New scientific discoveries are pointing to a much younger earth. An Earth that is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. This post is the third and last in the series showing still more evidence for a young earth.

Cosmic Dust: There is a constant rate of cosmic dust particles entering the earth’s atmosphere from space and then settling to the earth’s surface. According to NASA, there are 200 million tons of dust coming to earth every year. If the earth were 4.6 billion years old as evolutionists claim, there would be a layer of meteoritic dust nearly a half mile in thickness over the entire world. The same would be true of the moon. In fact, one of the concerns before the moon landing was that the astronauts would sink into the dust upon landing on the moon. Of course, that didn’t happen, which speaks of a very young moon, earth, and universe.  (G.S. Hawkins, Ed., Meteor Orbits and Dust, published by NASA, 1976)

Evolutionists had long held to the fact that the earth and moon are about the same age. It is believed, by many, that the Earth and its moon are billions of years old. If that were true, the moon would by now have built up a 20-60 mile layer of dust on it! Continue reading →

New scientific discoveries are pointing to a much younger earth. One that is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. This is the second post in this series showing the evidence for a young earth.

The faint young sun paradox: The Sun derives energy by the thermonuclear conversion of hydrogen into helium. Over the Sun’s lifetime, the thermonuclear reactions would, according to theory, gradually change the composition of the core of the Sun and alter the Sun’s overall physical structure. Because of this process, the Sun would gradually grow brighter with age. Thus, if the Sun is indeed 4.6 billion years old, it should have brightened by nearly 40% over this time. This means that if billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth’s history. Astronomers call this the ‘faint young sun paradox’, but it is no paradox at all if the sun is only as old as the Bible says—about 6,000 years.

Evolutionists believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of –3ºC. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. (Jonathan Sarfati, Our Steady Sun: A  Problem For Billions of Years) Continue reading →

The standard secular timeline is that the earth is some 4.6 billion years old. The theory of an old earth is in direct contrast to what the Bible teaches. The Bible gives us a chronological and genealogical history of people and events beginning from the time of creation, throughout history, making the earth a little over 6000 years old. An old earth is important for the evolutionists. They believe that given enough time, anything is possible, even evolution. There is a lot of controversy over the various dating methods; many have been shown to be in error by millions of years. I will be deal with these in later posts.

New scientific discoveries are pointing to a much younger earth. One that is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. I will be posting many of these over the next month starting with the following:

The Shrinking Sun: For the past one hundred and fifty years, astronomers have made regular measurements of the diameter of the sun. These measurements have shown that the sun is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. 100,000 years ago the sun would have been twice its present size.But in far less time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist. Studies have shown that if the size of the sun or the earth’s distance from it, were either slightly greater or smaller, life on Earth could not exist.

Continue reading →

On several recent posts, there have been many that believe in evolution, that have made comments against what I have written or against the comments Christians have posted. It is clear that they think that if you believe in creation, then you don’t believe in science. That is not true. Science has made our lives better and easier in many ways. Certainly, much of what I was posting from the Bible concerning nature, medical, sanitation, and the universe would be considered scientific. There have been many great scientists that believed in creation and the Bible. They saw no conflict between the two. Scientists such as Isaac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, Francis Bacon, Samuel Morse, Blaise Pascal, Albert Einstein, and Galileo, just to name a few.

“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.“ – Albert Einstein, 1941

Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory that has never been proven but has been taught in our universities, as if it was a proven fact. Tens of thousands of people believe evolution is a proven fact, simply because that is what they were taught. Most students accept anything their professor say as absolute truth.

Physicist Mark Singham, speaking on the trust that college students have for their professors and in what they are being taught.

“And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them…….We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.”

Not all scientists believe in evolution. The number that is rejecting evolution is growing every day. There are roughly one thousand scientists that align themselves with the Institute for Creation Research. No new scientific papers are being published that would support evolution. However, there is a constant flow of papers being published that contain new discoveries that show evolution is impossible.

    “I could find not a single published scientific paper reporting the evidence that supports the fundamental requirement of evolution that new meaningful genetic information arises by chance. Instead, I have found much-published data showing that it is impossible for new purposeful genetic information of any significance for evolution to arise by chance.” (Dr. John Ashton, Evolution Impossible)

      “The new studies in molecular science are showing that each class of species at a molecular level is unique, isolated, and unlinked by intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology.” (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)

Science will disprove evolution

Continue reading →

The fossil record in the sedimentary rocks is supposed to show the evolution of life to more advanced and complex life forms, over vast spans of time. Evolutionist looks to the fossils as proof that evolution took place. As Geologist Carl Dunbar stated:

“Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms.”

However, in the billions of fossils, there is not a single example of one species transitioning into another. There are no transitional fossils. Even the evolutionist admit that there are none. I include several quotes by evolutionists later in this post.

Continue reading →