From time to time I like to make it very clear that nothing I ever say is original. None of us are clever enough for that. Solomon was right when he said that "there is nothing new under the sun". Whatever I say has probably been said before and in many instances more eloquently and with greater conviction.
However, wherever I can, I give acknowledgment for the thoughts of others. On many occasions, though, I simply can't remember where I heard or read things and then only hope that after I've researched the thoughts and expanded on them (as is my custom), that someone (who knows nothing about or has no regard for the wisdom of Solomon) will come after me with guns blazing and suddenly claim originality for something I dare to say. You see, when I first took an interest in these things, I never dreamed I would ever be sharing them with others, let alone writing about them and speaking about them either. For many years I gathered material on the subject of 'Creation as opposed to Evolution and Chance' for my own personal information. From time to time I then worked on and added to those notes, to such an extent that I can't always remember where some of the thoughts and ideas came from because they've often changed beyond recognition. Not the essence, but the words, because I like to put thoughts in words that I can personally understand and relate to immediately. That in turn makes it easy for one of average intelligence to also understand.
Although I believe that anyone should feel flattered if someone uses their words (I know I am), I'm aware of the fact that some do insist on originality and feel highly indignant if anyone says what they've said before them. Perhaps they should read the poem "these wonderful creatures" on this very website (which just happens to be so un-original in that God gave me the ability to put verse together and literally thousands of others have schooled me in the English language). Anyone is therefore welcome to say whatever they find useful in any of my articles or books. I know instinctively that Solomon was right about that "under the sun" thing, and as for me, I will try to stay humble enough to remember it.
Why is the age of the earth important? Because if we can make a clear case for a very young earth, not more than about 6000 years (which we can, and do), then evolution stands on its head because it is based on everything "happening" and by "very beneficial mistakes" and also "very, very slowly," over "billions" of years. And all by the most astonishing and miraculous and dumbfounding "chance," I must add too.
How old is the earth? That is a very interesting question. Bishop Usher did some laborious academic spadework on the subject and the consensus of opinion among those of his school is that according to the records that can be traced back in the Original Manuscripts from which our Bibles were compiled, the earth came into being about 4000 years before Christ. From my own simple calculations and reasoning as I read the same information in my Bible, I concur basically with his findings. In this year of our Lord, namely, 2008, the earth is a little over 6000 years old.
But what do others say? I simply have to point out that bigotry is very much alive and extremely healthy on planet earth today, and despite all irrefutable "proof" of the total lunacy of the evolution hypothesis, Creationism is given virtually no airtime or script on major media stations and publications. In schools today children are told that the earth is "billions" of years old, and in many countries, teachers are instructed - yes, instructed to "stress that the earth is thought to be at least 4,5 billions of years old." (Holt General Science Teacher's Edition, 1985, p.381). These kids are then coming home from school and are "educating" their "uninformed" parents about the merits of believing in "science" rather than all that "outdated" and "archaic" and draconian "religious stuff" found in the Bible. They, of course, still don't have a clue about the "circular reasoning" of evolutionists. You see, those believing in evolution tell the children categorically that fossils can be dated by the strata they are found in. But guess what? The very same so-called "scientific" people then tell the children that the strata in turn are dated by the fossils that are found in them! I can show you dozens of examples of this weird and illogical and totally dishonest "circular reasoning" of theirs. But you see, they feel so secure in the fact that they can hide behind school "science" text books wherein they masquerade as "scientists," that they make these monumental blunders with impunity in their unbelievable arrogance. They think, of course, that all people are stupid enough to believe them. News flash: Not all of us are that stupid! And sadly, most parents don't have the knowledge to counter the evil reasoning their children are coming home with. Consequently, because knowledge is strength, in that people respect those that have it, the children unfortunately loose all respect for their "backward" parents when these have no answers for their children's cleverly "mentored" questions.
Evolutionists have been industriously brainwashing the naïve and unschooled into believing their lies, and to such an extent, that a large percentage of humanity today believes that so-called "science" has it right and "religion" needs to be relegated to the file marked "obsolete." Little do they know that there is nothing remotely scientific about evolution at all! It's all a pack of fabrications, assumptions, notions, guesses and in most cases, pure obscurantism that refuses to look at the abundant proof of its lunacy. The fact of the matter is that it is nothing short of a pack of deliberate lies!! Now no one is going to argue that the Church has been out-maneuvered in this age we're living in. The lazy and indifferent Church leaders have not kept abreast of what the world is telling their people and in many instances have not bothered to find out if and why they are wrong. They've become complacent indeed and have neglected to do their homework. The result is that the "lie" is rampant among unbelievers and believers alike, and in the latter case, the gullible sheep have swallowed it hook line and sinker. Stressed "pastors" and "reverends" and "priests" and "bishops" and all the other religious titled and ranked gurus are now wondering why there is rank skepticism and disillusionment and cynicism staring back at them from their pews.
Okay then, for the second time: How old is the earth?
1. The not-so-popping seams of the Earth's Population
Let's firstly appeal to common logic for a moment. Today there are almost 8 billion people on this earth. According to the census published on June 24th 1999 there were 6 billion. In 1985 there were 5 billion. In 1810 there were 1 billion and in the time of Jesus, there were roughly ¼ billion. Quite a sharp curve in a mere 2000 years! You say, "so what?" Here's "what": Has anyone perhaps noticed that the earth is not terribly overcrowded right now? Is it popping at the seams? No. But very strange things come to light when you do a little math. Dr Hovind says that even after taking into account all the local wars and all the world wars and all the diseases and plagues in living memory and every other event and disaster that decimated entire populations, civilizations and nations; if the world was over 20 billion years old (as the evolutionists claim), and if man has been around for the past 3 billion years (as they claim too), then this old world would have been pretty crowded right now. Something like "150,000 people per square inch" he says! I'd like to point out that if that were the case (the 3 billion year thing) then one would scarcely be able to dig in the garden without finding some human bones. How many have you found? How many have your neighbors and friends and relatives and acquaintances found? I rest my case. This earth is not THAT old...
2. Those "fickle" Annual Ice Rings
The phenomenon of "annual rings" in packed ice has traditionally been one of the aces that evolutionists play when they supposedly "prove" that the earth is at least (as they say) 135,000 years old and not a mere 6,000 odd as Christians believe. You see, they say that those alternating darker and lighter coloured rings that are found where they've drilled very deep holes in the ice in Greenland and the South Pole are formed once each year. Very impressive and almost convincing (to the uninformed) if one knows nothing about the packing of annual ice. Not so impressive though if one reads the newspapers regularly and studies history occasionally. You see, these obstinate and dishonest evolutionists refuse to refer to and acknowledge certain "little problems" they are faced with when they have to be entirely honest (not that they ever can be, but remember, we're speaking hypothetically here). You ask, like what? I'll tell you 'like what': They most certainly won't tell you about the "Lost Squadron" for instance...
During the Second World War, some allied airplanes landed in Greenland because they did not have enough gas to get them home. When they were unable get them refueled, they simply left them there and the war raged on without them. In 1990, though, some bright spark suggested that they go back and fetch them. All and sundry agreed. However, the same "all and sundry" believed that all they had to do was to simply brush some snow off the wings, fuel them up, prime a little here and there, pump up or replace a tire or two and then quickly fly them home again. What an over-simplification of a not-so-simple affair! So what happened? Patience and I'll tell you: When they got there, they had disappeared. The whole squadron! Because they knew that no one could have taken them all, they assumed that they must be right there under the ice. They got sophisticated ground penetrating radar and discovered to their horror that they were not simply right there under the ice at all, but that after the mere 48 years, they were in fact right there alright, but 263 feet under the ice! Would our clever evolutionists now please take out their most sophisticated calculators and divide the 263 feet by the 48 years. They'll get 5,5 feet per year, not so? Okay, okay, 5,479166666 feet per year if they insist on splitting hairs. Now the deepest hole ever drilled on earth was just over 10,000 feet (this is told to us by the evolutionists themselves when they try to sell us that "earth is at least 135,000 years old" fairy tale of theirs). Now those overkill calculators again: Please divide10, 000 feet by your 5,479166666 and what do you get? Right, you get 1825 (rounded off to the nearest foot). So their 10,000 foot hole would be telling us (if we lowered ourselves to use that ridiculous "proof" of theirs) that the earth is 1825 years old and not 135,000 years, like they say! You see, they sucked their so-called information (that suddenly transformed into their irrefutable "proof") out of their thumbs again. So what's new? (besides all the garbage they dish up to brainwash our kids with). So we see that they're again talking tripe! (and again; what's new?)
But that's not all. The men that dug that hole down to the airplanes were questioned and asked how many annual rings they saw down there. "Many hundreds" they said and proceeded to show photographs of the rings. But then one of them said something that made all the lights come on at once. He said (contrary to all evolutionary so-called "science" and accepted norms) that those are not in fact "annual" rings at all. Being in the business for a lifetime already, he obviously knew far more about the packing of ice than the "know all" evolutionists think they know. He was aware of what the generally "accepted" scenario was all about - that faulty scenario the evolutionists use so cleverly to try and "prove" their lies about what they glibly call "annual" ice rings. If anyone was inclined to sit out there in the cold and observe, they'd see that when the ice melts in summer, one has a layer of water which then freezes as clear ice. In the winter (if that die-hard "anyone" was still sitting there) he'd notice that the snow packs, and because it does not get a chance to melt, it turns into white coloured ice. This forms the dark-light, dark-light rings they then wrongfully call "annual" rings.
But wait: He then shattered the evolutionist's "trump card" lie in one fell swoop and without much ado by telling that these are not "annual" rings at all, but they are "temperature" rings! And to crown it all, you can have ten of them in one day if the temperature fluctuates dramatically! And that's what must have happened to the Lost Squadron. But listen; judging by the "rings" alone, the evolutionists, if they could ever be consistent (which they can't, by the way) would have to tell everyone in general, and our gullible kids in particular, that those aircraft had been down there for many hundreds of years. They will of course, true to nature and contrary to all proof and logic and everything else we could throw at them, stick to their guns and insist that they are right (like always). All obscurantists are that pig-headed, didn't you know? And that includes ALL evolutionists. And know what? The kids at school would believe them and not us! They always do, haven't you noticed? Why? Because they're the "scientists," remember. But sadly for them, according to records and documented facts, everyone knew that those airplanes had only been down there for the 48 years! You see, many of those planes only came off the assembly lines less than ten years before the end of the war, so how could they have been down there for many hundreds of years? Were there even airplanes "many hundreds of years" before the war? I know this probably sounds ridiculous, but we're simply playing the game after their own rules for a change to show their flaws and dishonesty. Check-mate and so much for their flimsy "proof" of so-called "annual" rings!
Want to know some really sad news? Scientific America is still calling them "annual" rings!
3. Those "naughty" Not-so-old Stalactites and Stalagmites
Let's look at another so-called "proof" they use for their hypothesis that the earth is "billions" of years old. They point all who would listen to the age of stalactites and stalagmites.
Now Stalactites are the beautiful limestone and water formations that grow down from the ceiling of damp or moist caves, and the stalagmites are those that grow upward from the floor.
When visitors enter these ancient caves, the guides normally tell everyone, "Please don't touch any of these stalactites or stalagmites. It takes more than 1000 years for them to grow one single inch. They're absolutely irreplaceable, since they took millions of years to form. "
Quite frankly, that is not true. They do grow very slowly, yes, but not that slow! How do I know that? Listen and you will personally be able to unravel another evolutionist lie:
The Lincoln Memorial was built in 1922. We all know that. Not so many years ago by any standard. But guess what? There are already 60 inch stalactites under it right now! Go look for yourself and you'd better be quick before they deceitfully have them removed. I'll give you one hundred to one that no evolution article or book has ever mentioned that! Did I say "If they are honest" a moment ago? Must have been a slip. They are never honest!
A lead mine was closed down in Mt. Isa, Australia a number of decades ago. Guess what they found when they re-opened it just 55 years later? Believe it or not, but they found stalactites down in level 5 that are already five times as tall as the average man! Now we have to ask; were these stalactites on steroids? Or did these "naughty" stalactites somehow "forget" to grow as slowly as the evolutionists prescribe they should grow? I don't think so. In fact I'll go as far as giving you my word and also laying my head on a block that they don't ever "forget" anything!
In 1903 a man in Wyoming jammed a pipe into a spring in his backyard. Today the Flowstone that formed on it is almost as big as his house and has become somewhat of an attraction. Same principle as stalactites and stalagmites, you see. Millions of years old, my eye! Another lie by those who are of their father, who himself is the father of lies! Another "proof" hits the dust and I sincerely hope some kids get to hear and read these things one day.
4. Our "Shrinking" Sun
Very few people know that our sun is shrinking. Since 1836, direct visual measurements have been made and there is substantiated evidence that our sun is shrinking at the rate of 1% per century. I think everyone can understand that something that is being consumed by fire is constantly being reduced. That 1% per century translates to 5 feet per hour, believe it or not! And this again means that if one works backwards, then a mere 50,000 years ago our sun would have been so big, and consequently so much hotter than it is today, that our oceans would have been boiling, day and night. One wonders how the people who were "supposedly" here, according to "you-know-who" lived through that! But the very same "you-know-who's" insist that the earth is 4,6 billion years old. Oh really? Perhaps we should point out to said "you-know-who" & Co. that all the land together with all the water on dear old planet earth would then have been one perpetual boiling cauldron all those "supposed" years ago. So much then for those (fire-proof) dinosaurs of theirs that lived all those millions of years ago. Sadly, the so-called "proofs" they use normally go unchallenged because they're hardly ever questioned when they appear in "scientific" journals and school "science" text books. The fact of the matter is that they are not even worth the paper they're written on because in many cases basic logic can tear holes through them. But what boggles the mind is how so-called "scientific" folk tolerate this blatant dishonesty. Beats me too...
5. The Very Present Existence of Comets
The number and the size of comets are declining. No one disputes this. But what are comets? They're primarily chunks of rocky substance that are held together by frozen gases and ice. Like all the planets in our solar system, these comets are also in orbit around our sun. Now each time they pass close to the sun, gas explodes inside the comets and some of the ice starts melting. In the process, some of the particles break free and these are then the spectacular streams in the wake of the comet that can be seen in the night sky. It is very easy to measure the size of these comets and it is general knowledge that they are all diminishing in size as they are eroding away. Subsequently, many that have already disintegrated and that were witnessed by man on this earth, are only found today in history and science books. Now the point: If (notice the word is "if") the universe is 4,6 billion years old (as some ambitious people try to tell our kids), two things: Firstly, How come there are still comets up there today? Surely they should have burned out literally "billions" of years ago. And secondly, working backwards once again; 4,6 billion years ago, these comets would have been so big that our sun would have been orbiting them! Absurd you say? I agree...
Creation Research Society Quarterly, December, 1973, p.174 says, "The destruction and the loss of comets puts a definite upper limit on the age of the solar system. Instead of 4,5 billion years, it appears at the most to be only a few to several thousand years old."
6. That Loony Myth about Lunar Dust
Before they sent men to the moon, NASA was concerned about one of the so-called "proofs" the evolutionists use for their "4,6 billion year old universe." These evolutionists believed (and of course insisted on informing our scholars and students) that the dust on the moon was "several miles" deep because of the erosion of the moon surface "over billions of years" due to the ultra-violet light and X-rays from the sun. They said that this dust had been accumulating at a rate of 2 to 5 thousandth of an inch per year. According to them, there were now dangerous drifts of soft dust accumulated everywhere on the moon's surface.
Isaac Asimov believed that the dust could be "dozens of feet deep" and in places "50 feet deep or more." The following words frightened the men at NASA when he said, "I get a picture, therefore, of the first space ship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight" (Asimov's own essay - 1958).
In the Monthly Notice of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, V115, pp 585-644, Lyttleton (an evolutionist) speaks about the X-rays and UV light striking the exposed moon rocks. He believed that they "could during the age of the moon (which he obviously believed to be 'millions' of years old) be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep."
Oh really? Well, let's see what they found on Apollo's first moon landing: Surprise of all surprises; there was only one half inch of dust on average on the moon's surface! Now listen carefully: They in fact left stainless steel plates there and on their return they measured the amount of dust that had collected on them. NASSA's calculations showed that at the rate they found, they would collect only 2,7 inches of dust per million years! Unfortunately, and sadly (and of course to the total embarrassment of our evolution friends) that works out to be 1033 feet of dust in 4,6 billion years and not the one half inch they actually found! And more importantly (and of course to be noted with smug satisfaction) this data points to the fact that the age of the moon cannot be more than 4000 to 6000 years at most! And pssst: according to the Genesis record (which is in your Bible too) the moon is only three days younger than the earth.
7. Our Departing Moon
The moon is slowly moving away from the earth. Did you know that? I really don't think it's leaving because anyone has offended it, but rather that there are scientific reasons for this phenomenon. They've calculated that the rate of departure is a few inches per year. Now we all know that the moon causes the tides, not so? Well, if you didn't know it, you know it now. What on earth were you doing in the class when they were handling the subject? So, what does that tell us? A thing called common logic tells us that if the moon were closer, then the tides would be higher. Obviously. But how high could they go? According the "Inverse Square Law" if you halve the distance, you quadruple the attraction. "So, 4,6 billion years ago," Dr. Kent Hovind says, "...the tides would have been so high that everything and everybody on earth would have drowned twice a day. And..." he adds, "...one can only drown comfortably once a day."
Besides, if the moon were so much closer so long ago, then it would have fallen into the earth's atmosphere, and I personally believe that our perfect global earth would then have been stuck with one terribly unwelcome and unsightly pimple to contend with.
Billions of years old? Hardly!
8. Old Mother Earth is Slowing Down
The phenomenon of the slowing of the earth's spin around its own axis was discovered already by 1992. The Astronomy Magazine of that year, p. 24, says "Earth's rotation is slowing down." The subsequent calculations showed 1/1,000th of a second per day. That means that we have a "leap second" every 1 ½ years. At this rate, IF the world was 4,6 billion years old (as some not-so-clever people try to convince us), then simple calculations tell us that it should already have stopped turning on its axis long ago. On the other hand, if we work backwards, then all those billions of years ago, this earth, in its "supposed" prime, would have been one heck of a spinning dude. In fact, it would have taken on the shape of a pancake at that speed at that time and the winds would have been over 5000 miles per hour from the correolis effect alone and the centrifugal force would have been unimaginable. Dr. Hovind says (with tongue in cheek, of course) that because of this (supposed) astronomical speed of the spinning earth, the dinosaurs were probably flung into space 200 million years ago and that's why there are none here today. We must note, that whichever way one wants to look at these two scenarios (either backward or forward) our earth just cannot be more than a few thousand years old. However, evolutionists just won't see it that way and will not accept the logic either. Proof that goes against their hypothesis is always ignored. Believe that if you don't believe anything else I say.
Hope that has helped some to bring a little perspective again.
