What About Origins? (CreationPoints)

by Dr A J Monty White

  The simple fact is that the lifetimes of comets show that the solar system (and hence the earth) is merely a few thousand years old. As such a conclusion is so unacceptable to evolutionary astronomers, they have invented a cloud of comets that no one has ever observed and for existence of which there is no evidence.

  The next piece of scientific evidence that points to the fact that we are living on a young earth comes from the simple fact that the earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast. This argument was developed by the late Dr Thomas G. Barnes, who, until his death in October 2001, was emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso. In recent years, the argument has been refined by the well-known creationist Dr Russell Humphreys. In very simple terms, it has been shown that electrical resistance in the earth’s core causes the electrical current that produces the earth’s magnetic field to lose energy rapidly. As a result, the total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.35 It has been shown that, given that rate, the magnetic field (and hence the earth), cannot be more than 20,000 years old.36

  The fourth piece of evidence that we are living on a young earth actually comes from the fossil record. Soft-tissue cell-like microstructures, flexible and fibrous bone material, transparent and pliable blood vessels and red blood cells have been discovered in a Tyrannosaurus rex bone that is supposed to be over sixty-five million years old.37 These discoveries made by Dr Mary Schweitzer, and other material found by her and her colleagues since the early 1990s, will be dealt with again in Chapter 8 (under ‘Dinosaurs, birds and evolution’). Undecomposed DNA has also been discovered in a fossilized magnolia leaf that comes from the Clarikia Fossil Beds in North India.38 The leaf is supposed to be seventeen million years old. These discoveries are a real problem for evolutionists because such material is not supposed to exist for longer than a few thousand years. Hence these findings alone show that the sedimentary rocks and the fossils that they contain cannot be millions of years old. This, in turn, means that the earth cannot be millions of years old and that its age should therefore be measured in thousands of years instead.

  More evidence for a young earth comes from the rapid formation of geological features such as rock strata, canyons, drumlins and land formations such as hills, cliffs, beaches and lagoons. Such geological phenomena are well documented39 and further testify to the fact that the age of the earth should be measured in thousands rather than thousands of millions of years.

  As we have already noted, radiometric dating is often cited as proof that the earth is billions of years old. It may come as a surprise, therefore, to realize that this method of dating can also be used to show that the age of the earth should be measured in thousands rather than thousands of millions of years. First of all, we will look at the decay of uranium and thorium. As the radio-isotopes of these two elements decay, they emit alpha particles, which are helium-4 nuclei. As these alpha particles slow down, they pick up electrons to form helium-4 atoms. Now, this helium-4 migrates quickly through the earth’s crust into the atmosphere. It is possible to calculate the amount of helium-4 being produced by the decay of uranium and thorium, because we know the amount of these two elements in the earth’s crust. It is also possible to determine the amount of helium-4 in the atmosphere. Hence the age of the atmosphere can be calculated simply by dividing the amount of helium-4 in the atmosphere by the rate at which it is being added to the atmosphere. This calculation gives the age of the atmosphere as just over 11,000 years—a time period that is considerably less than the thousands of millions of years quoted by evolutionists and one that is more consistent with the age that is determined from the Scriptures.

  The other radiometric dating method that can be used to show that we are living on a young earth is radiocarbon dating. When we considered radiocarbon dating earlier, we saw that there is not an equilibrium between the rate of formation of radiocarbon in the upper atmosphere and its rate of disappearance from the biosphere. I have shown elsewhere40 that, from this imbalance, we can calculate that the upper age for the earth’s atmosphere is 10,500 years—a time that is again consistent with the biblical account of the earth’s creation and early history. This figure is again far short of the thousands of millions of years demanded by evolutionists. Furthermore, we have seen that radiocarbon has been found in coal and diamonds found sandwiched between rock layers alleged to be millions of years old, and that radiocarbon dating performed on the coal and the diamonds gave a radiocarbon age measured in thousands of years.

  In an editorial in the prestigious journal Science on 8 January 1982, it was stated that ‘those who propound creationism … have no substantial body of experimental data to back their prejudices’. This simply is not so, as we have seen in this chapter—particularly in this final section. We have seen that, contrary to what many people think, there is scientific evidence to show that the age of the earth should be measured in terms of thousands rather than thousands of millions of years.

  Conclusion

  In this chapter, we have looked at the problems faced by evolutionists in dating rocks. Although they confidently inform us that such and such a rock is so many millions of years old, we have seen that such dates are meaningless. This is because the dates are determined by a process of circular reasoning: rocks are dated by their fossils, and the fossils are dated by their supposed evolution, which, in turn, is proved by the dates of the rocks in which the fossils are found. Looking at radiometric dating, we saw that this, too, gives to rocks dates that are meaningless. The reason for this is that the assumptions made inevitably make radiometric dating inaccurate, as we have observed. We have concluded that radiometric dating is totally unreliable when put to the test. We saw that rocks, known to be less than a couple of hundred years old, are dated to be thousands, sometimes millions and sometimes thousands of millions of years old. Different dating methods consistently give different (so-called ‘discordant’) dates. Put simply, radiometric dating, even radiocarbon dating, cannot be trusted.

  Finally, however, we saw that there is scientific evidence from a variety of scientific disciplines—astronomy, geomagnetism, palaeontology, geomorphology and radiometric dating—to show that we are living on a young earth, just as taught in the Scriptures. We should not be afraid of those who tell us that we cannot trust the Bible because they know that the earth is billions of years old and this disproves the Bible. Such people are putting their trust in fallible dating methods rather than in the infallible Word of God.

  Notes

  1 Lyell stated that his intention was to ‘free the science from Moses’ in June 1830 in a letter to George Scrope. See the article at: amen.org.uk/studies/rh/new_panorama.htm.

  2 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: Penguin, 1968), p. 293.

  3 Taken from J. P. Riley and G. Skirrow, (eds.), Chemical Oceanography, vol. i (London: Academic Press, 1965), p. 164.

  4 Henry Morris, (ed.), Scientific Creationism (San Diego: Creation-Life, 1974).

  5 W. K. Hensley and W. A. Bassett, ‘Pressure Dependence of the Radioactive Decay Constant of Beryllium-7’, in Science, 181/4104 (1973), pp. 1164–1165.

  6 J. L. Anderson, Abstract of Papers for the 161st National Meeting, American Chemical Society, Los Angeles (1971).

  7 H. S. Slusher, Critique of Radiometric Dating (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1973), p. 18; R. M. Allen, ‘The Evaluation of Radiometric Evidence on the Age of the Earth’, in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (December 1952), p. 18; R. V. Gentry, ‘Cosmological Implications of Extinct Radioactivity from Pleochroic Haloes’, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, 3/20 (1966), pp. 17–20.

  8 R. Humphreys, ‘Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay’, in Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling and Eugene F. Chaffin, (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. ii (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005), p. 74.

  9 See, for example, J. P. Kirkaldy, Geological Time (E
dinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1971), pp. 70–71.

  10 Taken from Bodie Hodge, ‘How Old is the Earth?’, in Ken Ham, (ed.), The New Answers Book 2 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), p. 194.

  11 D. E. Fisher, Nature Physical Science, vol. 232 (19 July 1971), pp. 60–61.

  12 These tables are taken from Mike Riddle, ‘Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old?’, in Ham, (ed.), The New Answers Book, pp. 121–122.

  13 Nobel Lectures: Chemistry 1942–1962 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1964), pp. 587–612.

  14 From J. L. Kulp, ‘The Carbon-14 Method of Age Determination’, in Scientific Monthly, vol. 75 (November 1952), p. 261; Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood (London: Evangelical Press, 1969), pp. 371–373.

  15 A. E. Trueman, An Introduction to Geology (London: Thomas Murby, 1945), p. 208.

  16 H. R. Brannon et al., ‘Radiocarbon Evidence on the Dilution of Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon’, in Transactions, American Geophysical Union, vol. 38 (October 1957), p. 650.

  17 H. de Vries and H. T. Waterbolk, ‘Groningen Radio Carbon Dates III’, in Science, vol. 128 (19 December 1958), p. 1551.

  18 Ingrid U. Olson, (ed.), Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology (New York: Wiley Interscience, 1970).

  19 C. B. Hunt, ‘Radio Carbon Dating in the Light of Stratigraphy and Weathering Processes’, in Scientific Monthly, vol. 81 (November 1955), p. 240.

  20 F. Johnson, J. R. Arnold and R. F. Flint, ‘Radio Carbon Dating’, in Science, vol. 125 (8 February 1957).

  21 Hunt, ‘Radio Carbon Dating’, p. 240.

  22 Hensley and Bassett, ‘Pressure Dependence of the Radioactive Decay Constant of Beryllium-7’, pp. 1164–1165; J. L. Anderson, Abstract of Papers for the 161st National Meeting, American Chemical Society, Los Angeles (1971).

  23 Willard Libby, Radiocarbon Dating (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952), p. 8.

  24 C. Sewell, ‘Carbon-14 and the Age of the Earth’, 8 November 1999, at: www.rae.org/bits23.htm.

  25 Nobel Lectures: Chemistry 1942–1962, pp. 587–612.

  26 Andrew Snelling, ‘Conflicting “Ages” of Tertiary Basalt and Contained Wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia’, in Technical Journal, 14/2 (2005), pp. 99–122.

  27 John Baumgardner, ‘14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth’, in Vardiman et al., (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative (Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research; Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630.

  28 W. S. Glock and S. Agerter, ‘Anomalous Patterns in Tree Rings’, in Endeavour, vol. 22 (1963), pp. 9–13.

  29 E. Schulman, ‘Bristlecone Pine, Oldest Known Living Thing’, in National Geographic Magazine, 113/3 (1958), pp. 354–372.

  30 C. W. Ferguson, ‘Dendrochronology of Bristlecone Pine, Pinus aristata: Establishment of a 7484-Year Chronology in the White Mountains of Eastern-Central California, USA’, in Ingrid U. Olsson, (ed.), Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology (Nobel Symposium No. 12; New York: Wiley Interscience, 1970).

  31 C. W. Ferguson, ‘Bristlecone Pine: Science and Esthetics’, in Science, 159/3817 (1968), pp. 839–846.

  32 K. Davies, ‘Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy’, in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. ii (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1994), pp. 175–184.

  33 R. A. Littleton, Mysteries of the Solar System (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 110.

  34 Carl Sagan and A. Druyan, Comet (London: Headline, 1997), p. 210.

  35 D. R. Humphreys, ‘The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy’, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, 39/1 (2002), pp. 3–13.

  36 Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1983).

  37 Mary Higby Schweitzer, Jennifer L. Wittmeyer and John R. Horner, ‘Soft Tissue and Cellular Preservation in Vertebrate Skeletal Elements from the Cretaceous to the Present’, in Proceedings of the Royal Society, B22, 274/1607 (2007), pp. 183–197.

  38 Edward M. Golenberg et al., ‘Chloroplast DNA Sequence from a Miocene Magnolia Species’, in Nature, vol. 344 (12 April 1990), pp. 656–658.

  39 See, for example, the author’s talk entitled Geological Time Bombs (DVD; Biblical Foundations, Pontyclun, and Two By Two Ltd, Chesterfield, 2009).

  40 A. J. Monty White, How Old is the Earth? (Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 1985), pp. 88–91.

  Chapter 6

  The origin of the universe

  Astronomy is the science of the study of the stars. The word ‘astronomy’ literally means ‘star arranging’, as it is derived from two Greek words: astro meaning ‘star’ and nomos meaning ‘arranging’. The Oxford English Dictionary defines astronomy as ‘the science of the heavenly bodies’. It has come to mean the study of the general history and development of the universe, including cosmology, the study of its origin.

  Astronomy is a very popular science—it is often called everyone’s ‘second science’. It is probably the relationship between philosophy and astronomy that gives the latter such universal appeal. When we gaze into the heavens and consider the stars, we cannot help but ask questions like: Where do stars come from? When did the universe begin? Who or what is responsible for its existence? These are not trivial questions. They are questions upon which scientists, philosophers and the ‘man in the street’ have pondered for centuries. This was amply exemplified by atheist Isaac Asimov, when he wrote, ‘Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal-sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combining once more and vanishing. We are in one of those globs in the period of time between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it.’1

  Although it had its roots in Egypt, Babylon, Greece and China, it was not until Galileo used his telescope for astronomical observations in 1609 that astronomy began to develop as a science. This development was aided by the application of scientific method and principles developed by such people as Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe, Kepler and Newton. We are now in the period that has been called ‘post-modern astronomy, witnessing the progress of a revolution begun theoretically by Einstein and Friedmann and observationally by Hubble’.2 Yet the post-modern astronomer still asks the age-old questions: What kind of universe do we live in? What is its shape and size? Where did it come from?

  The nature of the universe

  In 1927 the famous British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane remarked that it was his suspicion that the universe was, in his own words, ‘not only queerer than we suppose, but it is queerer than we can suppose’.3 Haldane meant ‘stranger’ when he used the word ‘queerer’. In this section, I propose to undertake a quick tour of the universe in order to give us an idea of its nature and to see if Haldane was right to conclude that the universe is stranger than we can imagine. In order to do this, we will need to use the unit of distance that astronomers use—the light year. This is the distance that light travels in a year. Light travels about 186,000 miles in a second. This means that, if we could travel at the speed of light, we would be able to go around the earth about 7.5 times in a second! A light year is truly an enormous distance—it is about six trillion miles.4 One of the problems using a light year as a unit to measure distance is the confusion sometimes caused by the word ‘year’; some people think that time rather than distance is being referred to. This really should not be a problem so long as you keep firmly in your mind the fact that a light year is a measure of distance, not time.

  The planet earth is, on average, 7,926 miles in diameter at its equator; it revolves on its axis once every day, and travels at a speed which varies between 65,520 and 67,750 miles per hour around the sun. It takes a year for the earth to go once around the sun, which is on average about 92.6 million miles away—about 91 million miles away when the earth is at perihelion (that is, when it is nearest to the sun) and about 94.
5 million miles away when the earth is at aphelion (that is, when it is furthest from the sun). This distance to the sun is too big for many to grasp, so it tends to become meaningless. In order to put it into some type of perspective, imagine that you are travelling in a car at seventy miles per hour. At this speed, it would take you over 151 years to get to the sun. Our sun is a yellow dwarf star, which has a mean diameter of 864,327 miles. The sun can be thought of as a huge thermonuclear reactor in which 570 million tons of hydrogen are converted into 566 million tons of helium every second. This means that the sun is losing 4 million tons of its mass every second. But there is no need to worry. Even at this rate of ‘burning’, the sun will not ‘burn out’ for thousands of millions of years!

  The sun and the stars that can be seen from the earth are in a galaxy which we call the Milky Way. This galaxy, which is shaped like two huge fried eggs placed back to back, contains over 100 billion stars. The whole galaxy is rotating at such a rate that the sun, which is about two-thirds of the distance from the centre of the Milky Way, would take about 225 to 250 million years to complete one revolution (called the galactic year). Our galaxy is about 100,000 light years across (that’s about 600 quadrillion miles), and about 1,000 light years deep (that’s about six quadrillion miles) at the centre. The size of our Milky Way galaxy, compared with that of our solar system, is almost unimaginable. If the diameter of our solar system were represented by one inch, then, on this scale, the diameter of the Milky Way would be about 1,300 miles. The Milky Way is known to have about eighteen satellite galaxies—these are much smaller galaxies than the Milky Way and orbit it because of gravitational attraction. With these distances in mind, our nearest star-neighbour, Proxima Centauri, is practically on our doorstep, being 4.24 light years away—a mere twenty-five trillion miles; it would take over forty million years to travel this distance in a car travelling at seventy miles per hour.