Is the Earth old or young?

Is the earth and life billions of years old or not? Learn how the evidence does not support atheistic birth theories or long periods of time

If one had to name the main reason that has turned people away from God, the idea of an old earth and long periods of time would be a good choice. Many believe that the ancient earth and universe automatically prove evolution correct. Time makes everything possible so that a fish and the sea around it can be born from a space the size of a pinhead in the big bang. Later, the same fish should have turned into a frog and then into a human, as assumed in the theory of evolution. Long periods of time allow such miracles to happen. They are not doubted, but are considered scientific views. It is not taken into account that time in itself – despite there would be millions of years – does not prove evolution and disprove creation. On the contrary, the following three arguments speak for creation:

• The emergence of life by itself is an insurmountable problem. The more research that has been done, the more difficult the problem has become. The evidence is more appropriate for sudden creation.

• Variation has only been observed within the framework of the basic species. Darwin's book On the Origin of Species gives good examples from this area (finches et al.), but not a single example of real species changes. Examples that have generally been considered evolutionary are limited to this area only. Darwin had to admit this:

I am actually tired of telling people that I do not claim to have any direct evidence of a species having changed into another species and that I believe this view correct mainly because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based on it. (1)

• No intermediate forms have been observed in the fossil record. It has been taught that there has been a gradual evolution from a simple primordial cell to current forms, but there is no evidence in favor of it in fossils, which are the only history book about past life. Atheist-paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has stated:

The extreme rareness of intermediate forms in fossil material continues to be the trade secret of palaeontologists. The evolution trees appearing in our textbooks include facts only at the heads and folding points of the branches. The rest is reasoning, no matter how reasonable it is, not evidence of fossils –- I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...) (2)

What about when creation is rejected? It is interesting that critics always target the attack not so much on the creation itself, but on the creation that happened recently. They cannot accept that life could have appeared on our planet a few millennia ago, instead of hundreds of millions of years ago. Although they cannot prove the origin of life by itself or the intermediate forms between fossils, they are nevertheless sure that the universe, the Earth and life on Earth must be billions or hundreds of millions of years old. Therefore, they reject the idea of a young Earth and life on it.

Next, however, dozens of issues are raised that go against hundreds of millions of years. We start with two "explosions", which are the Cambrian explosion and the appearance of humans on the planet. Both of these occurrences go well with the creation model, but not the assumption of a long gradual development taught in the theory of evolution.

The Cambrian explosion and the appearance of man. One of the problems of the theory of evolution is the Cambrian explosion. It means that it is believed that most of the current life forms appeared on Earth in a relatively short time according to the evolutionary scale, i.e. in less than ten million years.

The problem is that these Cambrian fossils are completely finished and developed. They resemble current species, but the strata below them do not contain simpler forms that preceded them, as required by evolutionary theory. They lack simple ancestors, which clearly points to creation. They cannot be the result of gradual development.

Darwin, too, understood that the Cambrian explosion was a problem for his theory. He did not take the evidence as such like the most eminent paleontologists of his time. The situation has not changed at all since then, but the same problem still exists as the latter quote shows. It is difficult to explain why Cambrian organisms are complex, and under them there are no simpler forms that precede them:

Darwin: There is another similar difficulty of a much more serious nature. I mean that species belonging to various main periods of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known rock kinds that contain fossils. - - To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous formations belonging to those earliest ages, older than the Cambrian, I cannot give any satisfactory answer. - - Today we cannot come up with any explanation for this, and this fact can indeed be used as a weighty proof against the opinions I have presented. - - the sudden manner in which different groups of species appear in European formations; thirdly, the almost complete absence of formations rich in petrification below the Cambrian strata—all these difficulties are of a rather serious quality. It is therefore quite understandable that the most advanced paleontologists, such as Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande, Pictet, Falconer, E. Forbes, etc., and all our greatest geologists, such as Lyell, Murchison, Sedwick, etc., have unanimously, often vehemently, held to the immutability of species. (3)

Harold G. Coffin: If evolution from simple to complex is true, then the ancestors of these Cambrian, fully developed organisms should be found; but they have not been found, and scientists admit that there is little chance of find them. Based on the facts alone, based on what has actually been found in the earth, the theory that the main groups of living things originated in a sudden event of creation is the most likely. (4)

However, the Cambrian explosion is not the only problem in the theory of evolution. The same applies to humans. One of the most remarkable things is that the known history of man only goes back about 4000 to 5000 years. Suddenly and simultaneously appeared such things as writing, construction, cities, agriculture, culture, complex mathematics, ceramics, tool-making and other things considered characteristic of man. Many evolutionists like to talk about prehistoric and historical times, but there is no proper evidence that prehistoric times existed e.g. 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, because buildings and things mentioned in the list are not known for sure from that time.

It is completely strange that man would have evolved already a couple of million years ago, but his culture would have suddenly erupted a few millennia ago. A better explanation is that man has only existed for a few millennia, and therefore buildings, cities, language skills and culture have only appeared during that time.

The sudden emergence of man and culture is thus a similar problem to the Cambrian explosion. Neither fits the evolutionary view. The evidence points to the sudden emergence of both complex life and man as required by the creation model. Neither need be more than a few millennia old. (An indication that the Cambrian period is not far away is also the find of radiocarbon in the Cambrian fossils. When the half-life of radiocarbon is only approx. 5730 years, there should not be any of it left after 100,000 years. However, the fossils of the Cambrian period have radiocarbon, which shows the notions of millions of years to be false.) The following expert comments refer specifically to the sudden appearance of civilization on Earth:

W.F. Libby: "Arnold (my co-worker) and I were first shocked when we discovered that history only dates 5,000 years back in time. (...) We had often read about this or that culture or archaeological site being 20,000 years old. We quite quickly learned that these figures and early dates are not accurately known and that the time of the First Dynasty of Egypt is in reality the oldest historical point of time confirmed with some certainty." (5)

"The earliest notes we have of human history go back only about 5000 years." (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, 6th volume, p. 12)

In the recent excavations, the most surprising thing has been how suddenly civilization appeared in the world. This observation is quite at odds with what had been expected. It had been thought that the older the period in question, the more primitive the diggers would find it, until all the traces of civilization would disappear and the primitive man would appear. This has not been the case neither in Babylon nor in Egypt that are the oldest known human settlements. (6)

Archeopteryx, i.e. lizard bird. One good gauge for time speculation is Archeopteryx, i.e. the lizard bird, which has been considered the most important evidence for the theory of evolution. It is believed to be a cross between reptiles and birds, and its pictures adorn most books on evolution.

However, the status of Archeopteryx as a special intermediate form is made impossible by the following two facts:

1. Archeopteryx cannot be the ancestor of birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in layers older than its discovery site. So if some other birds are older than that, it cannot be an intermediate form between reptiles and birds, (Beards-ley, T., "Fossil Bird Shakes Evolutionary Hypotheses", Nature, vol. 322, 21 August 1986, p. 677) .

2. Archeopteryx cannot be an intermediate form between reptiles and birds, because all its features are either present in actual birds or are absent in many reptiles. Its wings are normal bird wings and other features show it as a real bird. So, if Archeopteryx is a bird, it cannot be an intermediate form, half reptile and half bird, as has been suggested.

The 1984 International Archeopteryx Conference in Eichstätt, Germany dealt with the same topic. Scientists specializing in the evolution of birds disagreed on almost everything related to Archeopteryx, but were widely agreed that Archeopteryx was a bird. Only a small minority thought it was a small, light-built coelurosaur [dinosaur].

What about man and Archeopteryx? One interesting discovery is an ancient Mayan relief. It features a bird that looks like Archeopteryx. This bird, which has been considered a contemporary of the dinosaurs, seems to have lived at the same time as humans:

Furthermore, an ancient relief by the Mayas has been found that resembles the lizard bird or Archaeopteryx. This means that there is an error of 130 million years in the dating. If the geological series of layers were correct, these two – the Mayas and the Archaeopteryx – could never have met. It is evident that the geological series of layers is wrong. (7)

Trilobites have generally been considered a species of the Cambrian period, whose heyday was approx. 600 – 250 million years ago. Remarkably, however is that from trilobite deposits have been found human footprints in more places. Here are a couple of examples.

Evolutionists like to believe that there are millions of years between the appearance of humans and trilobites, but they cannot prove this assumption. Trilobites don't have tags about when they lived on Earth. No one can determine their time of extinction only by looking at fossils. Only the geological time chart that was drawn up in the 19th century claims to know it, but it is impossible to prove this view.

It is just as possible that humans and trilobites coexisted, but only in different ecological zones: trilobites at the bottom of the sea, and humans on land. That is why we rarely find their remains in the same strata. However, there are a few discoveries that indicate their coexistence on the planet:

William Meister made an amazing discovery on June 1, 1968 in Utah. He found several trilobite fossils in a fossilized human sandal print! But according to evolutionary periods, arranged on the basis of geological strata, trilobites became extinct about 230 million years before man appeared!

… Geologist Dr. Clifford Burdick found further evidence to support the hypothesis of human and trilobite coexistence. He found the footprints of a barefoot child, one of which contained a flattened trilobite. (8)

What does the order of fossils tell us? One of the underlying assumptions of the theory of evolution is that the age of strata can be determined based on the fossils in them (as noted above, this is disproven by the fact that the strata came into being quickly – e.g., during with the Flood). If a stratum includes simple fossils of sea creatures then it is considered old, and if in the stratum there are fossils of mammals that lived on dry land then it is considered not so old. This is why fossils of rabbits can never be found in Precambrian or Cambrian era strata – because it is assumed that in those times there was life only in the seas. Richard Dawkins explains in his book The Greatest Show on Earth. The Evidence for Evolution:

If we go far enough into the past, all life was in the ocean... (p. 149)

…We don't need fossils - the evidence for evolution is indisputable even without them. So it is paradoxical to use gaps in the fossil record as if they were evidence against evolution. Like I said, it's lucky to have fossils at all.

Find even one fossil in the wrong geological stratum would be evidence against evolution, very strong evidence. I brought this point up already in chapter 4. J. B. S. Haldane famously retorted, when asked to name an observation that would disprove the theory of evolution, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!” Such rabbits have never been found, nor is there a single au-tent anachronistic fossil, i.e. from the wrong era. All the fossils, and there are very many of them, are placed in the correct chronological order without a single exception that has been proven correct. Yes, there are gaps where there are no fossils at all, and that is to be expected. However, not a single fossil has been found before evolution could have produced it. It is a very strong fact (and the creationist theory does not explain it in any way). As I briefly mentioned in Chapter 4, a good theory, a natural-scientific theory, is susceptible to falsification, but this theory has not been falsified. It would be easy to disprove evolution if even one fossil with the wrong chronological order was found. Evolution has survived this test with flying colors. (pp. 135,136)

When Richard Dawkins suggests that it would be easy to disprove evolution if even one fossil were found in the wrong chronological order, there are many such fossils. The strata, or the fossils by which they are defined, often do not appear in the order according to the theory of evolution, but quite the opposite. In some areas, the Precambrian and Cambrian deposits are the uppermost on the earth's surface and there are no other deposits above them. Or the strata (fossils) are in the wrong order in terms of evolution. James D. Dana wrote more than a century ago in his book "Manual of Geology", p. 899:

Any stratum of a certain era can rest on top of any other stratum belonging to the entire series below it – a Carbon stratum on top of an archaic Silurian or Devonian stratum; and a Jurassic, Cretaceous or Tertiary stratum on top of older ones with no strata in between. Quaternary strata in America are often on top of archaic rocks, in other cases on top of Silurian or Devonian rocks; in some cases on top of a Cretaceous or a Tertiary stratum.

What about the location of fossils in strata? It is amazing how many evolutionists fail to understand a simple fact: ecological compartments. There is a simple explanation why rabbit fossils cannot be found together with Precambrian fossils (i.e. sea animals): the rabbit is a land animal. If it had fallen into the sea, it would have drowned immediately. Even nowadays rabbits do not live in the water: they live on dry land.

So the question does not have to be that rabbits, simple sea animals, trilobites, dinosaurs or humans have appeared on Earth at a different time, but that they have appeared in different ecological compartments, just like today. All of them have been able to live at the same time as the Book of Genesis presents. Even in modern times, it is impossible for fish to live on dry land, or for giraffes, bears and other mammals to live at the bottom of the sea. Only the theory of evolution with its millions of years requires that they lived at a different time.

Dinosaurs. Above, two important fossils were brought up in terms of the theory of evolution: Archeopteryx and the trilobite. The former has been considered an intermediate form between Reptiles and birds, the latter as the most important index fossil of the Cambrian period. The Discoveries related to them suggest that they have lived on earth at the same time as humans. They just died out like thousands of other species over the millennia. Even today, several species become extinct every year. It is not a rare phenomenon.

What about the dinosaurs, which are also extinct? Evolutionists like to believe that their extinction happened millions of years ago, but it cannot be proven. There are many reasons to believe that these large (Size is relative, because the current blue whale is considered the largest animal that ever lived. Its weight is twice that of the largest dinosaurs.) or also small animals lived on earth at the same time with mammals and man. Here are some observations:

Mammals and dinosaurs. Dinosaur bones have been found amongst other bones that seem to have belonged to a horse, a cow and a sheep. (Anderson, A., Tourism falls victim to tyrannosaurus, Nature, 1989, 338, 289 / Dinosaurus may have died quietly after all, 1984, New Scientist, 104, 9.). From an evolutionary standpoint these kinds of discoveries should not be possible, because mammals are thought to have appeared on the planet only after the dinosaurs.

The following comment addresses the issue. Dr. Carl Werner has studied the appearance of current animal and plant species in dinosaur strata. In the interview he tells how many current animals and plants can be found together with dinosaurs. The extinction of dinosaurs cannot be far in the past:

"We found fossil examples of all the most significant animals living today belonging to the main periods of invertebrates, including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans, etc.), mollusks, echinoderms (starfish, sea lilies, snake stars, etc.), corals, sponges and articular worms (rare-tailed worms, marine worms).

Vertebrates – animals with backbones, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals – follow the same line.

Cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays), bone fish (such as sturgeon, paddlefish, salmon, herring, flounder) and jawless fish (hagfish and lamprey) have been found in dinosaur strata and look the same as current forms.

“Modern-looking frogs and salamanders have been found in dinosaur dig sites.

“All of today’s reptile groups have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same or similar to modern forms: Snakes (boa constrictor), lizards (ground lizards and gliding lizards), turtles (box turtles, soft-shelled turtles), and crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles and gavials).”

“Contrary to popular belief, modern types of birds have been found, including: parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc.

(…) “At the dinosaur dig sites, scientists have found many unusual extinct mammal (…) but they have also found fossilized mammals that look like squirrels, possums, Tasmanian devils, hedgehogs, shrews, beavers, primates, and duck-billed platypus. (…) “Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers;(9a) almost as many as the number of dinosaur species.

(…)“In the dinosaur rock layers, we found fossils from every major plant division living today including: flowering plants, ginkgos, cone trees, moss, vascular mosses, cycads, and ferns. Again, if you look at these fossils and compare them to modern forms, you will quickly conclude that the plants have not changed. Fossil sequoias, magnolias, dogwoods, poplars and redwoods, lily pads, cycads, ferns, horsetails etc. have been found at the dinosaur digs.” (9)

Man and dinosaurs. A common evolutionary notion has been that dinosaurs and humans have not lived at the same time. However, numerous folk tales tell about large dragons and lizards that resemble dinosaurs. These descriptions, which may be based on oral history, can be found among many different nations, so that English, Irish, Danish, Norwegian, German, Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Babylonian literature mention them. The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265) explains these stories:

The dragons in legends are, strangely enough, just like real animals that lived in the past. They resemble large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the land long before man is supposed to have appeared. Dragons were generally regarded as bad and destructive. Each nation referred to them in their mythology.

One interesting comment can be found from the late fossil researcher Stephen Jay Gould, who was a Marxist atheist. He stated that when the book of Job talks about the Behemoth, then the only animal that fits this description is the dinosaur (Pandans Tumme, p. 221, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). As an evolutionist, he believed that the author of the book of Job must have gotten his knowledge of the fossils found. However, in this one of the oldest books of the Bible, there is a clear reference to a living animal (Job 40:15: Behold now behemoth, which I made with you …).

Footprints in strata. Finds of human and dinosaur tracks in the same strata cancel the geological time chart and the non-coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. These kinds of finds have been made in several locations, some of which will be listed below. The quote also refers to images of dinosaurs drawn by humans on the walls of caves and canyons:

Many well-known scientific facts raise serious doubts about the geological series of layers and geological eras. One such example could be the discovery of simultaneous human and dinosaur traces in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois, and elsewhere in the United States. These traces appear over a wide area and are usually only revealed after flooding or by earthmoving machines. They have been carefully examined by reliable paleontologists and verified their authenticity, and they cannot be dismissed as frauds. In addition, human-drawn images of dinosaurs have been found in Arizona and the territory of the former Rhodesia on the walls of caves and canyons. (10)

Human footprints can not only be found in chalk deposits, but also in strata that are believed to be older than dinosaurs. These bedrocks have been estimated to be whopping 250 million years old, which means that the index fossil method must be hugely mistaken, or in another case, the Carboniferous period took place only some thousands of years ago. Albert C. Ingallis has commented on these discoveries:

If man (...) existed in any form as early on as in the carboniferous period, geological science is so completely wrong that all geologists should give up their jobs and take up truck driving. So, at least for the present, science rejects the tempting alternative of man having left those footprints. (The Carboniferous Mystery, Scientific Monthly, vol. 162, Jan 1940, p.14)

Well preserved fossils pose a great mystery, provided they are 65-200 million years old. That is because they contain substances that shouldn’t stay preserved in the nature for hundreds of thousands of years, not to mentions millions of years. There have been discoveries, for example, in which a leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus Rex has contained blood cells, and discoveries where is blood vessels and proteins, such as collagen, albumin, and osteocalcin; as well as DNA, have been extracted from the bone material of a Tyrannosaurus Rex (Helsingin sanomat, 26/9/1994) and from dinosaur eggs in China (Helsingin sanomat, 17/3/1995). What makes DNA discoveries difficult for evolutionary theory is that after 10,000 years there should be no trace of it at all (Nature, 1 Aug, 1991, vol 352). Yet, we have come across it and other quickly decaying substances in dinosaur fossils. If they are animals that lived millions of years ago, this should be impossible.

On the other hand, it is known that biomolecules cannot be preserved for more than 100,000 years (Bada, J et al. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 354, [1379 ]). This is the research result of empirical science. Collagen, which is a biomolecule of animal tissue, i.e. a typical structural protein, can often be isolated from fossils. It is known about the protein in question that it breaks down quickly in the bones, and only its remains can be seen after 30,000 years, except in very dry special conditions. The Hell Creek area is sure to get some rain from time to time. Therefore, collagen should not be found in "68 million" year old bone that has been buried in the soil. (11)

If the observations about proteins isolated from dinosaur bones, such as albumin, collagen and osteocalcin, as well as DNA are correct, and we have no reason to doubt the researchers' carefullness, based on these studies, the bones must be re-dated to no more than 40,000-50,000 years old, because the maximum possible preservation time of the substances in question in nature cannot be exceeded. (12)

The Geological time chart and man. The method based on the Geological time chart and index fossils is Pivotal for Evolutionary dating. This method is based on the view that was adopted in the 19th century and it Presumed the earth has experienced different Geological periods, which all had their unique animal and plant life. That is why it is believed the bottom of the sea creature trilobite, Dinosaurs and humans existed at different times on the planet. They are the three important index fossils in the Geological time chart.

However, this view does not take into account the fact that, just as today there are different ecological compartments (marine, swamp, upland and mountain zones) and their characteristic fauna and flora, so it was also in the past. Therefore, there does not need to be any time difference between the appearance of man, trilobite and dinosaurs on earth. They have been able to live at the same time, but only in different ecological compartments. After all, the animals of the seabed do not live on the earth today, nor can land mammals such as deer, bears, hares or humans even live at the bottom of the seas like a trilobite. It's impossible. It is strange that evolutionists have never thought of this simple matter.

One indication of how the geological chart with millions of years is completely wrong are the observations where human fossils or man-made objects have been found in strata classified as ancient. For example, from coal deposits, which have been considered to be 300 million years old, have been found a gold chain, an iron cauldron and other human objects and human fossils (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, ss. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39). These discoveries show that humans must have lived 250-300 million years ago, or that the periods in question were only a few millennia ago.

Another example of the inaccuracy of the geological chart are the spheres made of metal with a diameter of 3-5 centimeters. Such man-made spheres have been unearthed from South African quarries for decades (in the book “Forbidden Archeology). According to the evolutionary view, the balls are from layers whose age is defined as 2800 million years.

In addition, other observations related to human belongings have been made:

In the 1800s, male labour with loggings and shovels was used in mining and tunnel construction work. During this period, a large number of man-made objects have been recorded, which have been inside either the carbon mass or the rock to be mined. For example, a marble mortar and an associated pestle were found during tunnel work from a Tuolumne Table mountain’s bedrock, whose age is currently estimated at 33-55 million years. The items were discovered by J.H. Neale in 1877, when he worked about half a kilometer from the tunnel opening and in about 100-meter depth. The mortar had been used to chop spices. Arrow-tips were also found near it. (13)

A bronze, approximately 15 cm tall bell (stem bell) was found inside the coal. Coal from a coal mine operating in West Virginia was also commonly used for the heating needs of local residents. Coal pieces that were too big for the furnace were broken into a suitable size at home with a hammer. It was a big surprise when a bronze bell appeared from inside the coal mine. The coal deposit from which the mined coals were retrieved has been determined to have been formed during the Carboniferous period, approximately 300 million years ago. (14)

A hammer was found inside a boulder from Cretaceous bedrock (London, Texas). The Cretaceous period is placed back between 150-65 million years in the evolutionary charts. The period is also known as the dinosaur era. The handle of the hammer from this time had been fossilized inside the boulder, but the metal part had stayed well preserved. Iron consists of ca. 95 % iron, 2,6 % chlorine, and 0,74 % sulfur. The quality of the iron is equivalent to currently used high-quality metals. It is assumed that the climate was very different during the time the hammer was made, than our climate today… According to evolution, there were only tiny primal mammals living in the shadows of dinosaurs during the Cretaceous period. Based on this discovery we can assume that humans also existed during this time. (15)

Radiometric measurements play an important part in understanding how old the Earth is. Based on them, many are convinced that the earth is even billions of years old. Evolutionists also believe that with enough time life has the ability to begin by itself and that all life forms have evolved from a simple stem cell. That's what they believe, even though there's no evidence for either. It has not been possible to reproduce the origin of life even under laboratory conditions, and intermediate forms have not been observed in fossils. Both points—the problem of the origin of life and the lack of intermediate fossils—point rather to creation. That is the only reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.

What about the background of radioactive methods? It is interesting that behind both the Geological chart and the radioactive methods there is one and the same person: Arthur Holmes. Due to his influence, the lengths of geological periods have become generally accepted values. He defined, for example, the last limit of the Cambrian period to be no more than 600 million years, which is still considered the official value today.

Similarly, Holmes had a great influence on the acceptance of radioactive methods. He determinedly worked on them so that researchers would begin to use them. J. D. Burchfield describes the situation one hundred years ago:

Arthur Holmes was the leading advocate and chief architect of the new geological schedule. When he was still a student at Strutt institute, he was left with the task of developing radiometric dating methods, which Rutherford, Strutt and Boltwood had already abandoned... For several years, Holmes worked almost alone on radiometric timing problems. (16)

What about the reliability of radioactive methods? Are they as fallacious as the geological time chart, which was drawn up by Arthur Holmes, and which seems to contradict numerous practical observations? Many evolutionists rely on radiometric methods without a doubt, but these methods hold many uncertainties, just like the geological time chart. They show radiometric methods to be unreliable. The following things should be taken into account:

What is the initial situation? The main problem with radioactive dating is that it is based on assumptions that cannot be verified. Evolutionists believe that the methods are reliable, but in fact there is no way to verify them. There is no independent verification that could prove the basic assumptions of the methods to be correct.

One such problem is the initial situation. Evolutionists want to believe that the decay started from scratch, but that is just an assumption because no one was there to see when the rock crystallized and what kind of radioactive elements it contained. Those who emphasize the reliability of these methods talk a lot about the details of the methods, half-lives, mass spectrometers, etc., but they do not point out this fundamental flaw in the methods.

The situation could be compared to measuring how far a javelin has flown on a sports field, but not knowing where it was thrown from. If it is thrown only 5-10 meters away and the result is measured from the 90 m boundary, the measurement result has no meaning. The measurement can be done accurately - like radiometric measurements in general - but if we don't know the launch location, the result is based on an assumption that cannot be proven. Only if someone has been there to check that the javelin has really been thrown from the official throwing place, can the result be considered reliable. This condition is fulfilled in ordinary javelin throwing competitions, but it is different with regard to radiometric measurements. Researchers do not know the "spear throwing place" even though the current measurement results are accurate and known.

External factors are another potential factor that can confound the calculations. Heating and molding of the stones can be problematic (this can easily happen to the igneous rock types from which measurements are made) and water flows through the stones. All of them can cause starting and half-life substances to migrate and accumulate elsewhere, so they can change the measurement results. If only small changes occur in the proportions of substances, they can distort the entire age determination. It is then not on a reliable basis.

It is a similar situation that there are currently 5 blue and 9 red balls on the table. However, if someone has sometimes taken balls of either type away or put more of them on the table, it has changed the relationship between them. The ratio may have changed because external factors have influenced the situation.

A few quotations show how isotope ratios can change as a result of e.g. dissolution or heating. The examples show once again that the concentrations of stones can be measured accurately, but they do not have to have anything to do with the actual age. If the initial situation cannot be checked and other basic assumptions of radioactive methods are in question, these methods cannot be trusted:

6.3 Changes in isotope ratio due to dissolution

When he looked for an explanation for the anomalies present in the U-Th-Pb clocks, G.R. Tilton crushed his stone samples and washed them with mild acid. He noticed that the isotope ratio of the washing liquid differed greatly from the isotope ratios of the original stone. For example, the 206Pb/204Pb ratio of zirkon in the mineral was 64 times compared to the washing liquid, whereas the ratio in monazite was only 0.13 times greater. This is not about chemical separation, which also happens, but about the different behavior of isotopes of the same element. These isotopes apparently have different mineral-dependent bond strengths. The effects from a simple wash or from the weather are far greater than the effects of radioactive decay. Zhivor and his colleagues have shown that lead isotopes also behave in the same way.

6.4. The change in isotope ratios as a result of heating

Starik and and his colleagues showed that isotope ratios can change also as a result of heating. When the stone is heated and the lead sublimates, the lead isotopes move in different ways. Based on the above, it can also be assumed that in connection with the slow crystallization of the mineral, separation of isotopes also occurs. (17)

Eyewitness testimony. An important reason to be skeptical about stone measurements is the testimony of eyewitnesses. There are known cases where the real age of the rocks is known because they were formed in historical time, but radiometric measurements give the samples ages of millions or even billions of years. Several such cases have been listed. When, for example, the Hualalai volcano erupted in 1801, the age of the samples ranged from 140 million to 2960 million years. The average value was 1410 million years, so the error margins of the measurement results were large. If we see similar throws in our own watch, with a margin of error greater than 99%, we would reject it immediately.

Finds like these lead to the question that if the measurement results are unreliable when the actual age of the rocks is known, how can they be reliable when it is not known? It is unwise to rely on methods that are on such shaky ground. The following examples show how much the methods can go wrong:

The lava rock created in the volcanic eruption on Hualalai Island about 170 years ago was studied and its age was determined using new methods. With these "reliable" radiation meters, the age of the 170-year-old rock was estimated to be millions of years, from 160 million to 3 billion years. The same has happened in other similar measurements. Attempts were also made to measure the age of the layers of the Grand Canyon using these mentioned new methods. The results again surprised the researchers. The "young" basalt rock of the uppermost layers was 270 million years older than the "thousands of millions of years old rock layer" at the bottom of the canyon. After these measurements, the time estimates previously given by evolutionists for the rocks and deposits in the canyon have been partially transferred to the "old beliefs”. (18)

Indigenous peoples’ folklore mentions the eruption of the Colorado Canyon volcano. The volcano (Uinkaret) lies on top of soil layers. Its lava flow moved down to the canyon blocking the Colorado river that was flowing below. Samples were taken from the lava to be measured. Samples were also taken from Cardenas basalt, which is a Precambrian (bedrock) rock and which is estimated to be ca. 550 million years old, according to evolutionary measures. All samples were measured by using different radiometric methods. The results varied for the young volcano. They were mainly over 1.000 million years; the oldest estimate being a whopping 2600 million years. The lowest Cardenas layer resulted to be 715 – 1.100 million years old. These results, once again, demonstrate how we can measure only concentrations with radiometric methods - but not the age. (19)

Radiocarbon measurements versus other methods. Radiometric measurements can be made either directly from fossils using the radiocarbon method or to measure the concentrations of rocks using other methods. It is interesting that when the measurements have been made directly from fossils with radiocarbon method, they point to a young age. Fossils, whose age was previously defined as hundreds of millions of years (according to the geological chart), such as fossils from the Cambrian period, still contain radiocarbon, which has a half-life of only approx. 5730 years. It indicates that these fossils, like the soil layers around them, cannot be millions of years old, not to mention billions of years. Both should be measured only in thousands of years.

In the early years of the invention, it was believed that all the preconditions needed to make accurate age measurements were now present. Researchers gathered all kinds of things to measure: items from the tombs of pharaohs and Neanderthals, teeth of sabre-tooth tigers and mammoths, fossils, crude oil, etc. Radiocarbon was found in all of them. These observations regarding age were published in Radiocarbon magazine. Many of the samples had previously been dated as being millions of years old. (20)

Comparing radiocarbon to other methods will result in another kind of conflict. When radiocarbon method may indicate a fossil to be some thousands years old, a stone taken from the same layer might be determined as hundreds of millions of years old by using other methods. This shows the contradictory nature of these methods, and how, especially, dating from stones seem to be unreliable. They are on shaky ground.

We have published detailed reports in which a tree found in a "250 million years old" sandstone or in a volcanic rock "tens of millions of years old" received only thousands of years in radiocarbon age determination. When... Geologists take samples of volcanic rock, which is known to have erupted from a volcano in historical times, and send them to prestigious radiometric age determination laboratories, the "age determination" almost invariably gives a result of millions of years. This strongly suggests that the assumptions underlying the age determination are incorrect. (21)

What can be deduce from strata? Millions of years are the basic assumptions in the evolutionary theory. The whole theory falls apart if millions of years prove to be wrong. The years themselves don’t automatically prove evolution, but evolutionists believe that with enough time anything is possible. They believe this, although life’s beginning still remains unsolved and intermediate forms between the basic kinds are still missing.

The same assumption is related to the Earth's geological formations. Evolutionists think that the layers of the earth have required long periods of time to form and that the oldest layers must be at least hundreds of millions of years old. The oldest of them should be deep inside the earth, while the layers related to modern times should be on top, which of course is a logical conclusion.

However, many practical observations contradict the previous conclusions. These finds show that the deposits cannot be old, they are often in the wrong sequence for evolutionary theory, and they must have formed quickly. The observations disprove the idea of millions of years.

Strata cannot be old. The basic assumption in evolution remains that strata formed slowly during millions of years, and that the oldest strata are up to hundreds of millions of years old. The idea of millions of years is pivotal for evolution, but there are a few examples that illustrate clearly why strata cannot be as old as the evolutionist model requires.

Man-made objects and fossils in strata. It was already stated earlier how things made by humans have been found in coal deposits ("300 million years ago"), chalk deposits (the era of the dinosaurs) and even Precambrian deposits. It shows that the age of deposits must be measured only in thousands of years. No evolutionist believes that man lived tens or hundreds of millions of years ago.

Another similar observation is human fossils inside rocks and in coal deposits. The age of these deposits must be measured only in thousands of years.

Coal and diamonds are another example. The Carboniferous period is believed to have been 300 million years ago and diamonds are claimed to be one to three billion years old. However, both from coal samples and diamonds have been found significant amounts of radiocarbon, which has a half-life of only about 5730 years, and should not have any left after 100,000 years. Such observations show that the coal deposits and the deposits around the diamond cannot be millions or hundreds of millions of years old. Their age is measured only in thousands of years. Similar conclusions that the coal deposits are young, only thousands of years old, have also been made using radiohalo studies (Gentry, R.V. et al., "Radiohalos in Coalified Wood", Science, 194:315,1976).

Significant amounts of 14C have been found in several coal samples from different strata across the United States, even though, according to the evolutionary time scale, the samples are allegedly between 37 million and 318 million years old. On top of everything, the amount of 14C is a hundredfold compared to the sensitivity of the devices, so the issue is not just a trivial matter related to the measurements... The age calculated from the 14C measurements is very similar for all coal samples - about 50,000 years.

...Carbon-14 in diamonds is another example of a measurement indicating a young age in substances that "should be" very old. Diamond is the hardest substance on Earth because carbon is very tightly packed into the crystal structure. It is therefore impervious to the alleged potential contamination that has been absurdly used when trying to dismiss the results for coal. Yet 14C has been found in diamonds in roughly the same amounts as in coal samples, even though the diamonds are claimed to be one to three billion years old. (22)

Radiocarbon in Cambrian fossils. The amazing discovery is that radiocarbon has been found in coal, peat and oil deposits, but also in fossils from the Cambrian period "600-490 million years ago". What makes the finds problematic in terms of millions of years is that the half-life of radiocarbon is only approx. 5730 years. It should not be present at all in such old deposits and fossils. Their age must actually be measured only in thousands of years. They can't be older than that.

(…) The new technology improved the exactness of measurements between carbon-14 and carbon-12. Before, it was possible to measure a content that was about one per cent of the present carbon-14 content. AMS made it possible to measure a content that was approximately 0.001 per cent of the present carbon content. Theoretically, this lengthened the action-area of carbon-14-method from 40,000 years to approximately 90,000 years. Researchers hoped that this was a method to measure much older samples. Those who wished this encountered something surprising, however.

Doctor John Baumgardner, one of the researchers of the RATE group, states that, “a great surprise was that no fossil material was found in which there was as little (radiocarbon) as 0.001 per cent of the modern value!”⁽²³⁾ This means that carbon-14 atoms can be found even in the fossils of the Cambrian period, which researchers regard as 600 millions years old.

Baumgardner gives an incredible example of this:

If we begin from the pure carbon-14 amount of the noticeable universe, after 1.5 million years (a little part of the whole time of evolutionism), there should not be any carbon-14 atoms left! However, 14C/12C proportions that are in the range of 0.1–0.5% are currently routinely observed – a hundred times bigger than the detection limit of the AMS method – in samples that should be tens or hundreds of millions years old. This is a big problem from the uniformaristic viewpoint (the time scale of evolution). ^{24
(25)}

Rate of erosion. Current erosion rates set clear limits to the age of strata. When evolutionists talk about tens and hundreds of millions of years, they don’t take into account the rate of erosion. If continents and their strata really were, e.g., 500 million years old or even older, the strata should have flowed into the sea many times already. That is, because at the current rate, it would only take 14 million years for all lands to wash down into the sea (there’s 3,8 kilometers of water in the ocean and the height of continents is only a fifth of that on average). That is why we should doubt the millions of years that have been placed on the strata. Instead, it is far more likely that they are thousands of years old:

On the scale of a single human lifetime, these erosion rates are low. But these speeds are disconcerting to those who say the continents are billions of years old. The 150 km high continent would have been eroded to nothing in 2.5 billion years. This defies common sense. If erosion had continued for billions of years, there would be no more continents on Earth.

Several geologists have highlighted this problem. They have calculated that at the average rate of erosion, North America should have been lost in ten million years. This is a ridiculously short time compared to the assumed age of the continents. And the matter is made even worse by the fact that many rivers erode the height of their basins much faster than average. Continents with an average height of 623 meters should have disappeared a long time ago at even the slowest subsidence rate (1 millimeter per thousand years) (26)

Strata were formed quickly. In addition to the fact that several points indicate that the strata are only thousands of years old, there is evidence that they were formed quickly, in just a few days, weeks or months. The following facts speak for it:

Long fossilized tree trunks, which go through many different strata, show how rapidly the strata has formed. These fossilized tree trunks could not have been formed if they weren’t buried under quickly forming soil layers. This only takes a short while, possibly even days, but not millions of years. For example, an old photo from French Saint-Etienne mine illustrates how all five fossilized tree trunks penetrate approximately through ten strata or more. These kinds of finds are only possible if the trees have been buried under soil layers in a short amount of time. If long time periods were true, these trees would have decayed before they could have fossilized under layers of soil.

Fossils in soil strata. Another case giving clear evidence for the rapid formation of strata comes from fossils that are in them. Fossils in strata can only be explained by mudslides that have quickly buried an animal or a plant. This also applies for the tree trunk fossils, such aswell-preserved dinosaur fossils, which might still contain traces of soft tissues and blood vessels. The only way these fossils could have formed is if the animal was quickly buried under layers of soil. These days we don’t really come across such rapid burials anywhere in the world, but a major catastrophe, like the Flood, could cause such a phenomenon.

It is also remarkable that dinosaurs are often found inside hard rocks and need to be removed with a drill. Why is that? How have they gone inside the hard rocks? The only reasonable explanation is that soft mud has quickly come around them and then hardened. In any other way, their discovery inside hard rocks and fossilization cannot be explained. Evolutionists do not believe in the Flood, but then what was the disaster that would have caused the same? It is absurd to try to come up with other explanations, since there is information about the Flood in several peoples, and it also explains the rapid accumulation of soil layers.

The following comments suggest the rapid accumulation of deposits so that fossils could have emerged. Notions that stratifications would have arisen as a result of long and long processes should be rejected:

Vertebrate animals such as fishes, reptiles etc. decompose when their soft parts are removed. They must be buried quickly after death in order to avoid decay and being eaten by other animals. (James Dana, Manual of Geology, p. 141)

It is evident that if the formation of deposits were to take place at such a slow pace, no fossils might preserve, since they would not be buried in sediments before decomposition by the acids of the water, or before they would be destroyed and shattered into pieces as they rubbed and struck the bottom of the shallow seas. They can only become covered in sediments in an accident, where they are suddenly buried. (Geochronology or the Age of the Earth on grounds of Sediments and Life, Bulletin of the National Research Council No. 80, Washington D. C., 1931, p. 14)

New strata and canyons. It has also been practically proven that strata can be formed rather quickly. In the eruption of St. Helens volcano in 1980 it only took a few weeks for over hundred meters of new layers to form. It did not require millions of years, because different layers mounted on top of each other in a matter of days. Furthermore, less than two years later, canyons were formed in the same area due to land mass moving. This did not take millions of years either.

The next account illustrates how little time it can take to form a canyon. In this example a 2,4-kilometer-long and, at best, 24-meter-deep canyon was formed only in three days. Presumably the majority of canyons and several strata were formed because of the effect of water. This could be explained by the Flood.

Canyon Lake Gorge was formed in 2002 when Canyon Lake overflowed Canyon Dam, which was built to mitigate flooding. The rush of water carved a huge furrow in a plain valley covered with mesquite trees and oaks.

The flood started when almost 900 mm of rain fell in the upper reaches of the Guadalupe River catchment in a week. The rainwater flowed into Canyon Lake, whose level was already higher than usual, rising over the dam opening. The peak flow of the flood was almost 200 times greater than the normal flow from the lake. In just three days, the flowing water carved a 2.4 km long and at best 24 m deep canyon. This canyon is located just behind the Canyon Dam spillway. (27)

Another example relates to the island of Surtsey, which arose as a result of an undersea volcanic eruption in 1963. In January 2006, New Scientist magazine reported how canyons, ravines and other landforms came to this island in less than a decade. It didn't take millions or even thousands of years:

The canyons, ravines and other forms of the ground, which usually take tens of thousands or millions of years to form, have amazed geological researchers because they were created in less than ten years. (28)

Strata and catastrophes. Above we have listed the reasons why strata must have arisen rather quickly. Tree trunk fossils, other fossils and practical observations show that it has not taken millions of years to create them. Everything may have happened in a few hours, days and weeks.

The lack of erosion between strata also speaks for rapid formation and that the strata are not that old. For example, one heavy rain can cause deep grooves on stratum surface. The fact that strata surfaces are smooth suggests that they were formed rapidly and accumulated on top of each other almost instantly. Moreover, the upper strata must be close to the lower strata in age. It doesn't have to be more than hours or days apart between the formation of the top and bottom strata.

In addition to this, we cannot find any signs of worldwide erosion between different periods, but only worldwide stratification of rock types. So, it seems that the stratification of strata has been a continuous, almost incessant process.

The fact that we cannot find worldwide signs of weathering between strata and see the consuming effects of the forces of nature on the soil over different eras is very significant. This indicates that no erosion of the soil has occurred over “millions” of years. The only explanation for this phenomenon, observed in nature, is quick stratification of the strata on top of each other. (29)

The way these strata were formed also strongly suggests a catastrophe model, a flood in particular, which has caused the layers to pile up on top of each other. Geologists themselves have admitted that layers are best formed in floods and through water flow. What could be a more fitting explanation than a global flood, which would move layers of soil on top of each other in a short period of time? According to the Bible, the earth was under water for 150 days.

There are a few quotations discussing the matter. They illustrate how large-scale natural catastrophes are involved with the formation of coal. Usually, evolutionists say that coal was formed in resting marshlands, as a result of slow processes, but there are a few cases that show water has been responsible for moving plants and animals from their original spot into piles. Flowing water (the Flood) is a far better explanation for the formation of coal and for other types of layers, than stationary wetland. Why else would marine animal -and land vegetation fossils be in the same clutter, as has been discovered in some areas? We wouldn’t see that normally. Evolutionists also like to ignore the fact that many different nations share similar flood stories, and that historian Josephus and Berossus both have mentioned the remains of Noah’s ark. Furthermore, it should be noted that coal can be made from wood and from other materials rich in cellulose in only a few hours. It does not require millions of years.

When the forests were buried in the sludge for some reason, coal deposits were create. Our current machine culture is partially based on these strata. (Mattila Rauno, Teuvo Nyberg & Olavi Vestelin, Koulun biologia 9, p. 91)

Under and above the mineral coal seams there are, as has been said, regular layers of clay stone, and from their structure we can see that they have been stratified from water. (30)

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that mineral coal was generated quickly when large forests were destroyed, layered and then quickly buried. There are huge lignite strata in Yallourn, Victoria (Australia) that contain plenty of pine tree trunks – trees that do not currently grow on marsh land.

The sorted, thick strata that contain up to 50% of pure pollen and that are spread over a huge area clearly prove that the lignite strata were formed by water. (31)

It is taught in schools that carbon is gradually created from peat, although nowhere can it be observed that this is happening. Considering the extent of the coalfields, the different plant types, and the upright multi-layered trunks, it appears that the coal deposits were formed by huge drifting rafts of vegetation, during a very large flood. Corridors carved by marine organisms are also found in these carbonized plant fossils. Fossils of marine animals have also been found in coal deposits ("A note on the Occurrence of Marine Animal Remains in a Lancashire Coal Ball", Geological Magazine, 118:307,1981)... Considerable sea animal shell deposits and fossils of Spirorbis, which lived in the sea, can also be found in coal deposits. (Weir, J., ”Recent Studies of Shells of the Carbon Measures”, Science Progress, 38:445, 1950). (32)

Prof. Price presents cases where 50- to100 mineral coal layers are one top of each other and between them there are layers including fossils from deep sea. He deems this piece of evidence so strong and convincing that he has never tried to explain these facts on grounds of Lyell’s uniformity theory. (33)

OBSERVATIONS FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM AND THE STARRY SKY. What about other observations related to the age of the earth and the universe? Many of them do not support the idea of hundreds of millions or billions of years. On the contrary, they fit better with the idea of the young earth and the universe. Here are some such points:

The inner energies of stars, planets and moons. Billions of stars but also planets and moons radiate energy into their surroundings. The older they are classified as (eg billions of years), the less likely it should be. A young universe better explains the still strong activity of celestial bodies. Super stars and small moons are particularly problematic. The energy still in them points to a young universe:

The amount of energy from our Sun is calculated to be equivalent to billion hydrogen bombs exploding each second. Some stars are so enormous and bright they radiate energy hundred thousand million times more than our Sun! These stars cannot contain enough hydrogen to maintain a nuclear fusion process at such level for millions or billions of years, because their original mass should have been impossibly large. Therefore, these stars cannot be billions, or not even millions, of years old, but rather thousands of years old. (34)

Small celestial bodies should have cooled down during billions of years. However, there is still volcanic activity, for example, on the moon of Jupiter, Io. Due to its small size it should be a cold glob. (Life/Eyes on Jupiter, Voyager 1979/NASA).

Saturn’s rings are comprised of different sized and shaped bodies. They still haven’t reached their final order (which would be expected at an old age) to which gravity and centrifugal force are pulling them into. According to scientists this unstable state is caused by the young age of the rings. (35)

Space dust. Both the earth and the moon gather space dust constantly. If these celestial bodies were billions of years old, there should be a lot more space dust on their surface. Neil Armstrong, who was famous for Landing on the moon, noted before his moon Landing that one of the most challenging aspects of his space trip will be the thick layer of dust on the surface of the moon. It was estimated that the moon had gathered 50-200 meters of dust in 4.5 billion years. To everybody's astonishment, there were only a few millimeters of space dust on the moon, signaling that our world is rather young.

Distance between the earth and the moon. It has been detected that the distance between the earth and the moon keeps growing, due to tidal friction. Based on calculations, the current distance between the earth and the moon is impossible if they had already existed for 4-5 billion years:

During the visits to the moon, reflective mirrors were set up there for laser distance measurement from the ground. In 1929, Harold Jeffries stated that the observations made already in 1754 about the increasing distance between the earth and the moon were accurate. This phenomenon is the result of the friction between the moon and the earth caused by the tides.

Since the installation of reflective mirrors, it has been possible to measure the distance between the moon and the Earth with an accuracy of one centimeter. Taking into account the fact that distancing is slowing down – it has been faster in the past, up to 20 metres per year – the average annual distance increase can be calculated at around 1.2–1.5 metres. (Ph.D. Donald B. DeYoung/6.1.1989 and Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View/NY 1975.) Based on these calculations we can conclude that 320 million years ago the moon would have been so close to earth that it would have shattered into little fragments due to friction… According to these calculations the moon can only have orbited the earth for 7% of the time that is being stated by the evolutionary theory (4,5 billion years). (36)

Comets. There are comets in the Solar System that are believed to be as old as the System itself. However, comets lose parts of their mass constantly when they orbit around the Sun. If they orbited the Sun for millions and billions of years, they shouldn’t exist anymore. The fact that they still exist, suggests that they are rather young, perhaps some thousand years old. Moreover, there is no evidence of any other source that would generate new comets.

The Sun is shrinking. People have made observations about the Sun for centuries. The first measurements that are being regarded as accurate were made by the French Jean Picard as early as in the 17^th century (Science publication Tieteen kuvalehti 2 / 1988). Furthermore, there has been regular observations about the changes in the size of the Sun beginning from the 19^th century. These observations indicate that the Sun is getting smaller at least by 10 km per year. It is impossible that this kind of development would have continued for billions or even millions of years. These big numbers suggest that the earth cannot be millions of years old, not to mention billions of years old, because the earth would have been a part of the Sun 11 million years ago, and it would have made life impossible on earth less than a million years ago.

The change in the size of the Sun has been studied since 1836. Computationally, it has been concluded that the change in diameter is about 16 kilometers per year. Recent measurements aimed at accuracy have confirmed that the size of the Sun actually decreases as observed. (John A. Eddy/Arm A. Boornazian – Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol 11, No 2/1979) (37)

Atmospheric helium and its amount in the atmosphere are not suggestive of a very old earth. There is only a fraction of helium to the amount that should be in the atmosphere if the earth was billions of years old. The current small helium amount refers only to thousands of years.

The Nobel nominee of the year 1969, professor Melvin Cook, studied the amount of helium in the atmosphere and its accumulation for several years. Based on his research, he came to the conclusion that the small amount of helium 4 in the atmosphere is due to the comparatively young age of the earth. Some of the helium (helium-4) in the atmosphere is produced when active isotopes (e.g., uranium) breaks. Helium is generated deep under several rock and soil layers, through which it penetrates and then blends with other gases in the atmosphere.

The amount of helium from decay of radioactive substances in the soil has been estimated relatively accurately. However, the atmosphere does not contain it as much as the calculations would indicate. The amount of helium should be approximately a million times greater than it currently is if the earth was 4,5 billion years old. Melvin Cook, already in 1957, asked evolutionists in the magazine Nature: "Where is the helium created as a result of the decay of radioactive substances?"

The low amount of helium has been a significant scientific proof of the young age of the Earth's atmosphere. (38)

References:

1. Darwin, F & Seward A. C. edit. (1903, 1: 184): More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray.

2. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

3. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty

4. Harold G. Coffin: “Evolution or Creation?” Liberty, syys-lokakuu 1975, p. 12

5. Science, 3.3.1961, p. 624

6. P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949

7. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 25

8. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 25

9a. Kielan-Jaworowska, Z., Kielan, Cifelli, R.L., and Luo, Z.X., Mammals from the Age of Dinosaurs: Origins, Evolution and Structure, Columbia University Press, NY, 2004

9. Luominen 11, s. 33,34, http://creation.com/werner-living-fossils, http://creation.com/a/7502, http://creation.com/werner-living-fossils-finnish

10. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 24

11. Pekka Reinikainen: Darwin vai älykäs suunnitelma?, p. 88

12. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu, p. 111

13. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 3, Alusta viimeiseen aikaan, p. 22

14. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 3, Alusta viimeiseen aikaan, p. 23

15. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 3, Alusta viimeiseen aikaan, p. 23

16. J.D. Burchfield: Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth, SHP, New York 1975, p. 190, 198

17. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), s. 307, writer: Hermann Schneider

18. Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 102

19. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 88

20. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 92

21. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 34

22. Luominen, number 11, p. 23, http://creation.com/jim-mason-nuclear-physicist

23. John Baumgardner, ”Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution’s Long Ages”, Impact Article nro 364 (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, lokakuu 2003):ii.

24. same

25. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 244, 245

26. Luominen, number 3, p. 17,18, http://luominen.fi/geologia/eroosio-ja-aika

27. Luominen, number 9, p. 28, http://creation.com/a-gorge-in-three-days

28. Pearce, F., The Fire-eater’s island, New Scientist 189 (2536): 48-49, 18 January 2006

29. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 87,88

30. Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 114

31. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 11

32. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 179, 224

33. Wiljam Aittala: Kaikkeuden sanoma, p. 198

34. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 36,37

35. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 97

36. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 97

37. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 97

38. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 147