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
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
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
The 88% Majority
The Facts of
say in Private
The Fossil Record
the Age of the Earth
or Story Telling: The
Impossible or Creator God
What does the Moon have to
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."
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,
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,
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
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."
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
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"
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.
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
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
on college campuses
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.
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 Mycoplasma.
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
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.
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?
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
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
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
things as living organisms that they can't duplicate.
Some bacteria even have
that they use to propel themselves forward or backward. Did they
also "evolve" by themselves?
DNA, and Proteins
to Comments above
Life Began by
is more Scientific Creation
Abiogenesis is Impossible,
by Dr. Jerry Bergman,
Evidence that God created Life,
also by Heinze
Closer Look at the Evidence by Richard and Tina Kleiss,
The Origin of Information
by Mark Eastman and Chuck Missler
Odds of Evolution Occurring by Chance --
How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove
DNA Demands Creation By Design
by Carl Cantrell
Life "Just Happen"? by Ron Lyttle
Origin of Life by Eric Blievernicht
See also: EvolutionisImpossible.com
Where we discover that Evolution is:
What Scientists Say Behind the Scenes
The lead paragraph of an
article titled "The Major Evolutionary Transitions," stated the following :
no theoretical reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time, and no empirical"
that they do.
Nevertheless, eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotic ones, animals and plants are more complex than protists, and
This increase may have been achieved
as a result of a series of major evolutionary
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
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
Links below for more details.
Questions & Answers
>>> Human Evolution
are Still Human
Man: Another Look
of Neanderthal mtDNA
Equilibrium: Come of Age
buried in Chain Mail Armor
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"
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
This magical formula consists of three beliefs:
1) The belief that life began from the random mixing of chemicals without
any help from an
2) The belief that random mutations were able to produce small beneficial
(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
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,
An Old Age for the Earth Is the Heart of Evolution
by Jonathan F. Henry, Ph.D.
Truth or Story Telling:
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
they telling the truth, or fanciful stories based on very optimistic
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
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
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
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
See also: The
Facts of Life,
Impossible or Creator God:
Evidence of Creator
-- or --
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
What the first two “protopillars” did is the equivalent of a man and woman placing themselves
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
In this regard,
(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
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
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
Video of Butterfly Metamorphosis
Mission Impossible: the Monarch Butterfly
- 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
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.
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.
God Will it be:
Copyright, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2013, Randy S. Berg;
Copies may be distributed freely for educational purposes.
Do We Need
Evidence for a Young
The Age of the Earth:
Big Bang Creation Story
Evidence for a Worldwide Flood
Creation, The Science
A Creation Perspective
Evidence for a Young Earth
Evolution a Fact of Science?
Days or Six vast Time Periods
Earth - Old Earth Link Page
Modern Science's Christian Foundation
Origin Archive of Creationist Papers
evidences against the Theory of Evolution
of Earth History as Revealed in Genesis
Antibiotic Resistance an example of Evolution?
Mutations Support Evolution theory?
Articles on the Age of the Earth:
Age of the Earth
Age of the Universe
Continental Drift story
Evidence for a Young World
Evolution of a Creationist
Age of the Earth One & Two
A Closer Look at the Age of the Earth
Supporting a Recent Creation
the Earth Really 4.5 Billion Years Old?
Evaporites and Varves favor an Old Earth?
What You Probably Didn't Know About Ice Cores
Corals are so Old, then why do they Date so Young?
Young age of the Earth & Universe Questions & Answers
Age of the Earth
Form and Time
Great Turning Point
Its a Young World after All
Illustrated Origins Answer Book
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth
Links to Creation Sites
& DVD Video Links
Age of the Earth Links
Science's Christian Foundation
Evidence for an Old Earth
the Earth made Quickly?
Did Humans Evolve