My articles are usually more faith and Bible based, but for the sake of this topic I will be using a different approach. I would like to discuss the age of the earth primarily from a scientific point of view. This article is not written with the purpose of convincing someone to be a Christian. It is written to broaden our thinking and realize what is happening to the world around us.
A lot of the information we are seeing today is based on the theory of evolution. We see it in our education system (primary school all the way to University), we see it in advertisements, in TV sitcoms (Big Bang Theory - Listen to the theme song) and the list truly goes on. So much of what is going on around us is based on evolution theory and how we are developing in to better beings. This in itself has some great points, but is everything evolution claims true and does it maybe take more faith to believe in evolution than in creation?
I would like to take this opportunity to look more deeply in to this topic and investigate it a little further. Is everything we are taking in really as scientifically sound as so many of us seem to believe? Please feel free to check anything stated in the article via the links provided.
About 14 Billion years ago NOTHING exploded and formed everything (Read more about this in this article by New Scientist Magazine or watch the short video). Some other sources say that everything was concentrated into a tiny point and then exploded (Big bang). After everything settled and the earth formed about 4 billion years ago, it started raining on the earth for millions of years. As it rained on the rocks, it formed a primordial soup. From this primordial soup, the first single celled organism spawned and over time all living creatures we see today evolved from this cell.
This is not my opinion, This is what they teach. Please feel free to check each link.
A simple example is: If you were born 20 years ago, then obviously you can't say you have been alive for 30 years. In this case there is no possible way to change the limit.
If the earth is billions of years old why is our population so low?
If the earth is billions of years old, then surely the population should be much higher. Now I know this does not determine the age of the earth, but one can't overlook it when covering this topic. When and why did all the semi human apes die off so that we could just be normal humans? When looking at the graph from the United Nations we see that we have only been in existence for thousands of years at the most, and why did it stay so low for the millions of years we have been fully human?
Some might argue that we are just fairly new in the evolutionary chain, but then the question still remains: Where are all the intermediary species between us and the apes? They claim to have found a few single beings, but we will be discussing that a bit later in the article.
Let's continue by having a quick look at the Moon. According to scientific observation, the Moon is moving away from the earth. Very slowly, but we are steadily losing the moon, this is an observable fact. So this means that it was... closer.
If evolution is true then the earth is billions of years old. Then surely at some stage the Moon would have been so close we could touch it? Or at least way too close for comfort anyway. This is purely a speculative statement , but the questions still remains: How can we be loosing the moon for billions of years and it still be close enough to see? And where did it start in the first place?
Scientist do think they found an answer to this problem:
Scientists believe that the Moon was formed when a planet about the size of Mars collided with the Earth around 4.5billion years ago. The debris left over from impact came together to form the Moon... How does another planet hit earth and not leave observable evidence? And then make a perfectly round moon from the debris? What about the other planets in our solar system that also have moons: Mars has 2 moons and Saturn has 53, just to name two.
If we are looking at the Moon, then let's also look at the sun.When anything burns, it eventually burns up, except if fuel of some kind is added. Nothing is excluded from this law of nature, and we can scientifically observe the sun burning and will eventually burn up completely in the distant future. The question that this poses is: How big was the sun when it started burning about 4 billion years ago (according to evolution)? Not even to mention that it would most probably have consumed the earth in fire at that stage from the intense heat. How can something burn for billions of years without changing radically over that amount of time?
I firmly believe everyone would agree that textbooks should be error free. I also believe that if it is discovered that there is an error in a textbook, it should be corrected and/or completely removed. The unfortunate truth is that science textbooks are not always written and published in this manner. Things that have been proven wrong many years ago are still found in textbooks all over the world. Here are a few examples of how evolution is crammed into the education system even though it has been proven as false many years ago:
Then in 1984 Haeckel’s peers, one being Wilhelm his Sr, professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig uncovered his fraudulent claims and extracted a confession out of him, in which he blamed the draughtsman for the mistake - without acknowledging that he himself was the draughtsman!
An article titled: "An Embryonic Liar" in The London Times - August 11, 1997 p.14 stated the following:
"This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It's shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. What Haeckel did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don't. These are fakes."
Now my question is: Why do they still keep this in so many textbooks? Some have changed the pictures, but kept the theory in as proof.
The thing is, the fossil that was found to construct this whole scene to the left, was just a singe tooth. They added this whole new species to the textbooks and museums alike. They designed a whole new species from a single tooth, not any other piece of evidence or fossil, and then discovered that it was actually a pig's tooth. We just assume they found everything they needed.
Now I know people make mistakes, but how can you allow this to stay in textbooks, and to be constructed in the first place?
Another example of faked evidence is Piltdown man, feel free to read more about how Charles Dawson faked the evidence on purpose with the link provided.
The Coelacanth was an example of a fish about to evolve to the walking stage and was dated as having lived about 65 million years ago. However, the capture of numerous living specimens forced evolutionist to try and explain what happened, and why it has stayed unchanged for millions of years. Seeing that they are currently breeding off the coast of South Africa. At least they removed this one from the textbooks. |
Watermelons are 92% water, according to genetic similarity, I presume that watermelons are evolving into clouds that are 100% water.
According to scientists dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. They believe this because of dating methods like carbon dating (Read more about what carbon dating is here). The thing is, the idea of carbon dating is great, but it doesn't work. Here are just a few examples of why:
- “The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY (radio carbon years), while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY.” - Harold E. Anthony, “Natures Deep Freeze,” Natural History, Sept. 1949, p. 300
- Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. - Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61
- A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago. - Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p. 211
They use this column to do the following:
- They date the rocks by the fossils they find in the rock. and
- They date the fossils by the rock they find them in
If you don't believe me, look at the following article excerpt from the American Journal of Science:
"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately." - *J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976.
This shows their preconceived ideas, not observable science. It's purely what they want to believe. As much as 85% of earth's surface doesn't even have 3 of these layers in the correct order.
In 1271, Marco Polo reported that on special occasions the royal chariot was pulled by dragons and in 1611 the Emperor appointed the post of a “Royal Dragon Feeder”.
- “The Travels Of Marco Polo, The Venetian”, translated by W. Marsden in 1818 and re-edited by Thomas Wright in 1854
How were these people able to draw dinosaurs? This without having seen them first? Why would one of the greatest explorers in the world say that he actually saw dragons?
Marco Polo said near the end of his life that he only told half of what he saw because no one would believe him. It seems he was right.
Personally I believe dinosaurs lived with man and were called dragons back then. The word "Dinosaur" was only created in 1841, before that, they were called dragons. This is why there are so many stories about dragons from the past. The reason we find them buried so deep under the ground is because of the world wide flood from about 4400 years ago in the days of Noah. This truly wrecked everything and explains so much of what we see in regards to fossils and geological changes. Then did Noah take them all on the ark? Yes, he did, he was smart enough to realize it would be better to take babies. Babies are smaller, they sleep more and they live longer to reproduce later. Then they were hunted to extinction over the next few thousand years, as we see with so many animals today. But let's leave it at that for now.
I would like to mention that I don't know where God comes from, and that is fine. I admit that I believe by faith and it is a religion. I don't have a problem with that. What I don't agree with is that the theory of evolution is taught as science. Evolution is not proven, this is why it is still called a theory. There are some things that could point to evolution being true, but it is not provable evidence. If you want to believe it, that is fine, but stop calling it science. Evolution is a religion just like Christianity.
Everything in life just fits too perfectly to have happened by chance. I believe the Bible when it explains that everything was created by God, and is still kept in place by Him. I understand this has not been proven right scientifically, but it also has not been proven wrong. Let's start examining information that we receive to see whether it is true or not.
I leave you with this final thought: May you all grow in your realization that life does have a purpose and nothing just happens by chance, not even you reading this article.