The earth is young like the Bible tells us, not old. [Spirituality & Religion]
I listened to a Christian program this morning when they mentioned that scientists had the dating of some rocks off by millions of years and the rocks had actually formed very recently after a volcano. Carbon dating accuracy is called into question after major flaw discovery,
The Bible and the Young Age of the Earth
Creation or Evolution:
Why don't we hear of people challenging these dates?
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.
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 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.
No matter how old the earth is, Evolution is impossible
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.
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.
The Rocks
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".
We can tell how old the earth is by looking at the 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. Some references.
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
The Grand Canyon
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
Videos:
"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
Polystrate fossils
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
Here is one little example and I'll post those volcano rock mistakes they made too shortly.
by Colm Gorey
6 JUN 2018
Here is a Another article
Though one of the most essential tools for determining an ancient object’s age, carbon dating might not be as accurate as we once thought.
When news is announced on the discovery of an archaeological find, we often hear about how the age of the sample was determined using radiocarbon dating, otherwise simply known as carbon dating.
Deemed the gold standard of archaeology, the method was developed in the late 1940s and is based on the idea that radiocarbon (carbon 14) is being constantly created in the atmosphere by cosmic rays which then combine with atmospheric oxygen to form CO2, which is then incorporated into plants during photosynthesis.
When the plant or animal that consumed the foliage dies, it stops exchanging carbon with the environment and from there on in it is simply a case of measuring how much carbon 14 has been emitted, giving its age.
But new research conducted by Cornell University could be about to throw the field of archaeology on its head with the claim that there could be a number of inaccuracies in commonly accepted carbon dating standards.
If this is true, then many of our established historical timelines are thrown into question, potentially needing a re-write of the history books.
In a paper published to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team led by archaeologist Stuart Manning identified variations in the carbon 14 cycle at certain periods of time throwing off timelines by as much as 20 years.
Support Silicon Republic
The possible reason for this, the team believes, could be due to climatic conditions in our distant past.
Standards too simplified
This is because pre-modern carbon 14 chronologies rely on standardised northern and southern hemisphere calibration curves to determine specific dates and are based on the assumption that carbon 14 levels are similar and stable across both hemispheres.
However, atmospheric measurements from the last 50 years show varying carbon 14 levels throughout. Additionally, we know that plants typically grow at different times in different parts of the northern hemisphere.
To test this oversight, the researchers measured a series of carbon 14 ages in southern Jordan tree rings calculated as being from between 1610 and 1940.
Sure enough, it showed that plant material in the southern Levant showed an average carbon offset of about 19 years compared with the current northern hemisphere standard calibration curve.
“There has been much debate for several decades among scholars arguing for different chronologies sometimes only decades to a century apart, each with major historical implications. And yet these studies […] may all be inaccurate since they are using the wrong radiocarbon information,” Manning said.
“Our work should prompt a round of revisions and rethinking for the timeline of the archaeology and early history of the southern Levant through the early Biblical period.”
siliconrepublic.com
The Bible and the Young Age of the Earth
Creation or Evolution:
Why don't we hear of people challenging these dates?
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.
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 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.
No matter how old the earth is, Evolution is impossible
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.
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.
The Rocks
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".
We can tell how old the earth is by looking at the 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. Some references.
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
The Grand Canyon
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
Videos:
"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
Polystrate fossils
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
Here is one little example and I'll post those volcano rock mistakes they made too shortly.
by Colm Gorey
6 JUN 2018
Here is a Another article
Though one of the most essential tools for determining an ancient object’s age, carbon dating might not be as accurate as we once thought.
When news is announced on the discovery of an archaeological find, we often hear about how the age of the sample was determined using radiocarbon dating, otherwise simply known as carbon dating.
Deemed the gold standard of archaeology, the method was developed in the late 1940s and is based on the idea that radiocarbon (carbon 14) is being constantly created in the atmosphere by cosmic rays which then combine with atmospheric oxygen to form CO2, which is then incorporated into plants during photosynthesis.
When the plant or animal that consumed the foliage dies, it stops exchanging carbon with the environment and from there on in it is simply a case of measuring how much carbon 14 has been emitted, giving its age.
But new research conducted by Cornell University could be about to throw the field of archaeology on its head with the claim that there could be a number of inaccuracies in commonly accepted carbon dating standards.
If this is true, then many of our established historical timelines are thrown into question, potentially needing a re-write of the history books.
In a paper published to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team led by archaeologist Stuart Manning identified variations in the carbon 14 cycle at certain periods of time throwing off timelines by as much as 20 years.
Support Silicon Republic
The possible reason for this, the team believes, could be due to climatic conditions in our distant past.
Standards too simplified
This is because pre-modern carbon 14 chronologies rely on standardised northern and southern hemisphere calibration curves to determine specific dates and are based on the assumption that carbon 14 levels are similar and stable across both hemispheres.
However, atmospheric measurements from the last 50 years show varying carbon 14 levels throughout. Additionally, we know that plants typically grow at different times in different parts of the northern hemisphere.
To test this oversight, the researchers measured a series of carbon 14 ages in southern Jordan tree rings calculated as being from between 1610 and 1940.
Sure enough, it showed that plant material in the southern Levant showed an average carbon offset of about 19 years compared with the current northern hemisphere standard calibration curve.
“There has been much debate for several decades among scholars arguing for different chronologies sometimes only decades to a century apart, each with major historical implications. And yet these studies […] may all be inaccurate since they are using the wrong radiocarbon information,” Manning said.
“Our work should prompt a round of revisions and rethinking for the timeline of the archaeology and early history of the southern Levant through the early Biblical period.”
siliconrepublic.com
