature, and especially in prehistory. This idea is common among theistic evolutionists; it’s seen as a way to avoid both naturalism and biblical creation.
What’s the real point? It’s not that nature is all that matters, but that the way nature behaves is ordered.
But there’s no inherent reason why some such beings (like God) couldn’t or shouldn’t do miracles in prehistory … beyond our own personal opinions. Only if such beings told us there were no miracles in prehistory (and they were reliable) could we actually establish the point. But then it would no longer be prehistory! Hence, methodological naturalism is arbitrary.
It’s also a smokescreen. What’s the real point? It’s not that nature is all that matters, but that the way nature behaves is ordered. The two ideas have nothing to do with each other—if nature is all there is doesn’t mean it’s ordered. It could be completely chaotic, for all we know. And as we saw above, we’ll never even know if physical nature is all there really is. So why operate as if nature is all there is? We don’t. We operate as if nature’s behaviour is predictable. Why is it predictable? Great question—to which naturalism is an incoherent answer, and methodological naturalism is a non-answer (see Why does science work at all? for the answer).

Miracles in prehistory?

Some believers in prehistory, such as old-earth creationists, believe that miracles were possible in prehistory. They reject the notion that we should operate as if nature is all there is, though they still believe that physical evidence is all they have access to for figuring out what happened (by the definition of prehistory). Rather, they strive to find the most likely explanation of the physical evidence, whether natural or supernatural. Types of events they typically label as ‘miracles’ are the origin of the cosmos, the origin of life, and the origin of certain biological features in the history of life.
But precisely when did these miraculous events occur? Where? By whom? Do we even know if some of these events were performed by supernatural agents? They will readily attribute the absolute beginning to some supernatural cause,3 but that doesn’t tell us who or what that was, or how long ago it was. They will also invoke a miracle for the origin of life. It’s pretty clear that life basically can’t come from non-life without intelligent input in principle, but showing precisely when, where, and by whom this miraculous event actually happened without testimony is impossible. There is no historical context. There is no absolute timeline. There is no way to identify the ‘culprit’. Only testimony can provide such things in a non-arbitrary way, but that is ruled out by definition in prehistory. As such, they are completely at the mercy of their assumptions with no way to test them, which makes any assumptions adopted arbitrary.
In practice, the ‘where’ and ‘when’ of such events are ‘read off’ deep time history, and the ‘who’ is assumed by one’s own theology. But miracles in prehistory contradict other deep-time assumptions, which provide the only way to get all the information we need to reconstruct the prehistorical past. Without testimony the present is the only possible key to the past to date prehistorical events. Miracles however entail that the present isn’t always the key to the past. If a miracle affects the rates of physical processes used to date events in the past, we can’t trust the dates. Miracles in prehistory also undermine the reliability of science to tell us about prehistory. Once one miracle is allowed, where do we stop? That we should stop at some point doesn’t tell us anything.
Nature’s predictability is clearly essential for a working nature. What we can’t know and yet need to is precisely how many and what sort of miracles it takes to ruin a reasonable trust in nature’s predictability. But even this doesn’t tell us all the miracles that e.g. God might do, let alone what He actually did. Some miracles may have happened that didn’t leave easily discernible evidence behind (e.g. we have no physical evidence of Jesus turning water into wine). Or even if they did, perhaps some miracles were so large in scope that we might mistake them for natural events (e.g. events like Creation and Noah’s Flood). This is no better than methodological naturalism; it arbitrarily assumes what e.g. God did.
We can’t know precisely what God did when and where unless He tells us. But if He told us, it would no longer be prehistory.
We can’t know precisely what God did when and where unless He tells us. But if He told us, it would no longer be prehistory. So there’s no reason to trust in deep time history if miracles are allowed in prehistory. In fact, allowing miracles means there’s no way to say anything certain about specific events in prehistory (see CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement). This is hardly a solid basis for a historical framework.

The present: the key to the past?

The present is presumed to be the key to the prehistorical past. This uniformitarianism would be an ingenious way to tell the time without witnesses … if it worked. The idea assumes constant rates in various physical processes and uses these to date events (see How dating methods work). Secular geologists have largely rejected this idea—but not entirely. What they have (generally) rejected is dating by processes now known not to be constant, like erosion,4 volcanism,5 and rock formation.6 But they still use uniformitarianism to tell the time (See BioLogos and the age of the earth): radiometric dating is now the prime method, but that method is not objective (see How accurate is Carbon-14 (and other radiometric) dating?).
We’ve seen this idea work in crime scene investigation. But there’s the key—we’ve seen it work. Timelines derived from forensic science have often been verified independently by testimony. By definition we can’t see if the ‘constant rate’ clocks of prehistory work (see CSI and evolution). Neither can we know they work without testimony because testimony is the only independent test available for such clocks. Therefore, if the present is the key to the prehistorical past, we can’t know it.
Nature’s constancy does not by itself guarantee that the present is the key to the past.
There is a common response to this: we can know that these methods (generally) work because nature behaves in a constant way. But this does not follow. Nature’s constancy does not by itself guarantee that the present is the key to the past.7 It’s not the only factor influencing how these ‘process clocks’ run. Even if the rates were constant, we could not tell how much time had elapsed because we would not know the initial reading of the clock. And also, conditions can change how the process runs, as can the scale of the process. The process rate can itself be rate-dependent. And what exactly is the ‘present’ which is supposedly the key to the past? Today? The last year? The last century? The history of scientific observation? Human history? All these ‘presents’ are miniscule in comparison to the alleged billions of years of cosmic history. How can we know they provide a norm by which to measure the rest of history? Without testimony, we can’t.
The problem is that uniformitarianism equates the behaviour of history with science—repeatably constant. But the objects of study in science and history don’t behave the same way. Past events are not repeatable because time is linear, and only moves in one direction. On the other hand, how nature behaves is testable by repeated observations or experiments because it’s not something time can change—only God can, since only He sustains nature.
And what happens when miracles get in the way? Miracles leave physical effects. Big miracles leave big physical effects—like a global Flood, or a six day creation of the whole cosmos. When miracles like these get in the way, the ‘process clocks’ can’t work because the conditions have changed, the scale is huge, and even the rates have likely altered. Apart from testimony, we can’t know what happened.
We even see different ‘process clocks’ regularly giving conflicting dates! That is, the same assumptions with comparable methods give different results (see Age of the Earth). This makes perfect sense because uniformitarianism makes no sense.

Science rules prehistory?

Science (see ‘It’s not science) is assumed to rule prehistory. This is usually a subset of the idea that science rules everything. It can be taken two ways: (1) science is the only way to know anything, or (2) science is the ultimate authority for knowing anything. The problem for both ideas is that they must be provable scientifically. But the idea that ‘science is the only way to know anything’ is not itself testable or repeatable scientifically. We can’t prove it using science. It’s the same with assuming that science has primacy. Even if science had primacy in 1,000 instances of knowing doesn’t mean it must have primacy in the next instance of knowing. Science can’t provide us with absolute truth, so it has no authority over methods that can, like revelation or logic. Therefore, both of the above ideas are self-refuting.
This applies even if we just try to limit science’s rule to prehistory. Science is never autonomous. Science is impossible without certain axioms derived from philosophy and theology. In fact, these axioms are biblical assumptions, like:
In other words, the God of the Bible is the only reasonable ground for science.
History confirms this. Science was born not in Greece, China, India, or Islam, but in Christian Europe in the Middle Ages. It blossomed in the Reformation, when the Bible’s ultimate authority and the Fall’s radical corruption of the whole of man were acknowledged. Science owes its origin to the God of the Bible.
But if the God of the Bible is the ground for science, the Bible of God is its constraint.
But if the God of the Bible is the ground for science, the Bible of God is its constraint. The Bible tells us not just what God is like, but what He has done. And He has done miracles—even some big ones. And since the God of the Bible can’t lie and knows everything, the Bible as God’s word is perfectly trustworthy. These miracles falsify a purely scientific history, so we have to take them into account when we use science to study history. The Bible rules science—both the science of present process and the science of past event.


The assumptions of deep time don’t make sense. If matter is all that matters, we can never know it. Even if matter is all there is, there’s no reason to think matter would behave in a predictable way. We can’t know if there are perfect ‘clocks’ for prehistory because to know we would need to see them work. However, the concept of prehistory rules this out. The very idea that science is supreme is self-refuting. So, with no way to justify prehistory, it’s nothing but an arbitrary assumption. Each axiom is incoherent. Attempts to marry them with biblical theism don’t improve them, and if anything only highlight the incoherence even more. The Achilles’ heel of the whole deep time enterprise is prehistory—the fact that it is history that must ignore testimony. No testimony means no history because without testimony any assumptions we adopt are arbitrary at best.
This of course is not a problem for biblical Christianity. It has the infallible witness of Scripture to what happened. God tells us his story, and so gives us a basis for understanding history. It is only from this basis that we can hope to know and understand history, and to be able to explore history further using physical evidence.

Related Articles

Further Reading


  1. Reed, J.K. and Williams, E.L., Battlegrounds of natural history: naturalism, CRSQ 48(2):147–167, 2011. Return to text.
  2. Doyle, S., Defining arguments away: the distorted language of secularism, J. Creation 26(2):120–127, 2012. Return to text.
  3. Rightly so, but atheists such as Leonard Krauss disagree. He posits that the universe came from ‘nothing’ by redefining ‘nothing’ to mean ‘a quantum vacuum’. This is clearly not a total absence of being; Krauss instead arbitrarily assumes the necessary existence of quantum mechanics. See Discovery Channel program: How the Universe Works for more information. Return to text.
  4. Reed, J.K., Three early arguments for deep time—part 1: time needed to erode valleysJ. Creation 25(2):83–91, 2011. Return to text.
  5. Reed, J.K., Three early arguments for deep time—part 2: volcanismJ. Creation 26(1):61–70, 2012. Return to text.
  6. Reed, J.K. and Oard M.J., Three early arguments for deep time—part 3: the ‘geognostic pile’, J. Creation 26(2):100–109, 2012. Return to text.
  7. Reed, J.K., Demythologizing uniformitarian history, CRSQ 35(3):156–165, 1998. Return to text.


We have LOTS of evidence for a young age for the Earth and Universe!

Age of the earth

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe

Published: 4 June 2009(GMT+10)
there is much evidence for a young age of the earth
There are many categories of evidence for the age of the earth and the cosmos that indicate they are much younger than is generally asserted today.

Can science prove the age of the earth?

No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called “clocks” they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the “clock” has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.
There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now. And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all (see below).
No scientific method canprove the age of the earth or the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here.
Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism. If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.
Examples of young ages listed here are also obtained by applying the same principle of uniformitarianism. Long-age proponents will dismiss this sort of evidence for a young age of the earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases. In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past.
The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all suggest much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning those accepted ages (13.7 billion years for the universe and 4.54 billion years for the solar system).
Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend.
When the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a young age of the earth.
Many of these indicators for younger ages were discovered when creationist scientists started researching things that were supposed to “prove” long ages. The lesson here is clear: when the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a younger age of the earth. On the other hand, some of the evidences listed here might turn out to be ill-founded with further research and will need to be modified. Such is the nature of science, especially historical science, because we cannot do experiments on past events (see “It’s not science”).
Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events. The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos. See The Universe’s Birth Certificate and Biblical chronogenealogies (technical). In the end we believe that the Bible will stand vindicated and those who deny its testimony will be confounded.

Biological evidence for a young age of the earth

    Image: Dr Mary Schweitzer
    Cells and connective tissue can be clearly seen.
    The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65+ million years claimed by the paleontologists.
  1. 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.
  2. Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
  3. The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author inCreation 30(4):45–47,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.
  4. The data for “mitochondrial Eve” are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
  5. Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
  6. Many fossil bones “dated” at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really?
  7. Dinosaur blood cells, blood vesselsproteins (hemoglobinosteocalcincollagenhistones) and DNA are not consistent with their supposed more than 65-million-year age, but make more sense if the remains are thousands of years old (at most).
  8. Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils “dated” at millions of years old, whereas complete racemization would occur in thousands of years.
  9. Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.
  10. Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. CoelacanthWollemi pine and various “index” fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example? See The “Lazarus effect”: rodent “resurrection”!
  11. The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.
  12. Geological evidence for a young age of the earth

    Photo by Don Batten
    Eastern beach syncline
    Radical folding at Eastern Beach, near Auckland in New Zealand, indicates that the sediments were soft and pliable when folded, inconsistent with a long time for their formation. Such folding can be seen world-wide and is consistent with a young age of the earth.
  13. Scarcity of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See Origins 21(1):51–56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an “era” buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years.
  14. 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. See Warped earth (written by a geophysicist).
  15. Polystrate fossils—tree trunks in coal (Araucaria spp. king billy pines, celery top pines, in southern hemisphere coal). There are also polystrate tree trunks in the Yellowstone 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.
  16. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
  17. 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.
  18. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.
  19. Evidence for rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds speaks against the hundreds of millions of years normally claimed for this, including Z-shaped seams that point to a single depositional event producing these layers.
  20. Evidence for rapid petrifaction of wood speaks against the need for long periods of time and is consistent with an age of thousands of years.
  21. Clastic dykes and pipes (intrusion of sediment through overlying sedimentary rock) show that the overlying rock strata were still soft when they formed. This drastically compresses the time scale for the deposition of the penetrated rock strata. See, Walker, T.,Fluidisation pipes: Evidence of large-scale watery catastropheJournal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):8–9, 2000.
  22. Para(pseudo)conformities—where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a “flat gap”. E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time). The thick Schnebly Hill Formation (sandstone) lies between the Coconino and Hermit in central Arizona. See Austin, S.A., Grand Canyon, monument to catastrophe, ICR, Santee, CA, USA, 1994 and Snelling, A., The case of the “missing” geologic timeCreation 14(3):31–35, 1992.
  23. The presence of ephemeral markings (raindrop marks, ripple marks, animal tracks) at the boundaries of paraconformities show that the upper rock layer has been deposited immediately after the lower one, eliminating many millions of “gap” time. See references in Para(pseudo)conformities.
  24. Inter-tonguing of adjacent strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years also eliminates many millions of years of supposed geologic time. The case of the “missing” geologic time; Mississippian and Cambrian strata interbedding: 200 million years hiatus in question, CRSQ 23(4):160–167.
  25. The lack of bioturbation (worm holes, root growth) at paraconformities (flat gaps) reinforces the lack of time involved where evolutionary geologists insert many millions of years to force the rocks to conform with the “given” timescale of billions of years.
  26. The almost complete lack of clearly recognizable soil layers anywhere in the geologic column. Geologists do claim to have found lots of “fossil” soils (paleosols), but these are quite different to soils today, lacking the features that characterize soil horizons; features that are used in classifying different soils. Every one that has been investigated thoroughly proves to lack the characteristics of proper soil. If “deep time” were correct, with hundreds of millions of years of abundant life on the earth, there should have been ample opportunities many times over for soil formation. See Klevberg, P. and Bandy, R., CRSQ 39:252–68; CRSQ 40:99–116, 2003; Walker, T., Paleosols: digging deeper buries “challenge” to Flood geologyJournal of Creation 17(3):28–34, 2003.
  27. Limited extent of unconformities (unconformity: a surface of erosion that separates younger strata from older rocks). Surfaces erode quickly (e.g. Badlands, South Dakota), but there are very limited unconformities. There is the “great unconformity” at the base of the Grand Canyon, but otherwise there are supposedly ~300 million years of strata deposited on top without any significant unconformity. This is again consistent with a much shorter time of deposition of these strata. See Para(pseudo)conformities.
  28. 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, which is consistent with a young age of the earth.
  29. The discovery that underwater landslides (“turbidity currents”) travelling at some 50 km/h can create huge areas of sediment in a matter of hours (Press, F., and Siever, R., Earth, 4th ed., Freeman & Co., NY, USA, 1986). Sediments thought to have formed slowly over eons of time are now becoming recognized as having formed extremely rapidly. See for example, A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow (Technical).
  30. Flume tank research with sediment of different particle sizes show that layered rock strata that were thought to have formed over huge periods of time in lake beds actually formed very quickly. Even the precise layer thicknesses of rocks were duplicated after they were ground into their sedimentary particles and run through the flume. See Experiments in stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures,Sedimentation Experiments: Nature finally catches up! and Sandy Stripes Do many layers mean many years?
  31. 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.
  32. Observed examples of rapid island formation and maturation, such as Surtsey, which confound the notion that such islands take long periods of time to form. See also, Tuluman—A Test of Time.
  33. Rate of erosion of coastlines, horizontally. E.g. Beachy Head, UK, loses a metre of coast to the sea every six years.
  34. Rate of erosion of continents vertically is not consistent with the assumed old age of the earth. See Creation 22(2):18–21.
  35. Existence of significant flat plateaux that are “dated” at many millions of years old (“elevated paleoplains”). An example is Kangaroo Island (Australia). C.R. Twidale, a famous Australian physical geographer wrote: “the survival of these paleoforms is in some degree an embarrassment to all the commonly accepted models of landscape development.” Twidale, C.R. On the survival of paleoforms, American Journal of Science 5(276):77–95, 1976 (quote on p. 81). See Austin, S.A., Did landscapes evolve? Impact 118, April 1983.
  36. The recent and almost simultaneous origin of all the high mountain ranges around the world—including the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rockies—which have undergone most of the uplift to their present elevations beginning “five million” years ago, whereas mountain building processes have supposedly been around for up to billions of years. See Baumgardner, J., Recent uplift of today’s mountainsImpact 381, March 2005.
  37. Water gaps. These are gorges cut through mountain ranges where rivers run. They occur worldwide and are part of what evolutionary geologists call “discordant drainage systems”. They are “discordant” because they don’t fit the deep time belief system. The evidence fits them forming rapidly in a much younger age framework where the gorges were cut in the recessive stage / dispersive phase of the global Flood of Noah’s day. See Oard, M., Do rivers erode through mountains? Water gaps are strong evidence for the Genesis Flood,Creation 29(3):18–23, 2007.
  38. Niagara Falls
    Erosion rates at places like Niagara Falls are consistent with a time frame of several thousand years since Noah’s Flood.
  39. Erosion at Niagara Falls and other such places is consistent with just a few thousand years since the biblical Flood. However, much of the Niagara Gorge likely formed very rapidly with the catastrophic drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz; see: Climate change, Niagara and catastrophe.
  40. River delta growth rate is consistent with thousands of years since the biblical Flood, not vast periods of time. The argument goes back to Mark Twain. E.g. 1. Mississippi—Creation Research Quarterly (CRSQ)9:96–114, 1992; CRSQ 14:77; CRSQ 25:121–123. E.g. 2 Tigris–Euphrates: CRSQ 14:87, 1977.
  41. Underfit streams. River valleys are too large for the streams they contain. Dury speaks of the “continent-wide distribution of underfit streams”. Using channel meander characteristics, Dury concluded that past streams frequently had 20–60 times their current discharge. This means that the river valleys would have been carved very quickly, not slowly over eons of time. See Austin, S.A., Did landscapes evolve? Impact 118, 1983.
  42. Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also.
  43. The amount of sediment on the sea floors at current rates of land erosion would accumulate in just 12 million years; a blink of the eye compared to the supposed age of much of the ocean floor of up to 3 billion years. Furthermore, long-age geologists reckon that higher erosion rates applied in the past, which shortens the time frame. From a biblical point of view, at the end of Noah’s Flood lots of sediment would have been added to the sea with the water coming off the unconsolidated land, making the amount of sediment perfectly consistent with a history of thousands of years.
  44. Iron-manganese nodules (IMN) on the sea floors. The measured rates of growth of these nodules indicates an age of only thousands of years. Lalomov, A.V., 2006. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66.
  45. The age of placer deposits (concentrations of heavy metals such as tin in modern sediments and consolidated sedimentary rocks). The measured rates of deposition indicate an age of thousands of years, not the assumed millions. See Lalomov, A.V., and Tabolitch, S.E., 2000. Age determination of coastal submarine placer, Val’cumey, northern SiberiaJournal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):83–90.
  46. Pressure in oil / gas wells indicate the recent origin of the oil and gas. If they were many millions of years old we would expect the pressures to equilibrate, even in low permeability rocks. “Experts in petroleum prospecting note the impossibility of creating an effective model given long and slow oil generation over millions of years (Petukhov, 2004). In their opinion, if models demand the standard multimillion-years geochronological scale, the best exploration strategy is to drill wells on a random grid.” Lalomov, A.V., 2007. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66.
  47. Direct evidence that oil is forming today in the Guaymas Basin and in Bass Strait is consistent with a young earth (although not necessary for a young earth).
  48. Rapid reversals in paleomagnetism undermine use of paleomagnetism in long ages dating of rocks and speak of rapid processes, compressing the long-age time scale enormously.
  49. The pattern of magnetization in the magnetic stripes where magma is welling up at the mid-ocean trenches argues against the belief that reversals take many thousands of years and rather indicates rapid sea-floor spreading as well as rapid magnetic reversals, consistent with a young earth (Humphreys, D.R., Has the Earth’s magnetic field ever flipped? Creation Research Quarterly 25(3):130–137, 1988).
  50. Magnetic reversal pattern mid-ocean ridges
    Along the mid-ocean ridges, the detailed pattern of magnetic polarisation, with islands of differing polarity, speaks of rapid changes in direction of Earth’s magnetic field because of the rate of cooling of the lava. This is consistent with a young Earth.
  51. Measured rates of stalactite and stalagmite growth in limestone caves are consistent with a young age of several thousand years. See also articles on limestone cave formation.
  52. The decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Exponential decay is evident from measurements and is consistent with theory of free decay since creation, suggesting an age of the earth of only thousands of years. For further evidence that it follows exponential decay with a time constant of 1611 years (±10) see: Humphreys, R., Earth’s magnetic field is decaying steadily—with a little rythm, CRSQ 47(3):193–201; 2011.
  53. Excess heat flow from the earth is consistent with a young age rather than billions of years, even taking into account heat from radioactive decay. See Woodmorappe, J., 1999. Lord Kelvin revisited on the young age of the earthJournal of Creation (TJ) 13(1):14, 1999.
  54. Radiometric dating and the age of the earth

  55. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
  56. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
  57. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
  58. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work. See: Objections.
  59. Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
  60. Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).
  61. Demonstrably non-radiogenic “isochrons” of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron “dating” that gives billions of years. “False” isochrons are common.
  62. Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different “ages” undermine all “dates” obtained from zircons.
  63. 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.
  64. The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 848 pp., 2005
  65. Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296).
  66. Pleochroic halos produced in granite by concentrated specks of short half-life elements such as polonium suggest a period of rapid nuclear decay of the long half-life parent isotopes during the formation of the rocks and rapid formation of the rocks, both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time and a vast age of the earth. See, Radiohalos: Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processesCreation 28(2):46–50, 2006.
  67. Squashed pleochroic halos (radiohalos) formed from decay of polonium, a very short half-life element, in coalified wood from several geological eras suggest rapid formation of all the layers about the same time, in the same process, consistent with the biblical “young” earth model rather than the millions of years claimed for these events.
  68. Australia’s “Burning Mountain” speaks against radiometric dating and the millions of years belief system (according to radiometric dating of the lava intrusion that set the coal alight, the coal in the burning mountain has been burning for ~40 million years, but clearly this is not feasible).
  69. Astronomical evidence for a young(er) age of the earth and the universe

    Photo by NASA
    Saturn’s rings are increasingly recognized as being relatively short-lived rather than essentially changeless over millions of years.
  70. Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth’s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old. See: Transient lunar phenomena: a permanent problem for evolutionary models of Moon formation and Walker, T., and Catchpoole, D., Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframeCreation 31(3):18, 2009. See further corroboration: “At Long Last, Moon’s Core ‘Seen’”;
  71. Recession of the moon from the earth. Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age.
  72. The moon’s former magnetic field. Rocks sampled from the moon’s crust have residual magnetism that indicates that the moon once had a magnetic field much stronger than earth’s magnetic field today. No plausible ‘dynamo’ hypothesis could account for even a weak magnetic field, let alone a strong one that could leave such residual magnetism in a billions-of-years time-frame. The evidence is much more consistent with a recent creation of the moon and its magnetic field and free decay of the magnetic field in the 6,000 years since then. Humphreys, D.R., The moon’s former magnetic field—still a huge problem for evolutionistsJournal of Creation 26(1):5–6, 2012.
  73. Ghost craters on the moon’s maria (singular mare: dark “seas” formed from massive lava flows) are a problem for the assumed long ages. Enormous impacts evidently caused the large craters and lava flows within those craters, and this lava partly buried other, smaller impact craters within the larger craters, leaving “ghosts”. But this means that the smaller impacts can’t have been too long after the huge ones, otherwise the lava would have flowed into the larger craters before the smaller impacts. This suggests a very narrow time frame for all this cratering, and by implication the other cratered bodies of our solar system. They suggest that the cratering occurred quite quickly. See Fryman, H., Ghost craters in the skyCreation Matters 4(1):6, 1999; A biblically based cratering theory (Faulkner);Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe.
  74. The presence of a significant magnetic field around Mercury is not consistent with its supposed age of billions of years. A planet so small should have cooled down enough so any liquid core would solidify, preventing the evolutionists’ “dynamo” mechanism. See also, Humphreys, D.R., Mercury’s magnetic field is young! Journal of Creation 22(3):8–9, 2008.
  75. The outer planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields, but they should be long “dead” if they are as old as claimed according to evolutionary long-age beliefs. Assuming a solar system age of thousands of years, physicist Russell Humphreys successfully predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune.
  76. Jupiter’s larger moons, Ganymede, Io, and Europa, have magnetic fields, which they should not have if they were billions of years old, because they have solid cores and so no dynamo could generate the magnetic fields. This is consistent with creationist Humphreys’ predictions. See also, Spencer, W., Ganymede: the surprisingly magnetic moonJournal of Creation 23(1):8–9, 2009.
  77. Volcanically active moons of Jupiter (Io) are consistent with youthfulness (Galileo mission recorded 80 active volcanoes). If Io had been erupting over 4.5 billion years at even 10% of its current rate, it would have erupted its entire mass 40 times. Io looks like a young moon and does not fit with the supposed billions of year’s age for the solar system. Gravitational tugging from Jupiter and other moons accounts for only some of the excess heat produced.
  78. The surface of Jupiter’s moon Europa. Studies of the few craters indicated that up to 95% of small craters, and many medium-sized ones, are formed from debris thrown up by larger impacts. This means that there have been far fewer impacts than had been thought in the solar system and the age of other objects in the solar system, derived from cratering levels, have to be reduced drastically (see Psarris, Spike, What you aren’t being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD, available from CMI).
  79. Methane on Titan (Saturn’s largest moon)—the methane should all be gone because of UV-induced breakdown. The products of photolysis should also have produced a huge sea of heavier hydrocarbons such as ethane. An Astrobiology item titled “The missing methane” cited one of the Cassini researchers, Jonathan Lunine, as saying, “If the chemistry on Titan has gone on in steady-state over the age of the solar system, then we would predict that a layer of ethane 300 to 600 meters thick should be deposited on the surface.” No such sea is seen, which is consistent with Titan being a tiny fraction of the claimed age of the solar system (needless to say, Lunine does not accept the obvious young age implications of these observations, so he speculates, for example, that there must be some unknown source of methane).
  80. The rate of change / disappearance of Saturn’s rings is inconsistent with their supposed vast age; they speak of youthfulness.
  81. Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, looks young. Astronomers working in the “billions of years” mindset thought that this moon would be cold and dead, but it is a very active moon, spewing massive jets of water vapour and icy particles into space at supersonic speeds, consistent with a much younger age. Calculations show that the interior would have frozen solid after 30 million years (less than 1% of its supposed age); tidal friction from Saturn does not explain its youthful activity (Psarris, Spike, What you aren’t being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD; Walker, T., 2009. Enceladus: Saturn’s sprightly moon looks young, Creation31(3):54–55).
  82. Miranda, a small moon of Uranus, should have been long since dead, if billions of years old, but its extreme surface features suggest otherwise. See Revelations in the solar system.
  83. Neptune should be long since “cold”, lacking strong wind movement if it were billions of years old, yet Voyager II in 1989 found it to be otherwise—it has the fastest winds in the entire solar system. This observation is consistent with a young age, not billions of years. See Neptune: monument to creation.
  84. Neptune’s rings have thick regions and thin regions. This unevenness means they cannot be billions of years old, since collisions of the ring objects would eventually make the ring very uniform. Revelations in the solar system.
  85. Young surface age of Neptune’s moon, Triton—less than 10 million years, even with evolutionary assumptions on rates of impacts (see Schenk, P.M., and Zahnle, K. On the Negligible Surface Age of TritonIcarus 192(1):135–149, 2007. .
  86. Uranus and Neptune both have magnetic fields significantly off-axis, which is an unstable situation. When this was discovered with Uranus, it was assumed by evolutionary astronomers that Uranus must have just happened to be going through a magnetic field reversal. However, when a similar thing was found with Neptune, this AD hoc explanation was upset. These observations are consistent with ages of thousands of years rather than billions.
  87. The orbit of Pluto is chaotic on a 20 million year time scale and affects the rest of the solar system, which would also become unstable on that time scale, suggesting that it must be much younger. (See: Rothman, T., God takes a nap, Scientific American 259(4):20, 1988).
  88. The existence of short-period comets (orbital period less than 200 years), e.g. Halley, which have a life of less than 20,000 years, is consistent with an age of the solar system of less than 10,000 years. ad hoc hypotheses have to be invented to circumvent this evidence (see Kuiper Belt). See Comets and the age of the solar system.
  89. “Near-infrared spectra of the Kuiper Belt Object, Quaoar and the suspected Kuiper Belt Object, Charon, indicate both contain crystalline water ice and ammonia hydrate. This watery material cannot be much older than 10 million years, which is consistent with a young solar system, not one that is 5 billion years old.” See: The “waters above” .
  90. 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.
  91. The maximum expected lifetime of near-earth asteroids is of the order of one million years, after which they collide with the sun. And the Yarkovsky effect moves main belt asteroids into near-earth orbits faster than had been thought. This brings into question the origin of asteroids with the formation of the solar system (the usual scenario), or the solar system is much younger than the 4.5 billion years claimed. Henry, J., The asteroid belt: indications of its youth, Creation Matters 11(2):2, 2006.
  92. The lifetime of binary asteroids—where a tiny asteroid “moon” orbits a larger asteroid— in the main belt (they represent about 15–17% of the total): tidal effects limit the life of such binary systems to about 100,000 years. The difficulties in conceiving of any scenario for getting binaries to form in such numbers to keep up the population, led some astronomers to doubt their existence, but space probes confirmed it (Henry, J., The asteroid belt: indications of its youth, Creation Matters 11(2):2, 2006).
  93. The observed rapid rate of change in stars contradicts the vast ages assigned to stellar evolution. For example, Sakurai’s Object in Sagittarius: in 1994, this star was most likely a white dwarf in the centre of a planetary nebula; by 1997 it had grown to a bright yellow giant, about 80 times wider than the sun (Astronomy & Astrophysics 321:L17, 1997). In 1998, it had expanded even further, to a red supergiant 150 times wider than the sun. But then it shrank just as quickly; by 2002 the star itself was invisible even to the most powerful optical telescopes, although it is detectable in the infrared, which shines through the dust (Muir, H., 2003, Back from the dead,New Scientist 177(2384):28–31).
  94. The faint young sun paradox. According to stellar evolution theory, as the sun’s core transforms from hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, the mean molecular weight increases, which would compress the sun’s core increasing fusion rate. The upshot is that over several billion years, the sun ought to have brightened 40% since its formation and 25% since the appearance of life on earth. For the latter, this translates into a 16–18 ºC temperature increase on the earth. The current average temperature is 15 ºC, so the earth ought to have had a -2 ºC or so temperature when life appeared. See: Faulkner, D., The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar systemJournal of Creation (TJ) 15(2):3–4, 2001. As of 2010, the faint young sun remains a problem: Kasting, J.F., Early Earth: Faint young Sun redux, Nature 464:687–689, 1 April 2010; doi:10.1038/464687a;
  95. Evidence of (very) recent geological activity (tectonic movements) on the moon is inconsistent with its supposed age of billions of years and its hot origin. Watters, T.R., et al., Evidence of Recent Thrust Faulting on the Moon Revealed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, Science 329(5994):936–940, 20 August 2010; DOI: 10.1126/science.1189590 (“This detection, coupled with the very young apparent age of the faults, suggests global late-stage contraction of the Moon.”) NASA pictures support biblical origin for Moon.
  96. The giant gas planets Jupiter and Saturn radiate more energy than they receive from the sun, suggesting a recent origin. Jupiter radiates almost twice as much energy as it receives from the sun, indicating that it may be less than 1 % of the presumed 4.5 billion years old solar system. Saturn radiates nearly twice as much energy per unit mass as Jupiter. See The age of the Jovian planets.
  97. Speedy stars are consistent with a young age for the universe. For example, many stars in the dwarf galaxies in the Local Group are moving away from each other at speeds estimated at to 10–12 km/s. At these speeds, the stars should have dispersed in 100 Ma, which, compared with the supposed 14,000 Ma age of the universe, is a short time. See Fast stars challenge big bang origin for dwarf galaxies.
  98. The ageing of spiral galaxies (much less than 200 million years) is not consistent with their supposed age of many billions of years. The discovery of extremely “young” spiral galaxies highlights the problem of this evidence for the evolutionary ages assumed.
  99. The number of type I supernova remnants (SNRs) observable in our galaxy is consistent with an age of thousands of years, not millions or billions. See Davies, K., Proc. 3prd ICC, pp. 175–184, 1994.
  100. The rate of expansion and size of supernovas indicates that all studied are young (less than 10,000 years). See supernova remnants.
  101. Human history is consistent with a young age of the earth

  102. 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?
  103. “Stone age” human skeletons and artefacts. There are not enough for 100,000 years of a human population of just one million, let alone more people (10 million?). See Where are all the people?
  104. Length of recorded history. Origin of various civilizations, writing, etc., all about the same time several thousand years ago. See Evidence for a young world.
  105. Languages. Similarities in languages claimed to be separated by many tens of thousands of years speaks against the supposed ages (e.g. compare some aboriginal languages in Australia with languages in south-eastern India and Sri Lanka). See The Tower of Babel account affirmed by linguistics.
  106. 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.
  107. Origin of agriculture. Secular dating puts it at about 10,000 years and yet that same chronology says that modern man has supposedly been around for at least 200,000 years. Surely someone would have worked out much sooner how to sow seeds of plants to produce food. See: Evidence for a young world.

Last updated 5 April 2012.

(Available in Albanian)

Related Articles

Further Reading

Related Media


I've read many of the articles and posted on most of these evidences since 2004.  Evidence is sadly lacking in public schools and colleges.  But the internet is your friend!  Let me just list one of the many great references for you:

CMI scientific blunder?

Methane, ethane, and pseudogene functions

Published: 9 September 2010(GMT+10)
Image: wikipedia
There is too much methane in Titan’s atmosphere for it to be millions of years old.
‘There is too much methane in Titan’s atmosphere for it to be millions of years old.’
This week’s feedback features two correspondents. R.P. from the United States accuses CMI of a scientific blunder in Dr Don Batten’s article ‘Age of the earth’ by saying that methane (CH4) cannot degrade into ethane (C2H6). Dr Jonathan Sarfati, who holds a Ph.D. in chemistry, shows how methane can be chemically broken down to ethane. Dr Robert Carterreceives some positive feedback about his article ‘Splicing and dicing the genome’, and comments on new research suggesting a new function for pseudogenes have a function that further renders the ‘junk DNA’ explanation invalid.
R.P. from the United States writes:
Blatant error in your article: Age of the earth
Besides not providing references for your claims the largest error occurs inpoint #74 which states:
“Methane on Titan (Saturn’s largest moon)—methane would all be gone because of UV-induced breakdown to ethane in just 10,000 years. And large quantities of ethane are not there either.”
Anyone with a chemistry background knows that methane cannot be broken down to ethane because methane only has one carbon while ethane has two. One ethane could be split into two methane molecules, but not the other way around.
CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati writes:
Dear R.P.
I have an earned doctorate in chemistry from an accredited secular university, which most people would regard as a “background in chemistry”.
Ethane could not be split into two methane molecules, because it hasn’t enough hydrogen.
The article is correct. What happens is that the high-energy UV photon causes a free radical break in methane, CH4, to CH3• and H•. The dots symbolize the unpaired electrons, which makes these radicals very reactive, as people with chemical backgrounds realize. One possible reaction is 2CH3• → C2H6, which as people with a chemistry background know, is ethane. It’s well known simple radical chemistry, really. One website explains:
“The ultraviolet light is expected to split the methane gas (CH4), in the atmosphere, into various fragments, called radicals (CH2, CH, H, CH3). These radicals recombine into various organic molecules, the most abundant of which are acetylene (C2H2) and ethane (C2H6).They can react with other hydrocarbon radicals and nitrogen radicals from the break up of nitrogen molecules to form more complex materials, including tholins and hydrogencyanide (HCN).”
The article linked as a source for this one said:
“For example, Titan, Saturn’s largest moon, has long been known to have an atmosphere, but its composition puzzles long-age cosmologists. The sun’s UV radiation breaks down methane (CH4), and the hydrogen would escape Titan’s weak gravity. In fact, methane should last only for about 10,000 years. And a major by-product should be an ocean of liquid ethane hundreds of metres thick. Yet Titan still has methane clouds, while large areas of liquid ethane are nowhere to be found.” [citing The Missing MethaneAstrobiology Magazine,, 17 March 2005. New Scientist, 21 August 2004, p. 5; 20 November 2004, p. 9.]
Ethane could not be split into two methane molecules, because it hasn’t enough hydrogen. But that might take a chemistry background to know.
I should add that the article is fully referenced, both in primary sources and hyperlinked articles. I concede that we lapsed in omitting that free radical explanation; I guess we assumed too great a background in chemistry from our readers, sorry.
(Dr) Jonathan Sarfati

Robert F. from the United States writes:
Dear Robert Carter,
I read with interest the recent article on “Splicing and Dicing the Genome”. I am always amazed that secular molecular biologists believe that all of this “information” controlling things arose completely by chance, and I think you did a wonderful job pointing out some of the complexity in our genomes.
Regarding your comments on pseudogenes, a recent publication in Nature1 posits that pseudogene mRNA may be used as a decoy to control the level of gene expression of the real gene.
I have not read the entire paper yet, but it is an intriguing hypothesis, and points to yet another level of complexity in our genome.
CMI’s Dr Robert Carter responds:
The junk DNA argument is like a zombie. It is dead and buried, but keeps coming back. … Since nothing else is waiting in the wings, they desperately cling to a decaying corpse of a theory.
Thank you for your comments and thank you for supporting our ministry. It takes a lot of work to write those articles and comments like yours help motivate us to keep plugging away.
Regarding the paper you mentioned,1 I have it and have spent some time discussing it with several other creationist geneticists. Here is one comment made by one of my colleagues: “Hi Rob—Thanks! The new paper on pseudogenes is very important because we have been relying too heavily on a single older paper, which has been called into question. If this paper actually ‘doubles the functional genome’ (gene count goes from 20,000 to 50,000) why isn’t this on the front page of every newspaper? Why is it not clearly stated that this overthrows a key evolutionary doctrine, and further debunks ‘junk DNA’?”
The junk DNA argument is like a zombie. It is dead and buried, but keeps coming back. If the past is any indication of the future, it will finally die when the evolutionists can replace it with something else. Since nothing else is waiting in the wings, they desperately cling to a decaying corpse of a theory. But, while they are waiting, their appreciation of genomic complexity is skyrocketing. They are in a very uncomfortable position!
Robert Carter


  1. Poliseno, L., Salmena, L., Zhang, J., Carver, B., Haveman, W.J. and Pandolfi, P.P., A coding-independent function of gene and pseudogene mRNAs regulates tumour biologyNature 465:1033–1038, 24 June 2010; doi:10.1038/nature09144. Return to text.


Anonymous said...

As usual, quantity rather than quality, the usual refuge of the YEC.

One quick question: In what way is Genesis supposed to be an eyewitness account?

Piltdown Superman said...

Abusive ad hominem and question-begging epithet noted. Childish lack of logic is the usual refuge of the atheist evolutionist (and any other evolutionist).