1. Call Operators Are Standing By!!!
Call And ---
Ask For A Copy Of This Presentation.
BY , BY FLOPPY DISK or IN PRINT.
Ask To Be Added To The Beacon’s Mailing.
Ask For A Free Bible Correspondence Course.
Call With A ---
Biblical Question Or Comment.
Receive a Biblical Answer – “Book, Chapter and Verse”.
Call (828) or - WHKY

2. WHY WE BELIEVE IN A YOUNG EARTH AND DENY EVOLUTION
1 Peter 3:15
“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:”
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

3. Two Models of Origins CREATION EVOLUTION Life from the creator
Life from natural processes
Life from inanimate matter
First plant and animal
types were complete
All life from same living source
Each type produced by slow
change from ancestor
Variation limited
within a type
Variation unlimited
Sudden appearance of
types in fossil record
This table (from Morris, “Scientific Creationism”) lists the major traits of the competing models of origins.
Both models support the idea that a plant or animal “type” can change through natural or artificial selection (such as dog breeding). The big difference is how much change can take place. Creation supports variation within a type (the Genesis “kind”), representing “good design” which allows an organism to adapt to changes in the environment. Evolution believes that these smaller changes, given enough time, can eventually accumulate to become large changes, to the point where a “new type” or organism would now exist.
If evolution is true, the fossil record should show a continuous, gradual change from simpler life forms to more complex ones, with transitional forms existing in all cases. If creation is true, all higher-order forms (above the species level) were created fully functional and the fossil record should show abrupt appearance and no transitional forms. A “transitional” or “intermediate” form means a plant or animal which has some feature showing only partial development, such as “wings” that are part scale and part feather, documenting a transition from a reptile to a bird, for example. No such conclusive example is known, yet countless such cases must have existed if evolution is true! A transitional form is often confused with a “mosaic”, where an animal exhibits traits from different types, but where each trait is fully-formed. Mosaics are unusual but don’t provide any proof for evolution (contrary to popular opinion).
Gradual change in fossil record
No transitional forms
between higher categories
Transitional forms between
all categories

4. Keeping Our Perspective
The most important focus of creationism is the fact that the universe, Earth, and people were created for a purpose, and are not the result of chance events – Eccl. 12:13-14
Creation is true, naturalism is false
Of secondary importance is the age of the Earth, and possibly of yet less importance, the age of the universe
The Genesis account is from a reference frame of the Earth.
The main thrust of creationism has been and should be to counter the worldview of “naturalism”, that nature is “all there is”, and that nature on its own has produced the formations of the universe, the Earth, first life, and eventually people. Biological evolution (descent with modification from a common ancestor, once life existed) is a subset of the larger picture. Creationists believe the facts of science show that unguided natural processes are simply incapable of producing the increase in complexity and information content seen in going from single cell organisms to people. The “intelligent design” movement advocates such as Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe stress this point, and don’t get involved with the question of age.
Of secondary importance is the age of the Earth and the universe. There are Biblical creationists who believe that God directly created the various “kinds” of plants and animals (but allow for them to diversify into many species each through natural selection), and “theistic evolutionists/progressive creationists” who believe in a God-initiated or God-guided evolution of plants, animals, and people. The first camp espouses the Earth as young, while the latter accepts the standard age determinations.
Unfortunately, the idea of a young Earth seems too radical to many people and causes them to not consider the more important question of whether naturalism or theism is the ultimate reality and cause of our existence. The two questions (age and cause) are related and intertwined, but they are not the same.

5. Why is this Question Important?
Our view of the actual history of the Earth and the human race is dramatically different if the Earth is young versus old, and only one can be true.
The apparent discrepancy between the young Earth of the Bible and scientific evidences of an old age casts doubt upon the reliability of the rest of the Bible, and ultimately, the claims of the Gospel
Belief in both the trustworthiness of the Bible and the general validity of scientific techniques forces one to reconcile the two when they are in conflict, as they appear to be here.
Obviously, the Earth has some real age. Beyond simple curiosity, our view of history will be significantly different if we believe we arrived here through slow evolution over long ages, having an ape-like form as a common ancestor, versus being created directly in a mature state by God in the “image of God”. The Bible teaches in Genesis that the creation occurred over six days, and from the genealogies listed, must have occurred only several thousand years ago. Coupled with other world-changing events - the sin of Adam and Eve (which cursed the world introducing death and decay processes), and the flood of Noah’s time (which completely rearranged the surface of the Earth and its environment), the Bible presents a VERY DIFFERENT picture of history that what is taught in secular history books and museums.
Knowing that the Bible teaches a young Earth, and that science has supposedly proven the Earth to be old, can be a hindrance to some people accepting the larger truths of the Bible - that God created all things, including people made in His own likeness; that He loves them, and that He eventually sent His only Son Jesus to die on a cross for our sins, so that all who would believe in the name of Jesus would have everlasting life!
People who place importance on the trustworthiness of the Bible need to reconcile the young history of the Earth implied in Genesis with the scientific measurements that apparently show the Earth to be much older. The remainder of this presentation focuses on the options and issues for harmonizing these two areas (science and the Bible) in regard to the age of the universe and the Earth.

6. Some Quotations to Begin With
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge. "—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L. C. Birch and P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

7. Some Quotations to Begin With
"I argue that the ‘theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all. "—*R. H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist, (1976) Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1.
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation." —*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe (1981), p. 19.

8. Overview
Standard theory places the universe at about 7-20 billion years old and the Earth at 4.54 billion years old
There is division in the creationist camp between those who believe in a young Earth (about 6-15,000 years old) and an old Earth (in accord with standard theory), and many unwilling to even state a position!
The central issue is:
If the Earth is young, what about scientific evidence that appears to point to an old age?
If the Earth is old (implying evolution) how can the six creation days of Genesis be reconciled with this?
Modern secular science now feels quite certain that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The age of the universe is less certain, but is placed between 7 and 20 billion years old. On the other hand, a literal reading of the book of Genesis in the Bible seems to imply that the Earth may actually be quite young, on the order of 6-15,000 years old. For those people who want retain belief in the Bible as a true revelation from God (as it says it is), this conflict between Genesis and modern age estimates presents a dilemma. For if the Earth is actually young, how can the standard ages measurements be accounted for? Or if the Earth is actually old, how can the six creation days of Genesis be reconciled? Also, the acceptance of an old age for the Earth wants to imply an acceptance of biological macro-evolution as also true, for what could have been happening during all this time if not plants and animals evolving into more advanced forms? Yet there is no strong evidence that macro-evolution has occurred or is even possible genetically. And if the Earth is actually old and evolution has actually taken place, why wouldn’t God have clearly said so in Genesis? Neither of these things necessarily diminish His power.

9. Young Earth Creationism
The six days of Genesis 1 are 24 hours each.
The Earth is between 6-15,000 years old and was rapidly made ready for its purpose as a home for man.
Individual “kinds” of plants and animals were created directly by God in a mature state.
There was no death before the sin of the first man Adam, implying God did not use macro-evolution.
God cursed the creation because of the sin of man, introducing the decay processes into what was perfect.
The flood of Noah’s time was violent, covered the entire Earth, and largely formed the geologic column.
Young Earth advocates, such as the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), believe in a literal reading of the Genesis account. Each day was a 24-hour day comparable to a modern day, and plants and animals were created directly by God in a mature functional state. The Earth was created as a home for mankind. Adam, the first man, may have appeared about 20 years old when created.
God could have created the world in an instant, but took six days to do so, followed by a day of rest, as a pattern for us to follow (it is interesting that the seven-day work week has been followed almost exclusively throughout history, yet has no astronomical basis, unlike the month or year, for example).
By examining the various genealogies found in the scriptures, it is estimated that the creation must have taken place somewhere between six and fifteen thousand years ago. The most famous Biblical chronology is that of Bishop James Ussher who in 1650 determined the date of creation to be 4004 B.C. Modern creationists are willing to acknowledge the possibility of gaps in the genealogies, pushing this date back some.
The created world was a paradise until Adam and Eve disobeyed God. God cursed the creation because of this sin (Gen 3:14-19). Along with physical death, the general process of decay known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics was introduced at this time. A consequence of this law is that the universe will eventually die a heat death (the entire universe will be at the same temperature).
Genesis chapters 6-9 describe how all of mankind became wicked, except for one man named Noah and his family. God sends a flood to destroy all living things except for a remnant of eight people and representative animals saved on a large boat called the ark, who later repopulate the Earth. This flood scoured the Earth down to its basement rocks, and created the geologic column.

10. How is Dating Performed?
Universe: assume Big Bang, measure Hubble constant.
The dating of the universe is performed based on the Big Bang assumption that the universe is expanding, or inflating from a single point. Hubble’s law (velocity = Hubble constant X distance) combined with the Doppler effect (the velocity-dependent shift in receding light towards the red end of the spectrum) are used to estimate how long the inflation of the universe has been taking place.
The difficulty is that both the velocity and distance of far away objects are hard to measure accurately since local motions of stars and galaxies must be accounted for.
The dating of the universe is performed based on the Big Bang assumption that the universe is expanding, or inflating from a single point. Hubble’s law (velocity = Hubble constant X distance) combined with the Doppler effect (the velocity-dependent shift in receding light towards the red end of the spectrum) are used to estimate how long the inflation of the universe has been taking place. The difficulty is that both the velocity and distance of far away objects are hard to measure accurately since local motions of stars and galaxies must be accounted for.
Radiometric rating methods such as uranium-lead or potassium-argon use the known decay rate of one radioactive isotope into another as the basis for measuring age. These methods assume that the initial ratios of the two isotopes can be estimated, and that the sample being measured has been undisturbed so that none of either the parent or daughter isotope has been added to or subtracted from the sample. Dating of meteorites is assumed to give the age of our solar system (and therefore also the age of the formation of the Earth).
Before the advent of radiometric dating, global processes were used to estimate an age for the Earth, such as the flow of various mineral sediments into the ocean, the cooling of the Earth or Sun, or the radioactive decay of elements in the Earth’s crust. These typically gave values in the millions to a few billions of years. None of these estimates are regarded today as reliable, compared with radiometric dating.
Sedimentary (water deposited) rocks are dated by looking for the presence of so-called “index fossils” of organisms that supposedly lived only during a certain period of evolutionary time.
Carbon-14 dating is only valid for ages up to 30,000 years because of its short half-life, and is used to measure the age of once-living things, but not the age of the Earth.

11. How is Dating Performed?
Earth: radiometric dating - decay of one radioactive isotope to another at known rate; works on igneous rocks (lava/granite) but not sedimentary rocks
Earth/solar system: radiometric dating of meteorites
Earth: global processes (oceans, atmosphere, magnetic field, erosion of continents, etc.)
Sedimentary rock: assume evolution has occurred, look for presence of specific “index fossils”
Recent history, once living things: carbon-14
The dating of the universe is performed based on the Big Bang assumption that the universe is expanding, or inflating from a single point. Hubble’s law (velocity = Hubble constant X distance) combined with the Doppler effect (the velocity-dependent shift in receding light towards the red end of the spectrum) are used to estimate how long the inflation of the universe has been taking place. The difficulty is that both the velocity and distance of far away objects are hard to measure accurately since local motions of stars and galaxies must be accounted for.
Radiometric rating methods such as uranium-lead or potassium-argon use the known decay rate of one radioactive isotope into another as the basis for measuring age. These methods assume that the initial ratios of the two isotopes can be estimated, and that the sample being measured has been undisturbed so that none of either the parent or daughter isotope has been added to or subtracted from the sample. Dating of meteorites is assumed to give the age of our solar system (and therefore also the age of the formation of the Earth).
Before the advent of radiometric dating, global processes were used to estimate an age for the Earth, such as the flow of various mineral sediments into the ocean, the cooling of the Earth or Sun, or the radioactive decay of elements in the Earth’s crust. These typically gave values in the millions to a few billions of years. None of these estimates are regarded today as reliable, compared with radiometric dating.
Sedimentary (water deposited) rocks are dated by looking for the presence of so-called “index fossils” of organisms that supposedly lived only during a certain period of evolutionary time.
Carbon-14 dating is only valid for ages up to 30,000 years because of its short half-life, and is used to measure the age of once-living things, but not the age of the Earth.

12. EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG EARTH
HYDROGEN IN UNIVERSE —According to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. *Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintains that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen in the stars, therefore the universe must be youthful.
SOLAR COLLAPSE —Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years life here would have ceased to exist, for recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—for life to be sustained on our planet. (Origin of the Stars, for more on this. Also see "The Shrinking Sun" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, pp )

13. EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG EARTH
"Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct, visual measurements that indicate that the sun's diameter is shrinking at a rate of about. 1 percent each century or about five feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinking has been going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques also confirm that the sun is shrinking, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much."—W. T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p 19.

14. EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG EARTH
SOLAR NEUTRINOS —In 1968 it was discovered that the sun is emitting hardly any neutrinos. This evidence points directly to a very youthful sun. These neutrinos ought to be radiating outward from the sun in very large amounts, but this is not occurring. This fact, coupled with research discoveries that the sun is shrinking in size, point to a recently-created sun. (See solar collapse and antimatter in chapter 2, Origin of the Stars, for more information on this.)
"The lack of solar neutrinos is almost irrefutable evidence for a recently created sun . . .
"If the sun had formed as is assumed by most scientists today, nuclear fusion could never have become is energy source. Evidence from the solar neutrino experiment, global solar oscillations, and measured solar shrinkage all are strong evidence against the existence of nuclear fusion in the sun. Any alternate energy source necessarily means a shorter maximum lifetime."—Paul M. Steidl, "Solar Neutrinos and a Young Sun" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, pp. 60, 64.

15. EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG EARTH
SOLAR WIND —As the sun's radiation flows outward, it applies an outward force on very, very small particles orbiting the sun. All of the particles smaller than 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter should have long ago been "blown out" of our solar system, if the solar system were billions of years old. Yet research studies by satellites in space have shown that those small particles are abundant and still orbiting the sun. Therefore our solar system is quite young.

16. EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG EARTH
SOLAR DRAG —This is a principle known as the "Poynting-Robertson Effect." A solar drag is exerted by our sun on the small rocks and particles (micrometeoroids) in our solar system. This causes these particles to spiral down into the sun and be destroyed. The sun, acting like a giant vacuum cleaner, sweeps up about 100,000 tons (90,720 metric tons) of micrometeoroids each day. The actual process by which this occurs has been analyzed. Each particle absorbs energy from the sun and then re-radiates it in all directions. This causes a slowing down of the particle in its orbit and causes it to fall into the sun. At its present rate, our sun would have cleaned most of the dust and particles in less than 10,000 years, and all of it within 50,000 years.
Yet there is an abundance of these small pieces of rock, and there is no known source of replenishment. This is because each solar system would lock in its own micrometeoroids so they could not escape to another one, and the gravity on each planet and moon would forbid any of its gravel to fly out into space.
(In summary: Particles smaller than 100,000th of a centimeter are hurled out of the solar system by the solar wind effect, and particles larger than that are pulled into the sun by the Poynting-Robertson Effect. The Poynting-Robertson Effect is illustrated by rain which, falling on a rapidly moving car, tends to slightly slow it. In a similar manner, solar radiation, striking particles orbiting the sun, lessens their speed. )

17. EVIDENCE FROM THE OTHER PLANETS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that it is quite young:
TEMPERATURE AND EROSION ON VENUS —Temperatures on the surface of the planet Venus reach 900̊F [482̊C]. *Emmanuel Velikovsky predicted that such a high Venusian surface temperature would be found, and so it turned out. Velikovsky said that this would provide clear evidence that Venus was only a few thousand years old: Both this high temperature, as well as other surface features, do indeed support a young age for that planet. Many large craters up to 100 miles [160.9 km] in diameter pock its surface. Yet scientists cannot explain how meteors could get through the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere without burning up. They are also astounded that Venus should show such minor effects of erosion. The dense atmosphere should long ago have worn away all the craters if the planet has the age postulated by evolutionary theory (4 billion years).

18. EVIDENCE FROM THE OTHER PLANETS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that it is quite young:
EROSION AND WATER ON MARS —A similar problem exists in relation to the planet Mars. When the Mariner satellites orbited Mars, they sent back detailed photographs of its surface. Large numbers of craters and volcanoes were seen, as well as a dust storm that lasted for months. It was obvious that many of the craters had sharp edges, indicating only a small amount of erosion. Yet more than a few thousand years of the kind of weather activity regularly occurring on Mars would have seriously eroded those edges. Long-term erosion should also have obliterated the strong color differences clearly visible on the surface of the planet.
A small amount of water has been found on Mars. But powerful ultraviolet radiation from the sun should long ago have split the hydrogen and oxygen apart, releasing the oxygen into the atmosphere while the hydrogen escapes into outer space. There should now be no water and a sizable amount of oxygen above the surface. But this is not the case. Considerable amounts of hydrogen are indeed now observed to be escaping from the planet into outer space, but there is very little oxygen in the atmosphere,—and the water is still there on the surface. It is all a great mystery to scientists who, in spite of the evidence, declare the planet to be billions of years old.

19. EVIDENCE FROM THE OTHER PLANETS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that it is quite young:
MOON DUST —Although most people do not know it, one of the reasons so much money was spent to send a rocket to the moon was to see how thick the dust was on its surface)
Evolutionists had long held to the fact (as we do) that the earth and moon are about the same age. But many scientists think the earth and its moon are billions of years old. If that were true, the moon would by now have built up a mile 132 to 96.5 km] layer of dust on it!

20. EVIDENCE FROM THE OTHER PLANETS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that it is quite young:
In the 1950s, * R.A. Lyttleton, a highly-respected astronomer, said this:
"The lunar surface is exposed to direct sunlight, and strong ultra-violet light and X-rays [from the sun] can destroy the surface layers of exposed rock and reduce them to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year. But even this minute amount could, during the age of the moon, be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep."—*R.A. Lyttleton, quoted in R. Wysong, Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 175.
In 5 to 10 billion years, 3 or 4/10,OOOths of an inch per year would produce miles [32 to 96.5 km) of dust. In view of this, our men at NASA were afraid to send men to the moon. Landing there, they would be buried in dust and quickly suffocate! So first NASA sent an unmanned lander to its surface, which made the surprising discovery that there is not even 20 feet [32 km] of dust on the moon! But in spite of that discovery, Neil Armstrong was decidedly worried about this dust problem as his March 1970 flight in Apollo 11 neared. He feared his lunar lander would sink deeply into it and he and Edwin Aldrin would perish. But because the moon is young, they had no problem. There is not over 2 or 3 inches [5.08 or 7.62 cm] of dust on its surface! That is the amount one would expect if the moon were about 6-8,000 years old.

21. EVIDENCE FROM THE OTHER PLANETS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that it is quite young:
Dr. Lyttleton's facts were correct; solar radiation does indeed turn the moon rocks into dust. With only a few inches of dust, the moon cannot be older than a few thousand years.
It is significant that studies on the moon have shown that only 1 /60th of the one- or two-inch dust layer on the moon originated from outer space. This has been corrobated by still more recent measurements of the influx rate of dust on the moon, which also do not support an old moon.
There has been a noticeable silence on this matter after the Apollo landings began. Evolutionary scientists are baffled by this obvious evidence for a young moon, when all theoretical calculations do, indeed, support Lyttleton's analysis that if the moon were really old, it would have a great thickness of moon dust resulting from millions of years of bombardment by solar energy and by meteorites of all sizes.

22. EVIDENCE FROM THE OTHER PLANETS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that it is quite young:
Before the first manned landing on the moon, *Isaac Asimov summarized the problem of thick moon dust produced over the billions of years that it has existed:
"But what about the Moon? It travels through space with us and although it is smaller and has a weaker gravity, it, too, should sweep up a respectable quantity of micro-meteors.
"To be sure, the Moon has no atmosphere to friction the micro-meteors to dust, but the act of striking the Moon's surface should develop enough heat to do the job. . On the Moon there are no oceans to swallow the dust, no winds to disturb it, or life forms to mess it up generally, one way a another. The dust that forms must just lie there, and if the Moon gets anything like Earth's supply, it could be dozens of feet thick. In fact, the dust that strikes crater walls quite probably rolls downhill and collects at the bottom, forming drifts that could be 50 feet deep or more. Why not?
"I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship [to the moon], picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight." —*Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science: A Thirty-Year Retrospective (1989), pp. xvi-xvii (This was *Asimov's first published science essay (1958), reprinted in a 1989 book.)

23. EVIDENCE FROM THE ATMOSPHERE that the earth is quite young:
ATMOSPHERIC HELIUM —The radioactive decay of either uranium or thorium produces helium. According to evolutionary theory, these decay chains have been going on for billions of years, and should therefore have produced a much larger quantity of helium than is found in our world. The amount of helium on our planet is far too small, if our world has existed for long ages.
To fit the evolutionary pattern, our atmosphere would now have to contain much more than our present 1.4 parts per million of helium. Some evolutionists have suggested that the helium is escaping out into space, but no evidence has ever been found to substantiate this. Research has shown that, although hydrogen can escape from the earth, helium is not able to reach "escape velocity." In order to do so, the temperature of the planet would have to be too high to support the life that evolutionists say has been here for over a billion years.
To make matters worse, not only are we not losing helium to outer space,—we are getting more of it from there! Cook has shown that helium, spewed out by the sun's corona, is probably entering our atmosphere.

24. EVIDENCE FROM THE ATMOSPHERE that the earth is quite young:
There is, at the present time, 3.5 x 1015 grams of helium in our atmosphere, and the rate of helium formation is about 3 x 1011 grams per year (* M.A. Cook, "Where Is the Earth's Radiogenic Helium?" in Nature, January 26, 1957, p. 213.) Calculations based on this information indicates a very youthful age for our planet.
"If the earth was billions of years old, the radioactive production of helium in the earth's crust should have added a large quantity of helium to the atmosphere. Current diffusion models all indicate that helium escapes to space from the atmosphere at a rate much less than its production rate. The low concentration of helium actually measured would suggest that the earth's atmosphere must be quite young."—*L. Vardiman, "The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere Estimated by its Helium," Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, Creation Science Fellowship, (1986).
"Helium gas being released from radioactive decay is continually being released into the atmosphere from the earth's crust. The estimated rate of this release, compared with the total helium now in the atmosphere, suggests that the atmosphere may be only about 12,000 to 60,000 years old . . [To add to the problem] it may be that helium from the sun is adding to the earth's atmospheric helium."—Robert Kofahl, Evolution Refuter (1980), p. 125.

25. EVIDENCE FROM THE ATMOSPHERE that the earth is quite young:
Atmospheric helium is produced from three sources:
(1) radioactive decay of uranium and helium in the earth's crust and oceans;
(2) cosmic helium flowing into our atmosphere from space, but especially from the sun's corona;
(3) nuclear reactions in the earth's crust caused by cosmic ray bombardment. Since the atmosphere now contains about 4 billion tons (3.63 billion metric tons] of He-4, and assuming that only uranium and thorium are the sources of it all and that its release rate has been constant, the age of the earth can be calculated from it: that point in the past when there was zero He-4 in the atmosphere.
"One prominent scientist has calculated the total annual rate of helium-4 flow into the atmosphere, not including cosmic helium, to be 330,000 tons [299,376 metric tons] per year. From this rate we find that the atmosphere [enveloping our planet] has a maximum age of 12,000 years."—R.E. Kofahl and K L Segraves, The Creation Explanation (1975), p. 186.

26. EVIDENCE FROM THE ATMOSPHERE that the earth is quite young:
After stating the above, Kofahl and Segraves conclude that, using all three helium sources in the calculation, earth's atmospheric age would be reduced to 10,000 years. In addition to this, a worldwide catastrophic event in the past such as the Flood, could for a short time have unleashed much larger amounts of helium into the atmosphere. Such an event could significantly reduce the total atmospheric age. Helium content is a good measure, since there is no known way it can escape from the atmosphere into outer space.

27. EVIDENCE FROM THE ATMOSPHERE that the earth is quite young:
CARBON 14 DISINTEGRATION —The present world-wide buildup of radiocarbon in the atmosphere would have produced all the world's radiocarbon in several thousand years. Yet, ironically, it is Carbon 14 that is used by evolutionary scientists in an attempt to prove that life has existed on our planet for millions of years!
*Willard Libby won a Nobel Prize for his discovery of radiocarbon dating. His dating method has several flaws, one of which we will mention here. He assumed that the C-14 rate of production would equal its rate of disintegration. But Robert Whitelaw, a nuclear and engineering expert at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, found that the production rate is not equal to the disintegration rate. In fact, his calculations reveal a recent turning on of the C-14 clock,—otherwise the two factors would be balanced. Whitelaw's research indicates that the clock was turned on approximately 8,000 years ago.

28. EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE that the earth is quite young:
EARTH ROTATION —The spin of the earth—which is now about 1,000 miles [1,609 km] an hour—is gradually slowing down. This is caused by gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon, and other factors. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning on its axis! This is yet another evidence that our world is not very old.
Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backwards from our present spin rate, and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. And we today, would still have the effects of that. Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64.3 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.

29. EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE that the earth is quite young:
MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY — As you probably know, the earth has a magnetic field. Without it, we could not use compasses to identify the direction of magnetic north (which is close to the North Pole). Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, a physics teacher at the University of Texas, has authored a widely-used college textbook on electricity and magnetism. Working with data collected over the past 135 years, he has pointed out that earth's magnetic field is gradually decaying. Indeed, he has shown that this magnetic field is decreasing exponentially according to a decay law similar to the decay of radioactive substances.
"During the past 150 years, the magnetic field has declined in strength by 10 percent. If the decline continues at this rate, the field will reach zero in about 1,500 years." "The strength of today's [geomagnetic] field, for instance, seems to be decreasing by about seven percent each century."— *Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1991), pp. 15, 21.

30. EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE that the earth is quite young:
"It is known that the earth's magnetic field is decaying faster than any other worldwide geophysical phenomenon. A comprehensive ESSA Technical Report gives the values of the earth's magnetic dipole moment (the vector which gives the strength and direction of the magnet) ever since Karl Gauss made the first evaluation in The evaluations have been made about every 10 or 15 years since then. Each evaluation required accurate worldwide readings over an epoch (a year or so) and special mathematical reduction to 'wash' out the 'noise.' These reliable data clearly show this relatively rapid decay. The report stated that on a straight line basis the earth's magnetic field would be gone in the year 3991 A.D. But decay is exponential and in this case has a half-life of 1400 years.

31. EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE that the earth is quite young:
"A relatively recent NASA satellite preliminary report shows a rapid decay in the earth's magnetic field. No knowledgeable scientist debates the fact of the rapid decrease in the earth's magnetic field, nor does he question that the associated electric current in the core of the earth is using up energy. The present rate of loss is seven billion kilowatt hours per year. The earth is running out of that original energy it had in its original magnetic field. "—T.G. Barnes, "Depletion of the Earth's Magnetic Field," in Creation: the Cutting Edge, p. 155.
In 1835 the German physicist K.F. Gauss made the first measurement of the earth's magnetic dipole moment, that is, the strength of earth's internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent!
On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it now has. Just 20,000 years ago, enough Joule heat would have been generated to liquefy the earth. One million years back, and the earth would have greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, and the earth would have vaporized! It would appear that the earth could not be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. (For more data on this, see two articles by Barnes: Battle for Creation (1976), pp ; Creation: the Cutting Edge (1982), pp )

32. EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE that the earth is quite young:
"As the magnetic field energy decays, it is transformed into heat. The energy involved in this hypothetical extrapolation less than 30,000 years into the past would be sufficient to heat the entire earth to 5000̊C (9032̊F] and completely vaporize it by now. The earth obviously is not now either melted or vaporized. In the light of this analysis of the earth's decaying magnetism observed for 130 years, extrapolation of earth history 4.5 billion years into the past leads to an absurdity. The evidence supports an earth history of not much more than 10,000 years. "—R. E. Wahl and K.L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (1975), p. 194.
This magnetic decay process is not a local process, as one would find in a uranium mineral, but worldwide; it affects the entire earth. It has been accurately measured for over 150 years, and is not subject to environmental changes since it is generated deep in the earth's interior.
"All the recent commotion about the exponential depletion of our natural resources has singularly failed to mention that we are also running out of a rather vital, apparently nonrenewable resource, the Earth's magnetic field, quite rapidly."— *Fredrick B. Jueneman, "Magnetic Depletion" in Industrial Research and Development, 20(8):13 (1978).

33. EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE that the earth is quite young:
"The only dependable historical data on the strength and direction of the earth's main magnet are the evaluations which were first made by Gauss in the 1830's and the subsequent evaluations made through worldwide magnetic observatory collaboration every few decades thereafter. These data show an exponential decay in the earth's magnetic field with a half-life of only 1400 years. A solution to Maxwell's equations for the electric currents and associated magnetic field of the earth's magnet reveals that there is an electric current of 6.16 billion amperes flowing in the core of the earth and a power loss (going into heat) of 813 megawatts at the present time.
"It is obvious that this magnetic decay phenomenon could not have been going on for more than a few thousand years, as the magnetic field would have been implausibly large for the earth. This is strong physical evidence that there must have been a relatively recent origin of this electromagnet or some unknown catastrophic 'reenergizing' event. The validity of this theoretical and observational result is confirmed by means of an independent check, namely an evaluation of the total magnetic energy in the earth's present field and checking it against a hypothetical reference magnet of the same strength and dimensions. The check is excellent, and leaves little doubt that this physical solution is the most meaningful interpretation of the earth's magnetic history."—Thomas G. Barnes, S.I.S. Review, 2:42-46 (1977).

34. EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE that the earth is quite young:
The problem is a serious one.
"If this decay rate persists, the earth's dipole magnet will vanish in A.D "—*Keith McDonald and *Robert Gunst, "An Analysis of the Earth's Magnetic Field from 1835 to 1965," in ESSA Technical Report, IER 46-IES 1(1967), p. 1.
Additional evidence was obtained from NASA's Magsat satellite which orbited the earth from October 1979 to June It was designed expressly to study earth's magnetic field. The data was analyzed by * Robert Langel, chief project scientist, who issued the official report.

35. EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE that the earth is quite young:
"A satellite launched by NASA in 1979 has gathered new data on the earth's decreasing magnetic field. Magsat, as the satellite was called during its eight-month lifetime, measured the earth's main magnetic field.
"The overall intensity of the earth's field was found to be declining at a rate of 26 nanoteslas per year, with a half-life of just 830 years) Thomas Barnes' results based on earlier data gave a decay rate of 16 nanoteslas per year and a 1400 year half-life. . Extrapolation shows that the field strength should reach zero in 1200 years. The earth is younger, and time later, than many think."— Donald B. Deyoung, "Decrease of Earth's Magnetic Field Confirmed, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1980, pp
"If one takes the Langel projection, the earth's magnetic shield will vanish completely in the year 3180 A.D. If one takes the projection in a 1967 ESSA technical report, the vanishing data for the earth's magnetic field is 3991 A.D."— TG. Barnes, "Satellite Observations Confirm the Decline of the Earth's Magnetic Field, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1981, p. 40.

36. EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE that the earth is quite young:
"If one computes the magnetic field strength back in time 10 thousand years, the earth's magnetic field would have been as strong as that of some magnetic stars. The reasonable assumption has been made that the earth never had a magnetic field as strong as a star's magnet.
“On the basis of an original magnetic field strength of the earth that is less than that of a magnetic star, the origin of the earth's magnet is less than 10 thousand years ago.
"Since there is no power generating plant in the earth, its origin must have been at the time of creation. This means that the young magnetic age of the earth's magnet also means a young age for the earth itself. These conclusions are based upon the decay theory of the earth's magnet. That is supported by:
(1) The real-time evaluations of the earth's magnetic moment [from 1835 to the present]. (2) The only rigorous theoretical explanation of the present processes in this electromagnet. (3) Three types of independent confirmational checks on that theory."—Thomas G. Barnes, "Earth's Young Magnetic Age Confirmed," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1986, p. 33.

37. EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE that the earth is quite young:
Isaac Asimov agrees with the basic findings in regard to the decay of our planet's magnetic core:
"Earth's magnetic field has been weakening. It seems to have lost 15 percent of its strength since At the present rate of decrease, it will reach zero in 2,000 more years. Between the years 3500 and 4500, the magnetic field will not be sufficiently strong to ward off charged radiation from outer space. "—*Asimov's Book of Facts (1979), p. 326.
Evolutionists try to defend their long ages theories with radioactive half lives, but radioactive mineral decay rates are highly unreliable because they are open systems, and are subject to many forms of contamination and other factors which can change their clock mechanisms.
If any fundamental planetary process ought to be a reliable indicator of the earth's age, it should be this earth's magnetic field—and it indicates an upper limit of decidedly less than 10,000 years for the age of the earth.

38. EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE that the earth is quite young:
"The facts are:
"(1) The earth's dipole magnet is located in the core of the earth more than a thousand miles from the earth's crust (where the observable rocks are located).
"(2) It is an electromagnet dissipating almost a billion joules of energy per second now.
"(3) It is known to be decaying more rapidly than any other worldwide geophysical phenomenon. If the present decaying process continues, the magnetic field will have vanished within the extreme limits of time of 2,000 years to 11,000 years, depending upon whether one uses an evolutionary or a creationist presupposition.
"(4) There is at present no known source of energy to re-energize the magnet when its energy runs down to zero. One can safely say there is no theoretical reason at present to consider anything other than a single continuing decay process that started in the not-too-distant past, a creation only thousands of years ago, not millions or billions of years ago."— Thomas G. Barnes, news note in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1982, p. 196.
Most of the factors described above would apply to the age of the earth, which appears to be decidedly less than 10,000 years.

39. Reasons Against Evolution
Complexity does not arise from randomness.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: things naturally tend to decay.
Information Science: information never arises out of random chance.
The proposed mechanism of evolution is inadequate - all known mutations are harmful; natural selection cannot create something new.
Some of the major reasons why evolution cannot be true are now presented.
1. Going from a Big Bang to a structured universe, from non-life to life, from simpler life to higher-order life all involve a tremendous increase in complexity. However, it is well-proven that when things are left to themselves, they always become LESS complex (they decay), the opposite of what evolution requires. This is known formally as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This tendency can only be overcome through the application of DIRECTED energy (such as using your muscles to put together the parts of a bicycle). Evolutionists argue that the sun provided more than enough energy to overcome the Second Law on the primitive earth, which is true, but this was not directed energy. To carry the above bicycle analogy forward, it is like saying that applying a blow torch at random to those bike parts should be enough to put the bike together!
The information content of a person (to describe the structure and operation of a person) is many, many times that of a bacterium, yet the field of Information Theory has shown that information, such as the coded programs in the biological cell, NEVER arises as a result of random, chance processes like those at the core of evolution.
2. The mechanism of evolution, natural selection acting on mutations, is totally inadequate. Almost all known mutations are harmful. The best (only?) “beneficial” mutation cited is sickle cell anemia (it helps against malaria). Also, natural selection does just what is says. It only “selects” from what is already present - it cannot create anything new!

40. Time’s Arrow Evolution Information Time Second Law of Thermodynamics
(Slide concept from Institute for Creation Research seminar)
Creationists say that degeneration in the universe, as modeled by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, prevents any proposed “molecules to man” upward development. This point was made on an earlier slide, but it is important enough to repeat more explicitly. Evolution/naturalism postulates that one of the most basic tenets of science has been repeatedly and continuously violated on a grand scale!
Evolutionists try to get around this problem by claiming that the entropy DECREASE on the earth (increase in order and complexity as evolution is taking place, driven by the energy of the sun) has been more than overcome by the greater INCREASE in entropy on the sun (which is expelling considerable energy). Therefore, the sun-earth system as a single unit has obeyed the second law. However, this scenario is thermodynamically impossible!
When an entropy decrease is proposed (like evolution taking place), there must be postulated either a mechanism, machine or external influence, NOT JUST AN ENERGY FLOW, that causes the unnatural event to occur. The second law has been constructed in such a manner that so that entropy always increases when a natural spontaneous process occurs. Evolution has no directing external influence to overcome the effects of the second law.
Time
Evolution runs contrary to “Time’s Arrow” - we know from the Second Law of Thermodynamics that the universe is “running down”, yet evolution postulates just the opposite!

41. Reasons Against Evolution
The creation of life is tremendously complex:
Requires both DNA (the plan) and RNA (the copy mechanism) at the same time
Laboratory experiments to demonstrate evolution have failed:
Fruit-fly experiments have failed to produce anything other than a fruit fly.
3. The gap from non-life to life is very big. It requires both DNA and RNA to be present, working cooperatively, at the same time. Each of these structures are very complex. To get around this problem evolutionists say the first life must have been RNA-only, but this is pure speculation (and is still a significant problem). To date man has created only the simplest low-level building block of life in the laboratory. And if he does create life one day, it will be involve the use of complex equipment and well thought out procedures, documenting the necessity for intelligence to make it happen. No “warm little pond” will do!
4. If evolution is this grand process that has transformed the simplest life into people, it should surely be demonstrable in the laboratory. In fact, extended experiments with fruit flies have produced many types of deformed fruit flies, but they remain fruit flies. Evolutionists will point to the large amount of time needed for evolution to work, but on the order of 10,000 generations of fruit flies have been bred and exposed to many times a naturally-occurring amount of mutation-inducing radiation, with no indication that any type of evolution is happening! These experiments show (like plant and animal breeding) that organisms have a certain capacity for change which cannot be exceeded.

42. Reasons Against Evolution
The fossil record shows that evolution has not taken place:
“Abrupt appearance” is always seen, the “oldest” fossils are already fully formed
Many complex creatures are found in so-called “Cambrian” rocks (near the oldest), without a trace of any ancestors
5. If evolution cannot be documented in the laboratory, the only other place to find it would be in the record of the earth’s history. However, the fossil record clearly shows that evolution has not taken place. The oldest fossils of a particular plant or animal are always fully-formed (not some simpler version), and look identical in all significant aspects to the same plant or animal living today (although many fossil types are extinct).
The near-oldest rocks, so-called “Cambrian” rocks, contain many complex creatures, like Trilobites (now extinct). They are fully-formed, and there is not the slightest trace of a more primitive ancestor to be found in the older, “Pre-Cambrian” rocks. This period in earth history is called the “Cambrian Explosion” because of the vast number of new life forms that seem to appear from nowhere.
What is true between the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian ages is also true between every other age - no transitional forms are found! The most frequently cited “intermediate form”, the reptile/bird “Archaeopteryx” is really a bird that has some reptilian features (like teeth). It has a “mosaic” of traits (some bird, some reptile), but each trait is fully-formed (including the feathers). There are animals alive today that are mosaics (e.g. the duckbill platypus). A true reptile/bird intermediate would show reptilian scales “half-way” transformed into feathers.
Because the fossil record show abrupt appearance and “stasis” (no change), the evolutionary theory of “punctuated equilibrium” was developed by Gould and Eldredge, which basically says we don’t see evolution in the fossil record because it happens fast in small isolated groups. It is an argument from lack of evidence.

43. Reasons Against Evolution
Throughout the Bible creation is treated as a “fact” (Is 43:7, Jn 1:3, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2, 10, Rev 4:11)
Jesus spoke of creation and Noah’s flood as facts (Jn 17:24, Mk 10:6, Mt 24:37-39)
All scientific data can be interpreted just as well or better in support of creation.
6. For those who place trust in the Bible, it should be noted that the Bible always speaks of special creation by God as a fact. If evolution were God’s mechanism there would be no reason for Him to hide it in His revelation. Even Jesus Himself refers to the creation (and the global flood of Noah’s time) as facts. The listed scripture references (NIV) include:
Col 1:16 “For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers of rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”
Heb 1:2 “… He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.”
Heb 1:10 “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.”
Jesus said: Mk 10:6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’”
Also: Mt 24:37-39 “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.”
7. Finally, when scientific data is examined, a creationist interpretation can be usually be provided which is just as reasonable, if not superior to, an evolutionary interpretation.

44. Call To Speak To US Live Now!!!
Call And ---
Ask For A Copy Of This Presentation.
BY , BY FLOPPY DISK or IN PRINT.
Ask To Be Added To The Beacon’s Mailing.
Ask For A Free Bible Correspondence Course.
Call With A ---
Biblical Question Or Comment.
Receive a Biblical Answer – “Book, Chapter and Verse”.
Call (828) or - WHKY