Chapter 22 - Is the Earth billions of years old?

I'm going to throw some facts your way in the first couple chapters and we'll discuss it more later when we can pull it all together.

There are stalactites and stalagmites in caves and other rock formations that scientists claim took millions of years to develop.  Stalactites are formed by the deposition of calcium carbonate and other minerals, which is precipitated from mineralized water solutions. The corresponding formation on the floor underneath a stalactite is known as a stalagmite. Given enough time, these formations can meet, resulting in formations known as columns.  In Thermopolis, Wyoming there is a huge formation of stalactite that developed over 100 years where a 1 inch water pipe was left running for 100 years.  Only 100 years!  There are many places where man made tunnels are forming stalactites and stalagmites.  It happens a lot faster than they say.

The Grand Canyon and other canyons supposedly took millions of years to be carved by the rivers running through them.  Mud from the Mississippi river is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico at the rate of 80,000 tons per hour.  Where is the mud from the Colorado River as it carved the Grand Canyon for millions of years? There is a delta where it dumps into the Gulf of California, but it is way too small to have dumped all the sediment from carving the massive Grand Canyon. This is evidence that the canyon was not carved over millions of years, but was a quick event that tore the canyon open. Also, when does a river that comes back in on itself, changing direction, somehow in the past was a rushing river that carved a canyon so deep?  They have changed their minds about the Grand Canyon many times already.  National Geographic Kids, March 2003; The Grand Canyon is just a baby!  Science News, September 2000; The Grand Canyon is not as old as once thought!  They are realizing it didn't take millions of years to carve the canyons; it took a lot of water, not a lot of time.  Science News, June 2004; Gorges were carved surprisingly fast!

The Geologic Column is an evolutionary column that you will find in many textbooks.  It doesn't exist anywhere in the world but it is taught as fact (Earth Science magazine 1989).  The Grand Canyon is supposed to represent the deepest exposed "strata" layers in the world.  It's interesting that less than half of the strata are actually seen and it's not in the order science says it is and there are gaps where there are no strata from a presumed era.  All over the earth, depending on where you go, there are strata layers missing, they are in completely different orders from one place to another, and some places have certain layers that others do not.  There are layers, certainly, but the "column" is not evident or complete as it is taught anywhere on the planet.

Another interesting fact is that they have found fossilized trees that are vertical through the layers of strata.  Think about this for a second.  A dead tree stood for millions of years in the same place and fossilized while the world changed and evolved around it and layers of strata were built up around it.  For millions of years???  Some places have trees fallen over, some at an angle, some straight up, all fossilized and extending through several layers of "strata" that took millions of years to lay down.  Hello?  When can a dead tree lay there for millions of years, exposed to the elements, and not rot away?

And what about the layers of Diatoms found in the ocean floors?  These are microscopic life forms that accumulate on the floor of bodies of water and are said to accumulate at one inch per 1000 years as they die and float to the bottom.  They use this accumulation to determine the age of things found.  It's very interesting that they found an 80 foot whale standing on its tail completely surrounded by Diatom layered around it.  A whale stood on its tail for millions of years while Diatoms died and built up around it?

They've also found entire buried forests 200 feet below ground all over the earth, but they have never found a meteorite below the top layer.  Scientists are baffled by this.

They've found 90 foot plumb trees frozen in the ice 600 miles north of the Arctic Circle.  They have ripe plumbs and healthy leaves, all frozen.  They've found Mammoths and many other animals frozen in place with food still in their mouths, frozen in stride.

Jellyfish are made mostly of water, and when they get washed up on shore, they quickly dry out. Within a very short time there is nothing left. Yet huge jellyfish fossil graveyards have been found, requiring rapid deposition, burial, and fossilization. Just the fact that we have jellyfish fossils is remarkable evidence that the Great Flood occurred.

How about the fact that since man has begun recording time, the earth's rotation slows by about one second per year?  The spinning of the earth is slowing down.  A year from today, it will take one second longer for the earth to spin in one complete rotation.  If you do the math, and I did, that means that 30 million years ago there was one revolution about every second.  The sun would flash across the sky every second.  The earth would have been like a strobe light... on, off, on, off, on, off...  300 million years ago there were 10 revolutions per second...  onoffonoffonoff...  3 billion years ago there were 100 revolutions per second.  15 billion years ago (the big bang) earth was spinning at 500 revolutions per second.  The earth would have been spinning so fast that there would be no difference in light at any time.  Gravity would have had no effect and, without proving the physics, I would bet that things literally would be flung from the surface of the planet at that speed of rotation from the centrifugal force.

Science cannot explain these things or many other things.  Is the earth really as old as they want us to believe?  We'll talk more about this later...

Carbon dating is another interesting study.  Did you know that they base it on totally unproven "facts"?  Yes, today we can see the rate of decay on Radiocarbon or Carbon 14 (known as Carbon dating) and we expound upon the findings of short-term testing to "prove" that things are billions of years old.  We have to assume that scientists know all about the variables involved, that some scientists are wrong in supposing that there was variation in the intensity of cosmic-ray formation and that others were wrong in supposing that there were fluctuations in the original C-14 content.  Carbon dating assumes that the rate of C-14 decay has been a constant and has always been exactly the same rate that we find it to be today.  Funny thing is that they tested an ancient structure at Durrington Walls in England, that they knew was 1500 years old, but the Carbon dating "proved" that it was actually 2500 years old!  I stress that this "proof" was actually provably wrong. Some other examples of abnormal C14 results include testing of recently harvested, live mollusc shells from the Hawaiian coast that showed that they had died 2000 years ago and snail shells just killed in Nevada, USA, dated in at 27,000 years old. A freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, yielded a death age of 1300 years ago. A petrified miner's hat and wooden fence posts were unearthed from an abandoned 19th century gold hunter's town in Australia's outback. Results from radiocarbon dating said that they were 6000 years old. So, why does everyone believe such a farce?  If it is so inaccurate on such a relatively new sample, how can we assume that it won't be exponentially deviate on a much older sample?  It is a belief, not a science. 

• Another thing I cannot fail to mention is that the 1 Pb-Pb (lead-lead) Isochron test, which is supposed to be the most reliable and accurate of dating methods, showed that the Uinkaret lava flow in the Grand Canyon are older than the Cardenas Basalts below the Grand Canyon.
• These Uinkaret lava rocks are from a volcanic eruption at the top of the Grand Canyon, so are obviously and indisputably the youngest.
• But the dating tests showed it to be older than the Cardenas lava rock? Far, far below supposedly millions to billions of years older?
• And they've even found Indian artifacts in the lava! Pottery from the Indians that lived there when the volcano erupted, in the lava rock. So we know for a fact that the eruption was at maximum 1000 years ago.
• But the rock from the lava was dated at 2.6 billion years old.
• This is much like the rock from the Mount Saint Helens eruption in Washington state. The rock and formations are baffling the "scientists" because it's showing a VERY old age in the rocks that just formed a few decades ago. They're obviously only a few decades old!
• The idea that their dating methods and the assumptions behind them can be relied on is the dumbest thing anyone could possibly believe.

And, even another example of how old-earth assumptions are completely false!

Here's an interesting page where scientists in the UK are concerned about this very subject: Archaeology Expert article on Carbon Dating. Specifically, I found this statement very interesting: "For radiocarbon dating to be reliable scientists need to make a number of vital assumptions. Firstly, Dr Libby assumed that C14 decays at a constant rate. However, experimental evidence indicates that C14 decay is slowing down and that millennia ago it decayed much faster than is observed today. Secondly, the theory behind C14 dating demands that there is the same rate of cosmic production of radioactive isotopes throughout time. The industrial revolution has belched hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon gases into the atmosphere increasing the C12 ratio and atomic weapons testing have increased neutron levels. Thirdly, the environment in which the artefact lies heavily impacts on the rate of decay. For example, C14 leaches at an accelerated rate from organic material saturated in water, especially saline water. Fourthly, for C14 to test accurately the artefact must have been protected from contamination. Organic matter, being porous, can easily be contaminated by organic carbon in groundwater. This increases the C12 content and interferes with the carbon ratio."

The biblical flood detailed in the book of Genesis caused this type of testing to be completely unreliable. Why do the scientists ignore these facts? There are many other things that scientists can't explain which are explained very easily when the flood is considered in the reasoning process.

How old is the earth?

Remember the 80,000 tons of mud per hour that the Mississippi river dumps in the Gulf?  They have measured the delta in the Gulf of Mexico and concluded that it has been doing that for about 4400 years.

Bristlecone Pine trees are thought to be the oldest living trees in the world.  The Redwoods in California are among the biggest and oldest.  They estimate that they are about 4000 years old.

The oil that is under the surface of the planet is pressurized.  That's why it gushes up into the air like a fountain when it is tapped.  After studying the pressure and the rocks and earth around these fields of oil, they have estimated that the containment can only be expected to last about 5000 years before it will deteriorate and burst followed by collapse.  But wait!  I thought it took 65 million years for it to develop?  How has it maintained the pressure all these years?  Doesn't make sense at all...

Science data shows that something big happened to the magnetic poles about 4000 years ago.  More on this later...

Guess what happened about 4400 years ago?  An event we call Noah's flood.  The bible shows through lines of genealogy, telling us the ages of people when they had so and so and then how old that person was when they had so and so all the way to Noah, and then all the way to Jesus.  It was about 1650 years between creation and the flood and then about another 2400 years to Jesus.  This makes the earth about 6000 years old.  But wait!  Isn't there all kinds of evidence to show that the earth is much older than that?  Don't we have carbon dating and other things that prove more age than that?  We'll discuss these questions and answer them later in this book.