There are many differing views on the age of our Earth, as indeed there are on the age of the universe. Were the Earth and the universe created at the same instant, or did the Earth appear later, was there a gap between creation and God's forming of the fauna and flora of Earth? Is the Earth 6000 years old or 14 billion years. If it is just a few thousand years old, why does it look so old?
Is there any evidence, other than that accepted by secular science, that indicates a younger age, and if so where is it?
These are the questions that we hope to answer on this page.
Population Doubling Proof
Much information can be obtained from chronology and is a fascinating science discipline. The science is intrinsic to the history of nations and applying the correct time-lines to history. When chronology is applied to the early biblical history and characters it reveals some surprising details. The Chronologist, E.R Thiele in his book ‘The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings’, 1951 tells us that the marriage of Jacob (father of the Jewish race) took place in 1930 B.C. This was significant as the point at which the Jewish nation was started and the date is recorded in Hebrew history when the Jewish nation numbered just two. At a point just before Heir Hitler declared war upon Jewry and the rest of the sane world, the Jewish nation numbered 16 million souls. This is roughly 224 that is to say that the population has doubled twenty-four times between those two dates. Thiele gives us the following equation:
+1930 A.D. = years from Jacobs marriage to Hitler
= 3860 years
Divide this figure by 24 gives us the doubling rate for the Jewish race
= 3860/24 = 160.8333 (161) years
If we take the genealogies in the Bible, Noah’s flood occurred c589 years prior to Jacob’s marriage, making the date of the flood (1930 + 589 yrs) BC
= 2519 B.C. + 2005 years A.D. (today)
= 4524 years since the flood
The current population of the Earth is 2,500 million or 231
The population of the Earth 4524 years ago was eight (Noah and his wife plus three sons and their wives) or 23 .
Therefore to find the doubling rate we must divide 4524 by 28 = 161.6 years.
So the doubling rate for the whole of the human race is c161 years. An amazing coincidence, or is it? It proves that the Bible chronology is correct. Professor H. Enoch in his book Evolution or Creation (Evangelical Press 1976) says this, “If the Jewish race can be traced back to Jacob in 1930 B.C. which nobody doubts, then it is entirely reasonable and scientific to trace the entire human race to Noah and his family in 2519 B.C. Of course this proves nothing as to the date of Adam’s creation; but if the Bible figures are shown to be correct as far back as Noah, then there is no good reason to doubt the accuracy for the previous 1,700 years.”
We can of course invert this calculation and apply it to find out how many people should be living on Earth today if the flood had not taken place. Just by adding that extra 1,700 years (Adam to the flood) to the time, so ignoring the flood as evolutionists do, we must multiply the present population by 211 = 2048, more than two-thousand fold than it is today, clearly it is not in excess of five trillion persons (5000,000,000,000). We can go one step further and imagine what the population would be if the human race had really been around for the modern estimate of 100,000 years. The result is unimaginable and clearly we need not do the math to know that the population would be such that this world could not support it.
Every day the surface of this planet is showered by dust, you may have thought that the dust accumulated on your patio furniture between barbeques was caused by passing traffic or next door’s DIY. Well this may be partly true but mixed in with the terrestrial dust is dust from outer space. Before we get into The Outer Limits type invasion by stealth, I need to say that this is inert meteoritic dust consisting mainly of nickel-titanium. The dust falls on the surface of the Earth in fairly evenly spread and constant quantities, quantities than can be measured. There is disagreement about the amount of dust that arrives here each year but taking the lower estimates of around one hundred and fifty thousand tons each year we can safely make certain predictions. If this amount of dust has been descending upon the Earth since its supposed formation by evolutionary estimates, we would now be covered in a layer of dust fifty-two feet deep. Since you can see to read this, we are evidently not fifteen metres under the dust surface of our planet. Again if this amount of dust had landed upon the Earth then most of it would have found its way through rain, drain and river, into the seas. If this amount of dust were swept into the seas then we would be spending our holidays (once we had battled the surface dust to get to the coast) bathing in nothing more than sludge, not a pleasant thought. As we probably enjoyed our last swim in the sea I feel we can assume that this too is untrue. When NASA was planning to land on the moon they were worried about the depth of the dust there, which they assumed would have accumulated over billions of years. They need not have worried as upon arrival they found just three millimetres there. There are no weather systems on the Moon, no rain or wind, to move the dust around; it just stays where it lands. This was an embarrassment to evolutionists, so it was hushed up and the surprise was never shared with the media. This was of course evidence for a young Moon.
Once again we can invert the calculation and with some accuracy use it to estimate the age of the Earth. Because of the nickel- titanium content, which is a constant, if we measure the amount of it in our oceans and divide the result by the amount that arrives here every year, we should get a figure indicating how long the process has been continuing. When we make this calculation we find that there is somewhere between eight and ten thousand years worth in the seas, surprisingly close to the biblical estimates. As I stated previously to make this calculation we are forced to assume that a) the ingress of the dust has continued at a constant rate in the past, and b) that there was no nickel- titanium in the sea to start with. Although these are big assumptions, they are nothing to size of the assumptions made by evolution theorists. If it is unsafe to estimate the age of the earth, it is an indicator that the Earth is not thousands of millions of years old as it is unlikely that this invasion started just eight thousand years ago after millions of years of nothing.
One step on from nickel- titanium deposits are land sediments, sediments that rain and erosion have washed off the landmass into the oceans and seas. Again I feel very lucky that this Earth is not as old as evolutionists would hope it is, otherwise we would be in trouble. Every year somewhere around twenty-seven thousands million of tons of sediment are removed from the landmasses and deposited in the oceans, and settles on the sea beds. If this process is projected back a conservative one thousand million years, as evolutionists believe to be the age of the seas, the sediment layer would be almost nineteen miles deep. What the seas gain the continents must have lost, a simple equation, to account for this the landmass would need to loose an average of a thirty-eight mile thickness of terra firma. In reality the average sediment thickness is around one half mile; many geologists agree that this is not sufficient to account for one thousand million years of erosion.
It was Archimedes who discovered the principle of Displacement and shouted eureka, as his bath overflowed when he sat in it. Displacement happens when a body (or bodies or substances) is immersed in a liquid, the level of that liquid rises within a contained vessel to a level equal to the volume of that body. Therefore if a thirty-eight mile swathe of the land is dropped into the seas the sea level will rise to that equivalent volume. There being more sea than land these thirty-eight miles of sediment is reduced over the area of the sea but by my calculation the sea level should be twenty-nine miles higher than it is. As Mt Everest, the highest point on Earth, is but five and a half miles high, I don’t think we have much of a chance, unless you are a very strong swimmer.
Salt Content of the Oceans
Any one who has swallowed any quantities of seawater will realise just how salty it is. This salt arrives in the seas as a part of the sediments described above, a part of those thirty-eight miles of land we have lost. If we assume that there were no salt in the seas originally, which would have caused all sorts of problems for the proto-creatures developing through their first rounds of evolvement, and that some of the salt has been solidified into rock-salt, there is still considerably less than 200 million years worth in the sea. This figure is far short of the thousand million years that we are told the sea has existed for. If the process has been continuing for all of that thousand million years there should be near six times the content of salt in the sea today than there is.
God would of course have created the seas with the requisite salt content needed to sustain the life He created. I believe that the creation of rock salt roughly equals the addition of salt placed into the sea by erosion, in this way the content is stable and allows sea-life to exist. Today the salt content is actually falling, caused by global warming; the ice that melts into the oceans is having the effect of diluting the salt. This dilution process is affecting the buoyancy of the sea, which in turn cools the Gulf Stream down and diverts it away from the North Atlantic. The salt content is that sensitive, so it can be seen that if the salt content varied even slightly the affect would be devastating.
The Earth itself tells us that it cannot possibly be more than 20,000 years old. You see this planet has its own magnetic field, which considering the size and supposed age of this lump of rock, is an amazing fact. Normally bodies that are very hot and have a heavy metallic core create such fields.
Now for the science bit. All magnetic objects produce invisible lines of force that extend between the poles of the object. An easy way to visualize this is to spread iron filings on a sheet of paper and place a bar magnet under the paper. The iron filings will arrange themselves around the magnet and along the magnetic field lines. In the simplest terms, Earth can be thought of as a dipole (2-pole) magnet. Magnetic field lines radiate between Earth's north and south magnetic poles just as they do between the poles of a bar magnet. Charged particles become trapped on these field lines (just as the iron filings are trapped), forming the magnetosphere. The Earth's magnetic field is generated in the fluid outer core by a self-exciting dynamo process. Electrical currents flowing in the slowly moving molten iron generate the magnetic field. As well as the sources in the Earth's core the magnetic field observable at the Earth's surface has their source in the crust and in the ionosphere and magnetosphere.
Our planet’s magnetic field is decaying at a rate of knots; latest measurements estimate this decay at a factor of 2.7 over the past thousand years. If this decay has been constant, then only eight thousand years ago Earth would have had about the same strength of magnetic field as a Magnetic Star (a star that is very hot and consists of molten heavy metals). Go back to one million years and to say that the earth was an anomaly would be under stating the case by a factor of thousands. There exists today no detectable star having a magnetic field anywhere near what the field of the Earth would have been a million years ago.
On the 12th December 2003 CNN reported the failing Magnetic Field by saying:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The strength of the Earth's magnetic field has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years, raising the remote possibility that it may collapse and later reverse, flipping the planet's poles for the first time in nearly a million years, scientists said.
The article went on to report that Jeremy Bloxham of Harvard University had stated that if that rate of decline continued at the present rate it could disappear all together in around fifteen hundred to two thousand years. Such a trend could still have significant effects like temporary losses of atmospheric ozone, he said.
In defence, evolutionists claim that some sort of electric currents circulating in the Earth’s core causes this magnetic field. If this were so then the current needed to produce a magnetic field of the estimated strength of just twenty thousand years ago would have melted the earth and turned it into another Jupiter. However because the gravity of earth is many times less that that of Jupiter, the gas giant, the gas would have dissipated into space.
There is a theory that fits the facts much more exactly that the one the evolutionists offer. This theory explains all the known characteristics of the field; it is simple and based in pure physics. It explains all the above problems, matches historic and present data. The theory is that the field's energy has always decayed at the same rate, as now and therefore the field and the Earth could not be more than ten thousand years old.