Many scientific facts point to a younger age for the earth than evolutionists want to believe. In many mountain areas, multiple rock layers have been bent and folded without fracturing. This is evidence that all the layers were deposited before any of them hardened. If this had taken place after the layers had hardened, they would either have been crumbled, or the heat and pressure would have transformed them into metamorphic rock.
Some fossils, found in these rock layers believed to be millions of years old, can actually be dated by radiocarbon dating. When this is done, the ages are shown to be only thousands of years. If the earth were as old as evolutionists claim, the radiocarbon should have disappeared long ago from fossils, coal, diamonds, oil, and such. Likewise, there should be more helium in the atmosphere, and much less in the earth’s crust.
I would like to furnish the long list of evidences for a young earth, but I don’t have much time right now. They can be found scattered throughout creationist literature. As is the case with all science, you have to be careful of outdated or incorrect information.
The Oct.- Dec. 2012 edition of Answers magazine gives what they believe to be the 10 best evidences for a young earth. The Answers magazine also shows the weakness of some of the evolutionary arguments against the evidences. The following is not on the Answers magazine’s list, but I think one of the most important evidences for a relatively young earth is the slowing of its rotation. Simultaneously, the moon is receding from the earth. This can’t have been going on for billions of years.
You’ll find a lot of conflicting, and confusing, information if you research this. The following quote is from the article “Earth,” in a 1971 set of Encyclopedia Britannica’s. Later estimates show a larger rate of slowing. Referring to three factors contributing to a slowing of the earth’s rotation, the article says, “This effect amounts to an aggregated time change of about 30 sec. per century. However, if this phenomenon is assumed to have existed throughout the earth’s lifetime, the earth must once have rotated much more rapidly than it does now.”
That doesn’t mean that at the end of a century, each day is 30 seconds shorter than before. Each day averages only a small fraction of a second shorter, yet over enough time the effect would be tremendous. I haven’t given precise numbers because there’s so much conflicting data.
Most evolutionists argue that these effects have not been as great in the past, and that the changes don’t add up that much overall. They say the same thing about the recession of the moon. I think it can be proven however, that the earth would have been more prone to a major catastrophe if the forces balancing the earth and moon were much different from today. The jumble of details found in the geological column is evidence of such a catastrophe. All of this gives credibility to the biblical record of a global flood.
There are too many unanswered questions about dating methods for evolutionary scientists to reasonably conclude that life is millions of years old. If events within the sun affect the half-life of radioactive substances on earth (ref. my previous post), could certain activity within the earth likewise affect radiometric dating?
What about the effects of piezoelectricity that would be generated by a major slide of the earth’s continental plates? Piezoelectricity is thought by some to be the explanation for “earthquake lights.” Scientists aren’t certain of the cause.
Extreme pressures have been shown to slightly affect radioactive decay rates, but there are many levels of “extreme.” What effect would the pressures generated by a major slide of a continental plate have upon decay rates? We know that pressure increases the rate of nuclear fission in radioactive elements. Tremendous amounts of material has been transported thousands of miles under very extreme pressures, and many kinds of “sorting,” and chemical reactions, occur under such conditions.
I’m not saying that either of these things accounts for the discrepancies of the dating methods, but these areas would be worth further study. The Bible says that whenever we think we know anything, we still don’t understand it as well as we should (1st. Corinthians 8:2). That is true of the scientist, as well as the preacher. It is true of all of us.
If someone isn’t wanting to use science as a tool for deception, it would be wise to avoid the absolute statements that evolutionists make about the age of life on the earth. Evolutionary scientists should be honest about their time tale. With their level of talent, they could build a case for a young earth as easily as for an old. Why don’t they tell us that?
The old computer that I typed this on has a weak battery. It often reverts to a date in the past when the electricity goes off, but it assigned this writing a date of 9/4/2084. I’m sure there is a scientific explanation.