A YOUNG EARTH

Scientific evidence favours a young earth, something which many people either didn't know or are obviously ignoring. Evolutionists have stated openly the age of the Universe to be between 10-20 billion years, our own solar system to be 5 billion years and the emergence of life to be around 3 to 4 billion years. Following from the singled celled organisms we have the multi-celled organisms around 1 billion years and human kind they say first emerged around 1 to 3 million years, finishing with modern civilisations around 5 to 10 thousand years ago.

These dates are all very interpretational within the evolutionary world, but when you start talking about billions of years it is very easy to add or subtract millions in one statement. The problem with the evolutionary view is they have no evidence to back up these dates apart from the theory itself. They use inaccurate dating methods, which is ignored as it backs up the evolutionary time scale, and rely on the media to push the view hoping people will believe it the more they see it.

Lets look at some obvious facts which show the earth couldn't be millions or billions of years old.

POPULATION

There are approximately 6 billion people on the earth today and a population growth between 1% and 2% per year. If you use this figure as a base you find that from a pair of humans you can reach the present population in a time scale which corresponds to the emergence of Noah and his family from the Ark. The evolutionists say we have been around for 1 to 3 million years, so to reach the present population we would have had to have an annual growth rate of around 0.002%, well below the present figure.

The problem with the evolutionary figure of 0.002% is that we use the creationist view that the population started with a single pair. Evolution can not state this, pinning the whole of mankind on one pair negates the view that, chance, would have produced more humans. If there were more than one pair then the annual growth would be different from a starting point, possibly doubling the initial figures at least. Given 1 million years as a date for human emergence and the present rate of around 2% being the same throughout that time there should be a population size of 10 with 8600 zeros after it. Even taking into account fluctuations of annual growth we still don't get any where near the 6 billion we have today.

Another point to note is that if we have been around for that many years how come we can only find a few thousand fossils of mankind. We have fossils of dinosaurs which are dated at older than man so you can not use the argument that they didn't survive. But if you want to use the age aspect and survivability of fossils lets look nearer to our own time.

The stone age is said to have lasted 100,000 years, so can we calculate the number of people who would have lived and died in that time. If we take the population increase of 1% per year and a generation to be 25 years.

A generation is said to be the average time it takes to grow up and have children, and in the west today this is put at 25 years.

So a simple calculation of 100,000 years divided by 25 brings us to the conclusion that during the Stone age a family would have produced approximately 4000 generations, adding to this calculation the annual population growth rate, this would mean around 4 billion people would have lived and died. Where did all these bodies go? Considering as we have already established we can only find a few thousand remains.

We must assume from this that the 100,000 year length of the stone age is an exaggeration, given to days population and findings we can get a maximum length of 500 years. The oldest civilisations can be found around the Middle east, the reason is quite clear when you use the Bible as a basis for history.

Noah and his family populated the region after leaving the ark and later spread through the world. However the first civilisations or ordered communities would have been near where the first settlements were located. Later God split the peoples of the earth at the tower of Babel which would again like the flood have set back mankind's progress. Any written records or knowledge would now be out of reach of nearly all of the population of the earth. People would have had to find others with similar languages and move out of the region.

The civilisations that would have flourished the quickest would have been the ones already established in the Middle East and no doubt populated by people who could still read the books already contained in the libraries in the original cities. As people travelled out through the earth they would have settled and set up new colonies and communities, the last ones being in the outer most reaches of the earth from the Middle East. They would have all had to start from scratch, this period classed as the stone age would not have lasted more than 500 years, based on population figures and remains found.

EROSION

All things wear away and the ground is no exception. The coast lines around the world are all eroding away in to the sea and depositing the residue on the bed of the oceans. This deposit can be measured and so the thickness like rings on a tree tells a story of the age. The problem for evolutionists when they look at the figures and the age they attribute to the earth is that the continents are eroding too fast.

It has been worked out that 25 billion tons of sediment is deposited on the sea bed every year from erosion of the continents. This means that it would take 15 million years to erode the continents down to sea level. This is the first problem evolutionists have, we should now be living in the sea, considering they say the continents are 3 billion years old.

Their counter to this is that sediments are pushed back under the continents by the movement of the tectonic plates in a kind of recycling effect. This is why the continents haven't worn out. The problem with this theory is that the amount of sediment being pushed back under the continents is far less than is being deposited. Also you have to take in to account the thickness of the sediment is not necessarily constant, so although you can say on average the annual deposits are.. you can not with certainty say the thickness represents a set amount of time because events like the flood could deposit large amounts of sediment within a very short period of time. This, however actually decreases the age of the earth and poses another headache for the evolutionist.

SALTY SEA

Still connected with the sea is the amount of salt in the sea. Salt or sodium gets in to the sea from various sources, rivers, mid ocean springs and like erosion of the coast line, salt is also measurable. A big study was undertaken in this subject and it was found that around 450 million tons of sodium a year finds its way into the worlds oceans and seas. Evolutionists say that because salt also escapes from the sea, which it does, their estimate of the age of the oceans is correct (3 billion years).

BUT again we find they do not look at the facts. Only 27% of the sodium leaves the oceans. A calculation of salt output from the sea given a maximum allowed and a minimum allowed found that if the sea started with no salt at all, the age of the oceans would be between 38 and 62 million years. Again the flood does have an impact on the findings and could be responsible for two thirds or more of the present amount of salt in the oceans today, bringing the figures down by a giant leap. Added to this is the fact that God would have created the seas salty in the first place, the age given scientific calculations could be a fraction of the new figure.

MANY MORE

There are many more instances where science disputes the evolutionary date line, not just by thousands of years but sometimes by billions. Have a look for yourselves and make your own mind up, do not be bullied into the evolution mind set which prevails at the moment. Evolution is NOT fact, far from it. Evolution also does not accept criticism of any of its beliefs.

You must remember that Creationists and evolutionists use the same data and evidence, the only difference is in interpretation. If you look at the evidence with scientific reasoning and do not start with preconceived idea of what the answer should fit in to then you will end up with the truth.

But don't take my word for it, check out the web sites which are growing, showing evolution to be what it is a false religion.