The Age of the Earth Debate 
Who needs God if life can be explained by matter, time & speculation?


Most Evolutionists and Slow Creationists believe that the earth is 4,600,000,000 (4.6 billion) years old, while  many Creationists believe that the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old.  At least one of these beliefs is in serious error.  The intent of this web site is to examine the assertion that the earth is "billions of years" old and to present a portion of the evidence that points to a much younger age and show why the facts of Science demonstrate that a Creator must have been intimately involved with the creation of Life on this planet.

In clinging to the concept that the only things needed to produce life are time, chance, and the "inherent properties of matter, ... it is forgotten that the longer the time allowed for a reversible  (reaction) ... to occur, the more likely (its) ... decomposition ... becomes." 1   

Science vs Belief
The 88% Majority
The Facts of Life
What Scientists say in Private
The Fossil Record
Evolution and the Age of the Earth
Truth or Story Telling: The Frog to Prince Trick 
Mission Impossible or Creator God
What does the Moon have to say?
What Difference Does it make?
Which God Will it be

Science Versus Belief

The first sentence in the Ancient Hebrew Scriptures states that:  

"In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."   Genesis 1:1

Although  many believe this is true,  it can't be "proven" in a strict scientific sense because science consists of observing or examining an event or process and  involves the  ability  to repeat that  process, and to obtain the same results time after time, regardless of who conducts the experiment.  Therefore, when we talk about the past, and especially the distant past, such as the creation of the earth, or the life that exists on it, we are dealing with something that has not been examined or observed by men, nor can it be repeated or demonstrated in a laboratory.  Furthermore, the theories that have been proposed: Creation, Evolution, Slow Creation, have not been and almost certainly never will be "proven" in a strictly scientific sense.  So when we speak of things that took place in the past, such as how life began, we are not talking about science in a strict sense, but  rather our faith or beliefs that are based on various things: such as our personal observations, experiences, or assumptions with regard to written history, archeology, the geological/fossil record, and/or upon second or third-hand information that scientists, the media, or others have told us that they believe to be true.  Others, such as myself, would say that our faith is also based on our own personal experiences with the Creator, Himself.

Creation is based on the belief that an intelligent Creator/God purposely designed and put the universe together.  Evolution is based on the belief that life formed from non-living materials and that random chance and millions of highly favorable and innovative mistakes or "mutations" were able to complement and build upon one another  to create all the life forms which exist today, and/or have become extinct.  Only one of these beliefs can be true. Either we evolved, or we were designed and created.  If it turns out we were created, then this means that there are absolutes, and that everything is NOT relative, because the fact that we have been created (by a Creator) is (or would be), in itself, an absolute truth: whether or not the Creator created us directly from "the dust of the ground" as we are told in Genesis (2:7, 9, 19), or indirectly by selecting and establishing the Laws of nature, and organizing the first self-replicating organisms, and letting them "take their course." 

Furthermore, if it turns out that God did, in fact, spontaneously create every different life-form that ever existed on this planet within a matter of days -- whether from the dust or ground or not (Gen. 2:7, 19; Ex. 20:11; Ps. 33:6-9), then many other truths would result from this one absolute truth: including moral truths of right and wrong.  This is because this one fact (i.e. that God created us) means that this is His universe, and therefore He owns it and everything in it.   In other words, if there is a Creator / God, then He can establish and declare what is right and wrong, and hold us accountable for opposing or ignoring Him or His plans or for violating His moral laws of right and wrong that are said to be "written in their hearts." Romans 2:15.  We can also say this because according to Scripture, God actually wants a relationship with each of us: and especially since He made us in His image: John 14:23; 17:3; Rev. 3:20. 

Also, if you believe that God directed the process of creation, or that He started the first living cells and the Laws that allow for life to exist, and put them in a suitable environment, and then allowed "mother nature" or amoebas to "take over" and create all of the various and wondrous forms of life that we see around us -- over millions of years, then you believe in Slow Creation: not evolution. 

Neither the Creationist nor Evolutionist views are based solely on science, for they both make assumptions about the past that cannot be verified by any present methods or experiments and are therefore believed by faith. Therefore, since  no one can demonstrate how it happened, or even how the first living cell (somehow and against all odds) got itself started, we are free to make up our own minds regarding who is right and how it occurred, and we should also be free to speak our minds in any public forum without fear of offending those who have (very likely) been brainwashed (and lied to) by the Mass Media to believe something that (based on the "odds" alone) cannot be true -- whether it be in a 5th grade public classroom  or while obtaining a Ph.D. in Microbiology.  

The 88 Percent Majority -- Overruled by the 12% and the mass media

It is also the author's hope that all of those who read this will do so with an open mind and weigh the evidence against what we know to be true. With that said I will openly state that I am among the 88% majority 2  in the U.S. who believe that the earth and all of its complex life forms were designed and created by an intelligence far superior to our own, and that the evidence we have, when presented fairly and accurately, overwhelmingly  supports Special Creation.  In this regard, Special Creation means that God initiated the creation process, and oversaw it, and literally programmed the DNA of each and every species of life, and also created the first proteins and enzymes from scratch -- as opposed to over millions of years and/or by mistakes or mutations.

When was the last time that the Mainstream Media gave Creation Scientists ANY airtime?  Or when has the Mass Media promoted, and/or published even ONE open debate on college campuses between a creation scientist and and Evolutionist?  Or when have they aired any of the numerous Creation Videos?  To my knowledge NOT EVEN ONCE, but rather only very selective and highly edited bits and pieces of what we have to say.  That's because the theory of evolution is a bankrupt theory that cannot stand up to the light of day, and so its promoters, with the continual help of the Media, are allowed to continue promoting a theory that is falsely called "science" -- that should have been abandoned years ago.

The Facts of Life

Those who hail evolution as a “fact” are either ignorant of the facts, or lying about them.  The fact is that scientists have only been able to create 13 of the 20 amino acids that make up proteins.  And even these (almost always) consist of 50/50 mixtures of L-type (left-handed) and D-type (right-handed) amino acids.  This is about as far from making a living organism as a piece of silver is from a computer (with monitor, printer, and electricity) running on a well-designed, and redesigned (or improved) program like Windows XP or 7..  For even the most "simple," self-replicating, bacterium contains many thousands of protein molecules, of 600 different types, that consist of  left-handed (only) amino acids -- each of which is connected in just the right order, like words and sentences, while the most basic protein molecule (only 8 amino acids long) has never been observed to form naturally (i.e. apart from pre-existing cell machinery and the stored information in DNA). 

The most basic self-replicating bacterium is called MycoplasmaIt consists of at least 40,000 proteins of 600 different types, has 482 genes, and can't survive on its own but requires the aid of a more complex host organism.  

To suppose that one of these extremely complex creatures came into being by itself (over Billions of years)  is an unsubstantiated speculation of the highest order and is NOT based on empirical (i.e. observed) science, but rather upon a blind faith in the power of (unintelligent) matter to somehow organize itself by time and chance, while overcoming the destructive forces of nature such as heat and cold, oxidation, hydrolysis, and numerous toxic chemicals.

For example, is there reason to expect that a Creative bolt of Lightning, or "Ocean Bubble" could produce a half-way-formed "pre-mycoplasmic" organic blob of cells, that would, in Billion or Trillions of years, make itself more and more complex, to the point where it could maintain and  Reproduce itself ?  Or would such a (hypothetical) halfway formed blob of chemicals simply decay and degrade via natural processes?  Keep in mind that for it to "select" a benefit, it would first need to be able to reproduce itself -- which it can't -- and the thing "selected" would need to convey some sort of benefit.  And without an overriding Intelligence to oversee it, or without pre-programmed "target," it has no ability to 'select' for anything because it isn't alive, has no brain, and is blind to everything around it.  

Like it or not, the facts of science declare that such an imaginary "pre-creature" would not complete this process on its own, but would instead merely decay back into the unintelligent matter from which it came.  In other words, a belief in evolution is based much more on (blind) faith, as opposed to scientifically observed facts; however this is NOT what our children are being taught in public schools, but rather instead are being brainwashed to believe something that (most certainly) can't be true: thanks to the Media and the Democratic Party -- who for many years have endorsed and/or propped up the collapsing theory of evolution, and falsely label it "science" -- as opposed to exposing it for the blind-faith religion or theory-based belief that it is. 

But, for the sake of those interested, lets look more closely at the inner workings of the cell.  For example, living organisms possess a molecule called  Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid (or DNA). This molecule contains the information needed to make a specific life-form, and which enables it to maintain and repair itself The DNA molecule is mysteriously broken down into genes.  One DNA molecule may have thousands of different genes or protein blueprints.  These genes are (relatively) small portions of chemically coded information that are used to make proteins.  The  DNA cannot "decode" itself, but requires the aid of numerous proteins (that also don't form naturally) to do so.  If a DNA molecule were compared to a book, then its genes would be the equivalent to individual (long) words or sentences of that book, and the DNA equivalent to the Book itself, but a living organism is even more complicated than that since it can actually reproduce itself, and because ....

The DNA in living organisms makes molecular machinery (as in complex molecules called polymerase and helicase) that enables it to copy its information. For example, when a DNA molecule copies one of its genes, the copy is called RNA. This RNA molecule then leaves the DNA and travels to the ribosome, where the information is re-read and translated from a 4-letter (DNA/RNA) code to a 20-letter amino-acid / protein code. This complex molecule then must be folded into the correct shape in order for it to become a useful protein.  The RNA molecule is a small mobile copy of DNA.  Ribosomes are tiny protein factories that take the information from the RNA and use it to make homochiralic proteins from L-type amino acids.  Proteins are not known to form naturally in slime-pools, oceans, or laboratories, but rather are only made by living organisms.
Living cells are also quite fragile and require a protective membrane to enclose them and to keep harmful substances out. If they get too hot or too cold they will die.  If there isn't enough oxygen, or if there is too little, or too much of certain elements or substances they will also cease to function. In fact, even
water itself  must not be allowed to come inside the cell membrane without being strictly regulated: the same goes for all other elements.

In other words, life is fragile. It is also loaded with information, or like a highly ordered and complex program (or book) that is hundreds to  thousands of pages long and so far nature, on its own, can't even write a single line of that book.  The popular theory of evolution proposes that the book of life -- with all of its twists and turns and complexity -- wrote itself, without the aid of an intelligence.  Just as amazing, if not more so, is that there are still many University Professors and scientists who have Great Faith in the mysterious power of Nature to create such complex things as living organisms that they can't duplicate.

Some bacteria even have microscopic motors that they use to propel themselves forward or backward.  Did they also "evolve" by themselves? 

See also:
Is water the Solution?
Life, DNA, and Proteins 
Response to Comments above 
How Life Began  by Thomas F. Heinze 
Which is more Scientific Creation or Evolution?
Why Abiogenesis is Impossible, by Dr. Jerry Bergman, 
Scientific Evidence that God created Life, also by Heinze 
A Closer Look at the Evidence by Richard and Tina Kleiss, 
The Origin of Information
by Mark Eastman and Chuck Missler
 The Odds of Evolution Occurring by Chance --
excerpts from 
How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove Evolution theory, 
DNA Demands Creation By Design
by Carl Cantrell
Could Life "Just Happen"? 
by Ron Lyttle
The Origin of Life
by Eric Blievernicht

See also: 
Where we discover that Evolution is:
Chemically, Biologically & Mathematically  Impossible

What Scientists Say Behind the Scenes

The lead paragraph of an article titled "The Major Evolutionary Transitions," stated the following :

"There is no theoretical reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity  with time, and no  empirical" (or observable) "evidence that they do.  Nevertheless, eukaryotic cells are more  complex than  prokaryotic ones, animals and plants are  more  complex than  protists,  and  so on.  This increase may have been achieved as a result of a series of major evolutionary transitions ..." 3  Emphasis added

Did you catch that? After more than 100 years of proclaiming evolution as an established fact, scientists are now admitting (in a prestigious science journal) that there is no actual evidence that evolution takes place.  And the evidence they do proclaim is highly subjective.  Consequently, they use the words "may have been achieved," as opposed to "is" achieved.  The fact that certain types of cells appear to be more complex than others in no way proves (or even validates) that evolution has occurred.  An example of this is the automobile: just because it "appears" more complex than a bicycle, does not indicate that either of them "evolved" without the aid of an outside intelligence such as a Designer / Builder / or Creator.  To the contrary, we know that they were, in fact, both Designed and created by man.

The Fossil Record

The fossil record also offers very little evidence for evolution.  If  this  were not the case,  then  the theory of Punctuated equilibrium would never have been concocted.  This is the belief that evolution from one form to the next occurred too quickly to be recorded in the fossil record.  And (so we are told that) this is why we find so few examples of transitional forms. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  See Links below for more details.

See also:
Questions & Answers  
Human Vs Chimp DNA 
Ape >>> Human Evolution 
Neanderthals are Still Human 
Neanderthal Man: Another Look 
Recovery of  Neanderthal  mtDNA 
 Punctuated Equilibrium: Come of Age 
Neanderthal buried in Chain Mail Armor


Evolution and the Age of the Earth

The younger the age of the earth, the more difficult it becomes to believe in evolution.  This is because of the Astronomically Great, if not impossible  "odds" against life spontaneously generating itself and then changing into more and more complex forms without the aid of an outside Intelligence / Creator / God .  This is why Sir Fred Hoyle, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University said that:

"The odds of higher  forms of  life evolving  by chance are about  the  same as if  a tornado swept through a junkyard and  assembled a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." 13

Evolutionists attempt to overcome these odds by invoking such things as the "wand" (as in magic and mysterious wand) "of evolution" 14   Emphasis added

This magical formula consists of three beliefs: 

1)  The belief that life began from the random mixing of chemicals without any help from an
      outside intelligence.
2)  The belief that random mutations were able to produce small  beneficial changes which 
      (over many millions of years) created very innovative and complex structures such as arms,
      legs, hands, toes, eyes, ears, wings, and feathers -- not to mention the multitudes of complex
      internal organs such as a heart/motor, lungs and male and female reproductive organs.
3)  The belief that the earth is extremely old.

The third belief is necessary because if the earth is young then there wouldn't be enough time for the millions and millions of beneficial mistakes to take place.  This is why evolutionists only talk about "clocks" which supposedly prove that the earth is billions of years old, and why they are unwilling to accept or publicly discuss any of the various clocks that yield young ages for the earth, the solar system, and the universe.  For to do so would cast further doubt upon their theory.  This is also why the Mass Media is afraid to give Creationist Scientists any Airtime.  For if they did so -- without editing out much (if not most) of what was said -- then it wouldn't be long before the theory of evolution would cease being taught (as if it were a fact) in public classrooms across this land.  Nor would it be long before Scientists and Professors across this land would be apologizing for their part in promoting an outdated, if not totally bankrupt, theory.

For a more detailed discussion of how evolutionary theory is bound to the concept of an Old Earth, see:
An Old Age for the Earth Is the Heart of Evolution by Jonathan F. Henry, Ph.D.

Truth or Story Telling: The Frog to Prince Trick 

Imagine for a moment, if someone told you a "story" about a frog that turned into a prince.  No matter how eloquent they were, most of us would think they were either pulling our leg or lacking in common sense.  Many would think the storyteller was insane -- regardless of his or her "Credentials."  However, when scientists tell us they "believe" or "accept" or "know" that the frog evolved into a prince - over millions of years - in teeny tiny steps, many Judges, Legislators, and media people are willing to jump onto their ship.  

But are they telling the truth, or fanciful stories based on very optimistic imaginations?

Living Organisms are Quite Complex
While scientists and engineers can make various complex things such as airplanes, automobiles, and computers, they can't make even the simplest form of life: not even a one-celled amoeba or a grain of wheat, much less a worm or a caterpillar. That's because life is extremely complex and orderly on a microscopic level. Even if all of the right ingredients were together in a flask, each of the amino acids, proteins, and molecules must still be put in precise order.  And even when the cells are in the right order, we still don't know what makes them come to life.

For example if we took a "simple" life-form (such as a jellyfish or an amoeba), placed it in a blender and mixed it up. Though all the ingredients necessary for life are in the blender, once they are mixed, they are no longer orderly; and try as one might, no one yet has been able to put the molecules back into the original order, much less bring the dead creature back to life.

A puzzle isn't put together by throwing its pieces in a box and shaking them up.  By the same token, when a radio or a computer is built, each component must be made in a specific way, of the right substance, using very specific processes, and then, all of its pieces must be put in the correct place on a properly designed circuit board.  In other words, as far as we know, complex and orderly things require intelligent beings to design and create them.

This brings us to one of the most basic facts of biology: the law of biogenesis.  This law states that life always comes from life and that each type of life reproduces after its own kind.  See also Genesis 1:21-25.

See also: The Facts of Life, Fantasy Land, and below. 

Mission Impossible or Creator God:  
Evidence of Creator -- or -- Extremely Rapid Change   

One of the most fascinating creatures is the butterfly.  It had never occurred to me how this small creature is, in and of itself, evidence of a creator until I heard Dr. Duane Gish, a scientist from the Institute of Creation Research and a Graduate from U. C. Berkeley,  elaborate on the fact that the rapid transformation which takes place during metamorphosis is diametrically opposed to the theory of evolution, which says that living organisms change very S-L-O-W-L-Y over L-O-N-G periods of Time.

The transformation from caterpillar to butterfly poses a Major Problem for evolution. This is because caterpillars come from butterflies. But evolutionary theory says that life changes from one form to another slowly (i.e. over “millions of years”) as a result of multitudes of tiny mistakes in the DNA.  If evolution were true, then how did the first two “protopillars” transform themselves into fully mature butterflies simultaneously in such a short time-frame (i.e. about 14 days)?  I say “they” because both the male and the female are needed to make butterfly eggs. What makes this more amazing is that during “metamorphosis” the caterpillar’s internal organs dissolve into a liquid before they “morph” into a butterfly.

What the first two “protopillars” did is the equivalent of a man and  woman placing themselves in a  deep sleep and  within a matter of months Transforming themselves into  flying  angels with wings, and henceforth giving birth to "people" that (in time) would also change into angel-like beings.

For, without both male and female butterflies (with fully developed reproductive organs) you don’t have butterfly eggs, and without butterfly eggs, you don’t have caterpillars, and without caterpillars, you don’t have cocoons … 

Note also that it wasn’t just the reproductive organs that formed in just days as opposed to millions of years, but also wings, and wing veins -- with fluid that is pumped both into their wings, to make them straight, and then pumped out, to make them light again.  But they also now have new jointed legs -- with ligaments and tendons and nerves connected in just the right place so that the newly transformed creature can stand up and walk.  And their wings also are jointed and have muscles attached in just the right place so that they can rapidly flap them back and forth to fly.  They also have much more complex eyes and antennae that just (supposedly and spontaneously) "developed".  Even more amazing is that this mind-boggling transformation didn’t just happen once, but tens of thousands of times with each species of butterfly, moth, fly and flying beetle. 

In this regard, Frank Sherwin quotes Richard Milton (a non-creationist) as follows with regard to this mystery: 

" stage or aspect of this physical process can be accounted for or even guessed at with our current knowledge of chemistry, physics, genetics, or molecular biology, extensive though they are.  It is completely beyond us.  We know practically nothing about the plan or program governing the metamorphosis, or the organizing agency that executes this plan." 15

In other words, in spite of the bold pronouncements of people who call themselves "scientists," the fact is that such evidence strongly suggests that these creatures were programmed to transform by an intelligence far superior to ours, and that the evidence of design is overwhelming: which leads to the logical conclusion that there must be a Creator.  But in spite of these facts, and major problems for the theory of evolution, (or even "Slow Creation") the Mass Media, popular "science" publications, and a great many University Professors -- whose Jobs require them to toe the line regarding evolutionary dogma -- seem to be Hell-Bent on ignoring this evidence, along with the even more astounding  "odds" against that first (purely hypothetical) self-replicating organism coming to life via purely natural processes.  In other words, they believe what they believe, in spite of the "odds" and evidence against it, and have instead chosen to believe something that is not supported by the facts -- as opposed to something that is.  It is also sad that such people have been given such a strong hold on our Institutions of higher learning: so much so that the truth is only important when, or if it agrees with their AGENDA of brainwashing the public to believe a Fairy Tale.

See also: 
  Butterfly Metamorphosis 
Video of Butterfly Metamorphosis 
Mission Impossible: the Monarch Butterfly 

Butterflies - The Miracle of Metamorphosis 

What Does the Moon Have to say about all this?

I am glad you asked.  For the Moon should also have at least some say in whether or not it thinks that God had anything to do with the Creation of the Sun and the Earth and the Moon.  Thanks to Tim Wildmon, and the authors of a new book, we now have our answer.

“Knight and Butler, then noticed some very odd mathematical relationships between the size of the Moon, Earth and Sun.  The orbital characteristics of the Moon and Earth, they say, are unlikely to exist by chance alone.  For example, the Earth revolves 366 times in one orbit of the Sun and the Earth is 366% larger than the Moon.  Conversely, the Moon takes 27.32 days to orbit the Earth and is 27.32% of the Earth’s size.” 16

 Wildmon then quotes Knight and Butler as follows:

There is no possible relationship between the relative size of the Earth and the Moon and their orbital characteristics, yet the numbers are the same.  And that was just the first of many such patterns,” said Knight.  “The number 366 was the basis of the ancient measuring system we have reconstructed, and that number keeps popping up along with a small group of round numbers such as 400 and 10,000.  For example, the Moon is 400 times closer to the Earth than the Sun and exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun.  And in 366 orbits of the Moon, the Earth experiences 10,000 days.” 16

These are just some of the amazing “coincidences” that exist between the Earth, Moon, and Sun that seem to suggest (to those willing to listen) that an Intelligent Being of some sort had a Hand in the creation of the Earth, Moon, and Sun.  The Book is titled “Who Built the Moon?” by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler.

What Difference does it make?

When I first became a Christian I believed that the earth was "Billions of years" old, primarily because that's what I had been told (to believe) since the time I was a young child.  I was further told that science had demonstrated, or proven that we (almost certainly) evolved from some sort of ape, that evolved from a monkey, that came from  a lemur, that came from a squirrel, etc., ... that came from an amoeba, -- which came from an unknown lower life-form, and that began from the natural reactions of matter, chemicals, water, etc. over eons of Time. 

But something inside just didn't feel right, and so, I quite naturally questioned the whole thing; and through a series of circumstances I became aware of God's existence, and shortly after I became a follower of Jesus.

And within a few years of learning about God and who He is I discovered organizations like the Institute for Creation Research.  Several years later I began to look into the question of the Earth's Age for  myself, and within a few years I concluded that science had not "proven" the earth to be "billions of years" old, much less that life had evolved from primordial slime, via natural processes.  I also remember looking into the Scriptures and finding one verse that seemed to suggest that perhaps the earth was much older than 6,000 years (Gen. 2:4), yet finding many others that seemed to say that life began suddenly, by the command /or voice of God: Gen. 2:7-9, 19; Exodus 20:8-11; Ps. 33:6-10; Matt. 19:4-6.  Therefore I am not going to be dogmatic about this, nor am I going to go into a lengthy discussion of it but rather simply provide the interested reader with various Links whereby he or she can check this out for himself or herself.  However, I will state that I believe that the Young Earth Viewpoint is, in fact, far more supported by the evidence both from Scripture and Science.  For example, in Genesis 2:7 we are told that God made man from the dust: as opposed to (from) an ape, or ape man -- thus telling us God didn't need, or take, millions of years to create Adam.  And in like manner, we are told in Genesis 2:19 that God made all of the animals and birds in like manner: i.e. from the ground -- meaning that there is not one iota of Scriptural support for slow change over eons of time, but rather God just "spoke" and "it was done." Psalm 33:6-9.   

Here's a Link-Page to various articles on both sides of this issue.  See Parts One -- Five for more details on the geological and scientific evidence for a young earth, solar system, and universe.  The associated Links are below.


Note to Reader

Which God Will it be:
Your Creator
, or another god?

Copyright, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2013, Randy S. Berg;  
Copies may be distributed freely for educational purposes.  


See also:
Do We Need God? 
If So, When?

The Age of the Earth: 

Part One: 
Radiometric Dating 

Part Two: 
Continental Drift 

Part Three: 
The Big Bang Creation Story 

Part Four: 
Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

Part Five: 
Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth 

Redefining  Science 
Creation, The Science
A Creation  Perspective
Evidence for a Young Earth
Is  Evolution a  Fact  of Science?
Six  Days or  Six vast Time Periods  
Young Earth - Old  Earth Link Page 
Modern Science's Christian  Foundation 
True Origin Archive  of Creationist  Papers 
Top evidences against the Theory of Evolution
Outline of  Earth History as  Revealed  in  Genesis 
Is Antibiotic Resistance an example of Evolution? 
Do Mutations Support Evolution theory? 

Articles on the Age of the Earth:
The Missing Roots 
The Missing Matter 
Radiometric Dating 
Essays  on Evolution
The  Age of  the  Earth 
Young  Earth Evidence 
The  Age of the  Universe 
The Continental Drift story 
Evidence for a Young  World 
The  Evolution of  a  Creationist 
The Age of the  Earth One & Two 
A Closer Look at the Age of the Earth 
Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation 
Is  the  Earth Really 4.5  Billion Years Old? 
Do Evaporites and Varves favor an Old Earth?  
What You Probably Didn't Know About Ice Cores
If Corals are so Old, then why do they Date so Young? 
Young age of the Earth & Universe Questions & Answers


Related Books 
The Young Earth 
The Age of the Earth 
Faith, Form and Time 
Thousands Not Billions 
The  Great  Turning Point 

Its a  Young  World after All 
Illustrated Origins Answer Book 
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth 


Links to Creation Sites
True Origin Archive 
Creationist Author
Creation Web Sites Links 
VHS & DVD Video Links 
The Age of the Earth Links 
Science's Christian Foundation 

Fantasy Land   
Evidence for an Old Earth

See Also:
Was the Earth made Quickly?
Did Humans Evolve from Coral?