Video Bar


Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Young Earth Evidences

Young Earth Evidences 

We've all been taught our beloved Earth is billions of years old.  But is it really?  There are many, many things on this planet that simply cannot be explained by anything other than a few thousand year old Earth (see below for examples).
Time is not constant across the Universe
God gave us Einstein and others to discover that time is not constant across the Universe.  Its not even constant on this Earth.  Ongoing experiments with Atomic Clocks prove that time ticks faster at 5,000 ft than it does at sea level.  This is scientific evidence that time isn't constant across the Universe, depending not only on gravity, but also relative motion.  Gravity affects the perception of time, and so does motion.
"Old Earth, why not?"  (by James I. Nienhuis -
shows why it is impossible that our solar system is billions of years old
Modern Physics Shows That Six Day Creation is Possible
Exodus 20:11 makes one of the most amazing statements of the Bible: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." It is hard to imagine a clearer statement defining how long God took in creating the entire universe. However, this simple statement has presented a seemingly impossible dilemma for Christians and Jews. On one hand, modern cosmology teaches that the universe has taken billions of years to form. On the other hand, if this clear and straightforward statement of the Bible can not be trusted to mean what it says, how can we know that any statement of the Bible can be trusted to mean what it says?
This was the dilemma which Dr. Russell Humphreys (physicist at Sandia National Laboratory) set out to solve as he studied what the Bible had to say about the formation of our universe. Most people have been taught that the universe is the result of a gigantic explosion called the "Big Bang".  During this explosive expansion, all the matter of the universe supposedly expanded outward from a tiny pinpoint. So the Big Bang started at a "center" where all of the matter exploded outward from the center. So there is a center and an edge. However, all modern cosmological models start with the assumption that the universe has neither a center nor an edge (impossible to imagine) and which is billions of years old at every location. But this second assumption directly contradicts the first assumption!  Surprisingly, evolutionary physicists do not seem very concerned about this -- but I sure am!
Rather than start with these arbitrary assumptions (a universe having no center and no edge), Dr. Humphreys decided to take the most apparent meaning of the Biblical text and see what model of the universe developed. He reasoned that if the Bible was inspired by God, as it claims to be, it should not have to be twisted to be understood. It should have the same straight forward meaning for a "man on the street", a brilliant physicist, or a theologian.
The Bible clearly indicates three things about God's formation of the universe. First, the earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. By implication, the earth may also be located near the center-perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction. Second, the universe (both matter and space itself) has been "stretched out". Third, the universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center. If these three assumptions are plugged into the currently accepted formulas of physics, and the mathematical crank is turned, we live in a universe in which clocks tick at different rates depending on your location.
Furthermore, the time dilation effect would be magnified tremendously as the universe was originally expanding. As the universe expanded, there was a point at which time was moving very rapidly at the outer edge and essentially stopped near the center. At this point in the expansion of the universe, only days were passing near the center, while billions of years were passing in the heavens. This is the inevitable conclusion based on our current knowledge of physics and starting with Biblical assumptions instead of arbitrary ones. Albert Einstein rejected the idea that the Bible could be literally true. He wrote that, "Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the convictions that many of the stories in the Bible could not be true." How ironic that the most ridiculed Biblical story (about a recent, literal, six day creation of the universe) is exactly the story which Albert Einstein’s work has shown to be entirely possible. A comprehensive explanation of Dr. Humphreys work, can be found in his book.
Note:  Did you know that the "Red Shift" phenomena actually proves our Earth is at the center of the Universe?  Be sure to read the "Evolution Cruncher" via the link at the bottom of the page.
The Fabric of Space
Scientists have known for a long time that space actually stretches.  It stretches much like stretchable fabric, very similar to nylon panty hose.  Have you ever heard the phrase that scientists use, "the fabric of space"?  Did you know the Bible said this long before scientists understood it?
  ' It is I who made the earth and created man upon
it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands '  
Isa 45:12
  ' You have forgotten the LORD your Maker,
Who stretched out the heavens and
laid the foundations of the earth'  
Isa 51:13
So the prophet Isaiah used scientific language (space stretching) to describe God's creation of the Universe.  Since God really did create the Universe and gave us the Bible to know about our origin and to know about Him, we shouldn't be surprised to find such clues hidden in His Word.  We may not understand exactly how God created the Universe before Jesus returns, but its important we understand that He did create it, and left us the Bible to know how we got here and to know the God who created us.
Young Earth Evidences
Most things we see in the world around us cannot fit into an old Earth scenario.  The more we dig, study and learn, the more we understand that man and the plants and animals have only been here a few thousand years. 
When I was a young boy, I went on a hike in the mountains in So. Calif. (near Mt. Baldy) with my father.  Along the way I kept noticing sea shells in the sand and dirt along the walls of the mountain and edge of the trail.  I noticed they looked just like the shells at the beach.  Most of the smallest ones were still whole.  I asked my dad about them and he said that "millions of years ago" this was a sea bottom.  Of course he said this because that was what he was taught.  But was it really?  Why would a sea shell that is millions of years old look exactly like a shell I find on the beach today?  Surely something that has been buried in dirt and rock for millions of years could not possibly be the same as something only 1 year or 10 years old.  Surely something laying in and under the dirt for millions of years would have crumbled into dust millions of years ago.  A million years is is a very long time!  I dearly wish I could go back up into those mountains and get some samples and have them carbon dated.  I would have one from the beach and one from the mountains dated without telling them where they were from.  I'm sure of what the results would be.
We will present some evidences for you to consider in your quest for truth.  Try not be closed-minded as you read on, else you might as well not read any further.  If you are a closed-minded person, you will never be able to willing to allow truth to penetrate.  You must approach everything in life with an open mind.
Mt St Helens - Young Earth Evidence
Could the Grand Canyon of the USA have been created in a few months rather than the millions of years?  This YouTube video shows how the very same thing happened in just a few days.  You will be surprised when you see how reality is very different than the imaginations of anti-God evolutionists.

The London Artifact
What's a hammer doing in cretaceous rock with seashells?
The London Artifact is an iron hammer, surrounded by a solid mass of cretaceous rock and seashells. The handle was partially PETRIFIED. It was discovered in London, Texas. Notice the shiny spot on the metal part. The family who found the hammer filed the metal to see if it was really metal; the spot has not rusted yet, even though it has been about forty-five years. Is it really iron? A test was done on the metal. This hammer contains 96% iron, 2.6% chlorine, and 0.74% sulfur. There are no bubbles in it at all. Yes, it is iron. The quality of which equals or exceeds the quality of any iron made today.  Now ask yourself, how does an obviously very old hammer get embedded into millions of years old cretaceous rock?  The only answer is that cretaceous rock isn't that old at all.
The Bible doesn't tell us much about pre-flood people, so we should pay close attention to the little it does say.  In Genesis chapter 4, we are given information about the first descendents of Adam.
"  Lamech married two women. The first was named Adah, and the second was Zillah. Adah gave birth to Jabal, who was the first of those who raise livestock and live in tents. His brother's name was Jubal, the first of all who play the harp and flute. Lamech's other wife, Zillah, gave birth to a son named Tubal-cain. He became an expert in forging tools of bronze and iron."    NLT
So we see that pre-flood people worked with metal.  It says Tubal-cain was an expert.  This tells us he was very good at what he did, and this agrees with and explains the advanced metals found on Noah's Ark and the London Hammer.
Coal Deposits
See this excellent article for a backgrounder on why the coal deposits could not possibly have formed over millions of years.
Where does the idea of millions of years come from?
The geologic column was invented by evolutionists to fit an imaginary timescale for the evolution of all life on Earth.  The problem is it doesn't exist anywhere in the world except the text books. If the column really existed, it would nearly 100 miles deep! The deepest fossils we find are about 1 to 1.5 miles deep. One of the deepest holes ever dug was only about 5 miles. So how do they get 100 miles of strata layers? By assuming evolution has happened and putting the various layers of the sedimentary rock in an evolutionary order.  Then they use the geologic column to prove evolution! That's called circular reasoning. Where in you use the assumption of something being true to prove it's true. It's the same as saying "evolution is true because evolution is true". This concept has been falsified (the column showing animals to be extinct) by what is called living fossils. One example of a living fossil is the coelacanth fish. This fish was thought to have gone extinct before the dinosaurs (because of its being found in the same strata layers as dinosaur fossils).  But in the 1930's a fisherman found coelacanth's still alive living in deep ocean waters. Living fossils are animals they thought were extinct, but have been found alive. Their reasoning is they are only found at the bottom of the "supposed" column thus they have died out. There are so many examples of living fossils other then the coelacanth that evolutionist just ignore the problem all together. Since that time, over 200 coelacanths have been caught. Now there is no scientific reason to believe dinosaurs went extinct before man was created.
The bible tells us about a very Great Flood which covered the whole earth. That would certainly bury animals in mud (which would later turn to rock) all over the earth, Dinosaurs included. The geologic column doesn't show what evolved first but what was buried first. Deep ocean life, shallow water life, small reptiles, big animals, and then man who was smart enough to avoid the flooding water as long as possible.  This is why dinosaur fossil skeletons are quite often found in groups.  If you ask the people at the dig how they died, they will candidly tell you they were buried in a flood (although they believe it was a local flood).  As the flood waters rose, the dinosaurs made higher and higher ground until there wasn't any left.  They would have been all grouped together as they were finally swept away by mud and water.
See this article about how the age of the earth grew and grew and keeps on growing - in the evolutionist's mind.
The Oldest Living Things
The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old. Because these trees are still alive and growing, and because we don't yet know how old they will get before they die, this indicates that something happened around 4,500 to 4,767 years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. 13,14,15 Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings. Janelle says 1700. This is significant because we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1500 - 1800 years before the Worldwide Flood.
TREE RINGS -- The giant sequoias of California have no known enemies except man. And only recently did man (with his saws) have the ability to easily destroy them. Insects do not bother them, nor even forest fires. They live on, century after century. Yet the sequoias are never older than about 4,000 years. These giant redwoods seem to be the original trees that existed in their timber stands. Sequoia gigantea, in their groves in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, never have any dead trees ("snags') among them. Unless man cuts them down, there is no evidence that they ever die!
"Perhaps the most intriguing of the unanswered questions regarding longevity in conifers has to do with Sequoia gigantea trees, which, some believe may enjoy perpetual life in the absence of gross destruction, since they appear immune to pest attacks . . Pertinent also is the well-known fact that standing snags of this species, other than those resulting from factors of gross destruction, are unknown. Does this mean that shortly preceding 3215 years ago (or 4000 years ago, if John Muir's count was correct) all the then living giant sequoias were wiped out by some catastrophe?"--*Edmund Schulman, "Longevity Under Adversity in Conifers," in Science, March 28, 1934, p. 399.
Nothing can kill a mature sequoia, with the exception of man and his saws. Yet no sequoias are older than about 4000 years of age. They date back to the time of the Flood, and no further.

The bristlecone pines of the White Mountains in California and nearby Arizona are said to be somewhat older. But research by Walter Lammerts, a plant scientist, has disclosed that the bristlecone pine routinely stops growth during the dry summer and when both spring and fall are rainy (which is common). It produces two rings a year. Surely then, the giant redwoods are the oldest living thing, not the bristlecone pine.
Now if the earth is millions of years old, why aren't there evidences of older trees, or dead Sequoia trees?  The evolutionist has no answer.
Polonium Halos in Bedrock Granites
Etched within Earth's foundation rocks -- the bedrock granites of the earth -- are many billions of beautiful microspheres of coloration --halos -- produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.

The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres -- or halos -- contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radioactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.
These "fingerprints of God" have been exhaustively studied by scientist Robert Gentry for many years.  His early papers were actually peer-reviewed and accepted by the scientific community - until! - yes, until the creation implications were realized by the evolutionist priesthood.  Then his university computer account was deleted and his papers were censored!  It seems evolutionary science isn't "self correcting" and "open to challenges" as they so often state.
Every question regarding the validity or implications of the polonium-halo evidence for creation has been systematically dealt with in our published reports. Every proposal for an evolutionary origin of polonium radiohalos has been systematically and experimentally falsified. No hypothetical, naturalistic scenario has yet been suggested that can account for Creation's "tiny mystery" of the polonium halo.  Of course, you can find claims to the contrary on the internet and elsewhere. But if these claims had any real substance, they would have passed peer review and been published in the open scientific literature. The fact that they have not been, or have themselves been experimentally falsified, demonstrates the fact that this unique evidence for Creation still stands unrefuted.
Please read more about this amazing scientific fact at and
Polystrate Trees
We have been taught that each of the Earth's strata layers were deposited over millions of years.  OK, if that's true we could never expect to see a tree trunk buried vertically extending through multiple strata layers, could we?  But we do see them - all over the world.  These are called polystrate trees.  Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly-strate (many-strata) fossils. Consider how quickly this tree trunk in Germany must have been buried. Had burial been slow, the tree top would have decayed. Obviously, the tree could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide.
If the strata layers were deposited only a few thousand years ago during the Great Flood, then we should expect to see this phenomenon - and we do!  Given this evidence, which is logical to believe?  Consider the photos below.


If you know of good quality photos of polystrate fossils,
 please contact us so we can include them here

When I look at the rock formations in the hills and mountains, they look exactly as I would expect them to look after a world-wide flood.  Fossils are found buried in flood conditions.  Fresh looking sea shells are found at the tops of mountains.  Large layers of Rock are bent in ways they only could be if they were formed when wet.  And on an on.

The fact is we weren't here 6000 years ago so we can only speculate as to what happened.  But based on what I have seen with my own eyes I will go with what the Bible says.  I have found the Bible to be completely reliable in all other things, so why shouldn't I believe God about creation too?   Jesus Himself references Creation, the Creator and Adam and Eve.  All of the Great Bible stories are confirmed on this website.  What more do you need?

The following are two chapters from "Old Earth, why not?" by James I. Nienhuis (  You can read the entire document by clicking here.
The “Big Bang” Caused The Universe Billions Of Years Ago?
Hardback version

 Old-earthers are usually old universe adherents because they believe the earth and cosmos were formed billions of years ago. They say that since stars are multiple trillions of miles away, billions of years are needed for the starlight to reach us (so we can see the star); therefore, the distant stars and galaxies must be billions of years old. (The forthcoming explanation of a model that superiorly incorporates astronomical observations is gleaned fromDr. Russell Humphrey’s book Starlight and Time )
The usual old universe logic is seriously flawed because it assumes the universe was “formed” from a cosmic explosion, a “Big Bang” that caused matter to expand outward. However, to say “expand outward” necessitates that there is an inward, a center if you will. Therefore, as matter expanded (or is expanding) outward, there remains the center, and therefore, obviously, the edge of the outward expanded (or possibly still expanding) matter, also. Old-universers derive this “Big Bang” conclusion from the assumption that the universe is boundless, a direct contradiction of the just stated necessity of a center, and thus, the necessity of an edge of the matter (an edge of the universe), and so, a bounded universe, not boundless.
The Big Bang adherents must use their presupposition of a difficult to imagine (and contradictory), boundless universe, because if they said there is an outward edge of matter (a bounded universe), then they are admitting there is a center. If there is center, there is then the possibility of gravitational influence on the expanding matter, and on the speed of light, and thus, the possibility of much less time than billions of years for starlight to reach us.
A clock at sea level ticks slower than a clock on top of a mountain. This is because of a stronger gravitational pull on the clock at sea level than on the mountaintop clock, which receives less gravitational pull, because it is further away from earth’s center of mass. Now suppose the universe is bounded, as the evidence suggests, and has expanded outward from its center. According to Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, gravitational time dilation greatly accelerated rates of star formation (as in aging; that is, clocks ticking faster, away from gravity), and accelerated the speed of light. This notion of acceleration is the opposite of the deceleration of light speed and matter aging, as they approach a theoretical “black hole”, where matter and light are being drawn into a gravitational vortex. There is an expanding invisible gravitation sphere surrounding a black hole; this sphere is called the event horizon. As light and matter are drawn to the black hole, they penetrate the event horizon, at which point the speed of light and rate of aging of matter drastically decrease. As more and more matter penetrates this event horizon, it expands, because the gravitational pull exerted by the black hole increases as it gains matter (mass).
Similarly, if the earth’s material density mysteriously halved (thus halving its mass), the mountain top clock would speed up, due to less gravity. (So, the clock would need to descend to a lower location as to slow back down.) In corollary, if the earth’s density (mass) were mysteriously doubled, the mountain top clock would slow down because of more gravitational pull on it, so the clock would need to be “expanded out” away from the earth’s center for it to speed back up. Therefore, as matter moves away from gravity, it ages (moves toward entropy, randomness), at a greater rate.
This is analogous to what may have happened during the formation of the universe. Matter and light expanded out, so the “white hole” (opposite of black hole) lost mass, and thus, its event horizon collapsed, as more and more matter escaped out past this collapsing event horizon. Therefore, while light speed and matter aging rates drastically decrease when they approach a black hole event horizon, they sped up drastically when they escaped out of the white hole event horizon, during creation. The drastically accelerated speed of light and aging rates continued until the event horizon collapsed to zero, and thus, all matter and light were outside of it, at which point, the speed of light and rate of aging normalized. As the event horizon collapsed to zero, coalescence of expanded matter caused thermonuclear fusion in the newly formed stars; they aged billions of years, and light from them traveled at greatly accelerated velocities (in accordance with the Einstein’s Theory of General Relatively), until the event horizon collapsed to zero.
Dr. Russell Humphreys, a renowned astrophysicist who interpolated this white hole theory, predicted the Voyager space probe’s measurements of the magnetic fields of the planets Neptune and Uranus. His predictions were predicated upon his theory that a white hole, at creation, was a ball of water two light years in diameter; at the Creation, God brooded over “the Deep” (deep translates bottomless water), as recorded in Genesis 1:2. Then this water-matter expanded out rapidly, coalesced into stars that aged billions of “earth time” years, sending light at hyperspeed to earth, all in a matter of hours (a few days, as suggested in the Bible) [as measured by a clock on Earth]. Thermonuclear fusion turned the water-matter into the mineralogy of the planets. The planets’ compositions resulted from thermonuclearized water, thus, Humphreys accurately predicted their composition and their magnetic field strength. According to Einstein’s theory, and the high probability that the universe is bounded, the distant stars could have formed and aged billions of years in a matter of hours, and the light from them arrived to earth also in a matter of hours. The starlight did not need billions of years to reach us, because the speed of starlight was ultra-accelerated during the expansion of matter, and the resultant formation of the universe. Thus a theory, from probably the most revered physicist in history, provides an excellent framework with which to explain the development and young age of the universe.
Supernovas are stars that explode, launching debris out into space, in all directions. The longer ago a supernova occurred, the farther away from the explosion point will the star debris have travelled. This ever expanding debris field is called a supernova remnant. If the universe is billions of years old, we should expect many supernova remnants to be of great diameters, as to evidence supernovas that happened millions of years ago. However, all the observed supernova remnants are so small that the supernovas must have exploded only a few thousand years ago, not millions.
If the solar system and the galaxies are truly billions of years old, there should not be any spiral shaped galaxies. The variable speeds of the stars of these spirals of stars would have caused them to break the spiral formation billions of years ago. The spirals of stars (galaxies) have not dispersed, so the spirals must be young.
Most astrophysicists think that the fire of the sun is heat from thermonuclear conversion of hydrogen into helium. Sub-atomic particles, called neutrinos, are emitted from the sun as this thermonuclear conversion occurs. Some of these neutrinos strike the earth. These neutrino strikes can be measured in cobalt rock. Scientists utilize cobalt to estimate the amount of neutrinos that have emitted from the sun. If the sun is old, many neutrinos have emitted. As it turns out, astonishingly few neutrinos have emitted from the sun because conversion of hydrogen into helium has been going on for a short time, only thousands of years.
The earth is spinning about one second slower every year. At this rate of spin slowdown, only 30 million years ago, the earth would have spun so fast that a day would have been four hours long.
If our solar system is billions of years old, there should be no comets or meteors orbiting within it. The famous the Hale-Bop comet, Haley’s comet, and “shooting stars,” all these are objects orbiting in our solar system but which should be long gone if the solar system is millions or billions in age. These orbiting entities should have collided with a planet, or come near enough to planets, enough times, to burn up, or reached an escape velocity for ejection from their orbits and been forced out of our solar system. In fact, all of these orbiting objects should have disappeared from our solar system within 10,000 years. (Old-earthers and universers say that the mysterious and unobserved “Oort Cloud” somehow re-supplies our solar system with comets.)
The observable evidences absolutely do not require an old universe model to rationalize them. To the contrary, they fit quite nicely within the Biblical framework, as do the geological and biological evidences for a young earth, as well as the anthropological, and cultural evidences discussed later. Nothing in the Bible as been disproved, and corroborating evidences for Biblical inerrancy are abundant.

Be sure to read the Evolution Cruncher for a detailed look at the folly of Evolutionary Science.
Evolution Cruncher (PDF file)
Please visit these other sites for more young Earth information

No comments:

Post a Comment