1. Signs in space

  

When it comes to the age of the earth and the universe, the option that they are ancient - usually at least 4.5 to 15 billion years old - has often been presented. They are thought to have started sometime around this time, and that there is almost nothing that points to a young universe. It is also interesting that the idea of the high age of the universe and the earth has spread mainly at the same pace as the idea of evolution. When Darwin's theory won the field, people began to believe in an older and older universe, because evolution was believed to need time.

   However, we may well ask if this is true. Are the Earth and the universe as old as claimed?

    In the following lines, we are going to examine the supposed high age of the universe and whether or not the idea stands on solid ground. This issue is considered in this chapter from the point of view of what the signs in near space indicate. The topics covered are:

• Moons of planets

• Moon is getting further away from the Earth

• Contraction of the Sun

• Space dust on the surface of the Moon and the Earth

• The age of the comets

• Weakening of the Earth's magnetic field

• Helium in the atmosphere

The moons of the planets. If we assume that the solar system was born approx. 4.5 billion years ago, one problem for this theory is the moons of the planets. Many of these small celestial bodies are too active to be billions of years old. Here are some examples:

• Jupiter's moon Io has strong fiery activity. The amount of heat produced by its volcanoes has been a surprise to scientists. Powerful processes cannot continue in the same way for billions of years. The moon Io would have to be a cold celestial body if it really were billions of years old (Life/Eyes on Jupiter, Voyager 1979/NASA).

• Saturn's moon Enceladus is only 500 km in diameter, but it has been found to have powerful geysers. They spray water vapor and small pieces of ice into space, hundreds of kilometers high. If Enceladus was really billions of years old, it would have to be frozen and geologically dead. James Roberts and Francis Nimmo of the University of California have calculated that Enceladus would have frozen 30 million years after its formation, less than 1% of its assumed age. (Schirber, M., Frigid future for ocean in Saturn’s moon, Astrobiology Magazine, space.com/scienceastronomy/080619-am-enceladus-ocean.html, June 2008.)

• Saturn's moon Titan has a denser atmosphere than Earth, containing nitrogen and other gases such as methane, ethane and acetylene.

    The problem in Titan's gas atmosphere is especially the presence of methane. Scientists have calculated that it should have been depleted in tens of millions of years and there should be none left (Mitri, G., Showman, A.P., Lunine, J.I. and Lorenz, R.D., Hydrocarbon Lakes on Titan, Icarus 186:385-394 , 2007). The reason for this is that many chemical reactions consume methane from Titan's atmosphere and it is likely that some of it escapes into space as well. The presence of methane in Titan's gas atmosphere suggests that this moon's age is only a fraction of the estimated 4.5 billion years.

Moon is getting further away from the Earth. The moon drifting away from the earth is something that proves against billions of years. It has been noticed that it constantly escapes away from the earth at a rate of approx. 4.5 cm per year (science magazine Tieteen kuvalehti 5 / 1991). The drifting away should be due to the earth's tidal phenomenon.

    In addition, it has been calculated that the moon's escape velocity from the earth should have been higher the closer it orbited the earth. According to these calculations, the moon should have even touched the earth 1.4 billion years ago:

(…) but this causes the fact that over a long period of time, the rotation time of the Earth will be the same as the Moon’s rotation time around the Earth. The rotation energy that is thus released from the Earth changes into kinetic energy of the Moon and as a consequence of this, the Moon is drawing away from the Earth by approximately 4.5 centimeters in a year. (1)

The Moon is drawing away from the Earth at a speed of approximately 4.5 centimeters a year. This is caused by tide friction, for example. The friction would have been higher when the Moon has been closer, and so have also been the effects of the tides. We should also note that the speed at which the Moon is drawing away would have been the higher the closer to the Earth the Moon had been revolving, so that “1.4 billions of years ago”, the Moon would have touched the Earth! (2)

Based on the figures above, we should question the geological time chart and its five billion- year timeframe. They cannot be true, because if the Moon had been very close to the Earth or even attached to it (1.4 billion years ago), the entire crust of the Earth could have melted and it would have been difficult for life to thrive. (The idea about melting of the Earth’s crust was presented in the book Maapallo ja avaruus, p. 47. According to the book, the crust of the Earth could not have remained solid if the Moon had been close enough to the Earth.). From the geological time chart, by which are usually determined periods of the Earth, we should take away at least 3-4 billions years. There is not any other possibility.

   In addition, it has been calculated that if the moon had been only one-fifth closer to the earth than it is now (the moon's distance from the earth is now 384,000 km, one-fifth of that is approx. 77,000 km), the continents would have been completely covered under the tides twice a day. That too would have been a big problem in terms of life. If there had been life on the continents at that time, it could not have survived because the water would have drowned it.

Contraction of the sun. Secondly, it is good to consider the Sun, because it has a great effect on our lives. It was noted before that life on Earth cannot be eternal because the second main rule of thermodynamics and the limited existence of the Sun place their own limitations on life. They indicate that there must have been a moment when the Sun began to shine on the Earth and when life began.

   As far as the age of the Sun is concerned, it has often been stated that the Sun is almost five billion years old. It is thought that the Sun was born at that time and began to spread warmth and light into space. The Earth and the rest of the solar system are believed to have been born around the same time, i.e. around 4.5-5 billion years ago.

   However, some observations – those regarding contraction of the Sun, for example - do not support the idea of the Sun being ancient. If the contraction speed has been e.g. 1 (0.3 inch) or 10 centimeters every day for 5 billion years, it would lead to the following numbers:

 • If the Sun had contracted one centimeter (0.3 inch) each day for five billion years, it would originally have been 18.25 million kilometers (19,958.4426947 yards) closer to the Earth than now (the distance between the Sun and the Earth is 150 million kilometers (164,041.9947507 yards).

 • If the Sun had contracted 10 centimeters (3.9 inches) each day, the Earth would already be a part of the Sun.

However, the Sun does not contract that slowly. Instead, it contracts by as much as several meters per day. According to the meridian observations of the Greenwich Observatory (Lubkin, G.B. , Analysis of Historical Data Suggest Sun is Shrinking, Physics Today, September 1979, pp. 17–19), the sun’s contraction speed has been approximately 0.1% per century or almost 38 meters (41.5 yards) per day or 13 kilometers a year!

   An article in a science magazine (Tieteen kuvalehti 2 / 1988) addresses the same topic. According to the magazine, if the precise astronomical observations made by the Frenchman Jean Picard in the 17th century are used as help, the sun's diameter would have been 4000 kilometers (2,485.4847689 miles) larger at that time than it is today. It means that if 4000 is divided by 400 years, it also becomes a contraction speed of at least 10 km per year.

   Such large numbers show that the Earth cannot be millions of years old, let alone billions of years, because the Earth would have been part of the Sun already 11 million years ago, and because it would have made life on Earth as it is now impossible already less than a million years ago. If we rely on these observations, we might conclude that the Sun is only a couple of thousand years old, not billions of years old.

   The next quote from a science book (Iain Nicolson and Patriot Moore, Tieteen maailma: aurinkokunta, p. 100, the original work: The Solar System) addresses the same subject. The text refers to the shrinking of the Sun and notes how it does not fit together with the supposed long periods of time:

Based on an analysis of the diameter of the Sun based on daily observed changes from the year 1836 to the year 1954, American astrophysicist John Eddy presented a theory according to which the Sun is shrinking at a surprising speed: 0.1% a century. This phenomenon cannot be invariable, because it would mean that 100,000 years ago, the Sun was double in size compared to the present time and that 100,000 years from now, it will be the size of a pinhead.

Space dust on the surface of the moon and the earth. Continuing to deal with near-space and time, the small amount of meteorite dust from space on the surface of both the moon and the earth is some indication that these celestial bodies cannot be very old. The dust that comes on the surface of these orbs contains a large amount of nickel and iron (the dust contains approximately 300 times more nickel than the soil), so it should be easy to distinguish it from other soil materials. Its annual amount that comes to earth has been calculated to be approx. 14 million tons.

   However, it is a surprise that there are no thick layers of meteorite dust on the surface of the Earth and the Moon. If this nickel-ferrous dust had continued to land on the Moon and the Earth for about 5 billion years, there should be about 50–200 meters (54–218 yards) of it on their surfaces, but nothing of the sort has been found. There is only about 3 millimeters of dust on the surface of the Moon (0.1 inch), not tens of meters. These small amounts are not consistent with long periods of time.

   We can note the same observation in the following quote. The text reveals that the small amount of space dust was one of the greatest surprises on the journey to the Moon. It was assumed beforehand that the dust would be one of the major problems during the journey:

A light sweep of the finger along the shiny surface of the table tells you how much dust has accumulated. We all know that the amount of dust acts as a kind of clock that indicates the length of time between cleanings.

    This dust clock gives the correct time if we know how much dust accumulates on average per day, per week, etc. The correct time estimate is further confirmed if the dust deposition is constantly the same amount.

  …Since the middle of the 1960s, the scientists of NASA used all their energy trying to anticipate the conditions on the surface of the Moon. The surface of the Moon is dead. There is no water or wind to move the space dust accumulating there. Researchers who believed in the theory of evolution calculated that there is a layer of space dust 50-200 meters (54–218 yards) thick on the surface of the Moon, and the spacecraft would sink into this layer. This is why large landing feet were constructed for the lunar vehicle, for example. Astronaut Neil Armstrong publicly stated that the amount of space dust will be one of the most difficult problems on the journey to the Moon and it is the issue he fears the most.

    On 20 July 1969, Neil Armstrong set his foot onto the surface of the Moon. His foot touched a hard, solid surface that only had a layer of a couple of centimeters of space dust (0.1 inches).

   The experts proceeded with their calculations. The amount of dust required the moon to be less than 10,000 years old... (3)

The age of the comets. The orbs that move in the solar system also include comets that revolve around the Sun. They are very long-tailed – the largest measured tail is 320 million km – and sparsely structured phenomena that orbit in oval orbits around the solar system. In general, they can be observed with the naked eye about once every five years, but with a telescope it is possible to see about seven comets every year.

   However, one should note that the comets cannot be ancient, because each time these comets complete one round of their orbit, they lose a part of their mass because of their vicinity to the Sun. It has been calculated that most of the comets – it is known that there were many more of them in the past – crumble into dust in approximately 10,000 years. Comets could not even exist if they were hundreds of thousands or even millions of years old, not to mention billions of years old. Their time of birth must be much nearer the present time:

Every time a comet passes the Sun, it loses a part of its mass. According to some calculations, a comet loses a layer that is one to three meters thick during every round. Therefore, a comet cannot bear more than a couple of thousand rotations before disintegrating. (4)

Regarding the birth of new comets, there is no clear evidence, although it has been explained that they were born in some icy storage outside the solar system (the so-called Ort cloud), from which they would then set off.

   A reason to doubt the existence of such a place is that there is no proof of it. There are only theories, according to which the universe is millions or billions of years old.

   Second, even if such a place existed, how could these objects start moving away from there? By themselves, they could not move anywhere, but would stay in place the whole time. Only a visiting star could move them, but since the orbits of comets do not extend very far outside the solar system, this too is impossible.

   The most logical conclusion is that the current movement of comets would not be possible if the solar system were 5 billion years old. They only have to be a few thousand years old:

Another well-known researcher, Harold Slusher, stated that from the dust part of a comet, researchers can conclude its age to be less than 10,000 years. In examining large dust occurrences and the intensity of the radiation of stars in their range, outside our solar system, they have come to the same conclusion. Space is very young. The composition of space dust and the number of short-lived comets are an excellent clock that gives exact times for researchers. (5) 

Weakening of the earth's magnetic field. One indication of the earth's young age is the decisive weakening of its magnetic field. Earth's magnetic field, which reaches further than the orbit of the Moon, has been found to lose half its strength every 1,400 years; that is, 1400 years ago the earth's magnetic field had to be 2 times stronger than today. Observations of the change in the magnetic field are based on precise measurements that have been made for almost 170 years. For example, in the Uusi Suomi magazine article entitled "Maan magneettikenttä pienenee jatkuvasti" ("The Earth's magnetic field is constantly decreasing"), 26 February 1990, it is stated as follows:

In 1200, the magnetic field strength was 1.4, and a couple of hundred years later it was 0.8. The findings also show that the decline has continued over the past hundred years... The decrease has been less than 1 per mille per year, it has varied between 0.7 and 0.5...".

If conclusions are drawn about the rapid weakening of the earth's magnetic field, they bring interesting results. Because if the field has weakened all the time at the same pace and at the same speed, it would mean the following types of field strengths in the past. These figures indicate that the Earth cannot be hundreds of thousands of years old, not to mention millions or billions of years. The figures also show that if the Earth had existed only 10,000 years ago, for example, it would have been like a magnetic star, and 50,000 years ago the strength of the magnetic field would have been similar to that of a white dwarf star (Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field, 1973, p. 7 pp. 23; same ”Earth’s Magnetic Field”, The Challenge of Design, The Sixth National Creation Science Conference, Wichita, Kansas, 1978, p.98). These figures set their own limitations to the age of the Earth:

1,400 years  ago - twice compared to now

2,800 years  ago - four times 

4,200 years  ago - eight times

5,600 years  ago - sixteen times 

7,000 years  ago - thirty-two times

14,000 years  ago - 1,024 times

28,000 years  ago - 1,048,576

50,400 years  ago - 68,719,400,000 times

Helium in the atmosphere. The Earth’s magnetic field suggests a young age, as does helium in the atmosphere. Helium enters the atmosphere all the time by means of radioactive disintegration but the problem is that there is only a fraction of the supposed amount of it in the atmosphere (1/2500). The problem is made even bigger by the fact that some of it may be original or entered the atmosphere from outer space. Therefore, the amount of helium in the atmosphere does not fit with the geological time chart of billions of years:

The first surprise: The study shows that helium does not escape to the atmosphere in significant quantities. Another surprise: Helium does not rise into the atmosphere, but is distributed evenly in the atmosphere. Atmospheric scientist Larry Vardiman (coordinator of the RATE group) has shown that the atmosphere contains only 0.04% of the helium it should contain if the Earth were billions of years old. Vardiman writes:

If there was no helium in the Earth's atmosphere when it was formed, the currently measured helium density ... would have been reached in about 2 million years. This is more than 2,500 times shorter than the assumed age of the Earth. Atmospheric physicists who believe in long ages such as [J.C.G.] Walker state that "...the amount of helium in the atmosphere seems to be the problem". [J.W.] Chamberlain states that this helium escape problem “…does not seem to be going away but remains unsolved”. (6)

Vardiman's comment that atmospheric helium "would have been produced in about 2 million years" does not mean that he believes the Earth is 2 million years old. He points to a problem with the evolutionary timescale. Two million years is an insignificant amount of time in terms of evolution. That's roughly the time it allegedly took for Homo erectus to evolve into Homo Sapiens. Vardiman believes that the helium of the atmosphere is almost wholly original. In other words, it was a part of the original creation of the Earth, and very little of it is a result of radioactive disintegration. (7) 

2. Man’s appearance on the Earth

When it comes to human history, we often read in textbooks and books about evolution how the first humans walked the earth already hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago. Humans are thought to have descended from some lower animals, and of course that takes time. It would be strange if the development had taken place in a short time, and therefore hundreds of thousands, even millions or billions of years have been taken to help.

    However, it is good to note that observations about population growth and human historical time do not refer to long periods of time. On the contrary, based on them, it can be concluded that man has appeared on Earth for less than 10,000 years: 

The rate at which population increases contradicts the notion that mankind began in the distant past. We can see it from the next examples:

• According to calculations, the population doubles every 400 years. (Shorter times for this doubling have also been mentioned. We must also note that abortions and contraception were not possible in the past as they are nowadays.) If we use this doubling  rate and assume that humans existed 16,000 years ago then our current population should be more than one trillion people (1,099,510,000,000) -- almost 200 times greater than it is, in fact. It is such a huge figure that such a population could not even exist on Earth. This also suggests that the beginning of mankind cannot be pushed too far into the past. Otherwise the surface of the Earth would have filled up with dead bodies and the present population would be many times larger:

The total population of six billion mentioned in the beginning will be reached in 1999. Thus, there has been an increase of five billions in less than 200 years. A hundred years ago, scientists estimated that the Earth will not be able to carry a population of more than six billion. In 1950, the population was only about 2.5 billions, but the limit of five billion was already exceeded in 1987. Only 11 years was needed for the last increase of one billion. For the sake of comparison, one can calculate that the present speed of population increase will lead to people filling up the entire surface of the Earth in the year 3530, and in 6826 all the people will not fit in the entire known universe.

   If we count backwards from today's figures and take the current reproduction rate of 1.6% as annual growth, we will come to the conclusion of the first family living in 625 A.D. or 1,375 years ago.

   The supporters of the theory of evolution are not wiling to calculate figures connected to the increase of the population, because over a period of time of millions of years, the figures become so huge that the situation becomes impossible. After hundreds of millions of years, the crust of the Earth would in practice be covered by dead animals and the remains of humans, and this number of people alone would fill the entire known universe. However, the theory of evolution requires long periods of time. According to the theory, the Homo erectus who lived 1.6 million years ago, for example, was long and muscular, almost like a modern man, and certainly very reproductive as well. (8)

• If we use the speed of doubling mentioned above as the basis (the population doubling every 400 years) and go back 4,000 years in time, there should have been more than 1,000 times less people than nowadays or only about 5 million people. This seems to be a plausible estimate and fits together with the idea that the first people lived on Earth only a couple of thousand years ago and that from them have come all the present people. The matter is mentioned also in Genesis (Gen. 10:32: These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.)

• If there had been only two persons 100,000 years ago, and the population doubled once every thousand years, the current population should be 2,535, 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. This is an absolutely absurd number compared to the current 6 billion (= 6,000,000 000) in comparison, and shows that people could not have existed at that time. It shows that the origin of humanity must be much closer, only a couple of thousand years in the past.

• The current population growth rate on Earth is approx. 1.7% per year, and if the same growth rate had continued for only 1300 years, it would have been enough to achieve the current number of 6 billion people. This shows that the Earth can be inhabited in a short time, and it doesn't even take tens of thousands of years as has been suggested.

The history of mankind. The beginning of mankind is something that has been tried to be moved earlier than it really is. There has been talk of tens and hundreds of thousands of years and a "prehistoric era" when man walked the earth. It is believed that science would have been able to prove the early existence of man and the inheritance from lower life forms.

   However, the fact is that we only know about the history of mankind for a few millennia. The earliest records only go back about 5,000 years to the ruling families of Egypt, and even in them there can be big mistakes. The margin of error in them can be hundreds of years. (Please see below: The dynasties of Egypt.)

   The oldest found manuscripts do not support the idea of a long history of mankind either, and long periods of time are only needed to support another theory, the theory of evolution. It is also interesting to note that when archeological and other discoveries are used as help, the following things have appeared in the world almost simultaneously, i.e. about 4000 to 5000 years ago. It is likely that if humans had already existed a million years ago, they would have appeared already then, but this has not happened:

• Construction of buildings and cities. This began to take place only a few millennia ago. (Cf. Gen 4:17: Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.)

• Use of metals (Cf. Gen 4:22: Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah.)

• Creation and use of ceramics

• Ability to write

• Development of agriculture is also a relatively new practice. (Cf. Gen 3:23:So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.) 

Next, we will study some quotes referring to the same subject. They show that civilization suddenly appeared in the world only a couple of thousand years ago. The first statement is by Professor W. F. Libby, the developer of the radiocarbon dating method, who stated in Science magazine on 3 March 1961 (p. 624) that the verifiable history reaches only about as far as 5,000 years back in time. He referred to the dynasties of Egypt:

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." (9)

"The earliest notes we have of human history go back only about 5000 years." (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. (10)

But then why did the previous things appear so late and almost simultaneously? Is there a reasonable explanation for that?

    The answer, of course, is that people simply did not exist before and did not inhabit the earth. Already in the previous paragraphs, it was stated how the population has gradually increased, and that, for example, 2000 years ago (the time of the Roman Empire) there were far fewer people than now, and in 2000 BC even fewer than during the Roman Empire. In fact, if we go back only a few millennia, we will very soon come across a zero point, when there were no humans on earth. It is the only reasonable conclusion if we accept the late appearance of civilization on the earth and the gradual growth of the population.

    In addition, it is good to note that when the settlement has originally left the Middle East to spread elsewhere and when the population has grown (Gen 1:28: Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."), such places as the North and South America and Australia became mainly populated only after the 18th century, when they gained inhabitants due to migration. The fact that the earth was filled with inhabitants only this late shows that the beginning of humanity cannot be more than a few millennia behind.

The dynasties of Egypt. When prof. Libby refers to the dynasties of Egypt (See back!), so it must be said that even the information about their dating is not necessarily correct. Often, in chronology, great value has been placed on these ruler genealogies.

    However, the Egyptians themselves had no such lists, but were all compiled centuries later by others (Manethon c. 285 BC).

    In addition, Herodotus has mentioned that there have been at least 12 kings in Egypt at one time. If true, that alone makes the lists of rulers very uncertain and leads to many rulers being assumed to have lived earlier than they actually did. The margin of error in these lists can be centuries.

    The 3-part series "Pharaohs and Kings" shown on Finnish TV in November-December 1996 also gives an idea of how uncertain the lists are, and how they can contain errors of even centuries. The series’ writers show that the information about reigns of Egyptian kings lies on uncertain ground, and that they may have lived later than is generally believed.

3. Why the radioactive measurements are unreliable?

When it comes to dating methods, the most important of them are radioactive measurements, which have been used to calculate the ages of both the Earth and the animals and people who lived on it. These methods have generally given ages of millions of years, especially when it has been a question of the Earth's rocks and elements. They are based on the fact that radioactive substances should have a certain time in which they change and decay into other elements. For example, in the uranium / lead method, the uranium should change completely into lead always according to the same speed and within a certain time.

   So what is the basis of radioactive methods? It is important to note that they are based mainly on the geological time chart, in which the age of the Earth is supposed to be billions of years. This chart was compiled in the 1800s before radioactivity measurements were even known and it dictates how the samples are interpreted. In accordance with it, methods have been introduced that automatically and invariably give long ages to rock samples. Measurements are usually not made directly from fossils, which would be a much better and more reliable way (and would also give significantly smaller ages), but is usually carried out from volcanic rocks. The geological time chart drawn in the 19th century usually regulates how samples are interpreted. A professor familiar with dating describes the situation:

If the interpolation based on the maximum layer thickness were stopped, chaos would arise. Then it would no longer be certain that, for example, the coal deposits would be younger than the Devonian or Silurian strata. The order can be maintained only by giving the layer order an absolute priority over radioactive measurements. One knowledgeable geochronologist told me about timing results that don't fit the geological time chart:

Results that do not fit the time chart stay in a desk drawer – you must not, naturally, lay yourself open to ridicule. (…) It is pointless to do a simple dating only. You must keep in mind the big picture and always bear in mind the geological time chart or otherwise everything will go wrong.

… Radiometry only gives an apparent age. To qualify as a "correct age" or "accepted age", it must fall within a pre-determined point on the geological timescale. The real absolute is not a measurement or evaluation result, but an existing geological time chart. As long as the geological time chart decides the validity of the measurement, the measurements cannot decide the correctness of the geological time chart.

    When you ask the actual reason why the geological time chart  with its hundreds of millions of years is adhered to, it turns out that the reason is not the geologists. This is solely due to evolution theorists... The demonstrably incorrect timings given by young rocks show that the interpretation of isotope concentrations gives not only uncertain, but completely unusable results. In my opinion, the conditions for the correctness of methods measuring young age are significantly better. For the sake of truth, I believe that we must demand that considerably smaller ages be included in the examination and that extensive measurements be taken directly from the fossils. A great service would be done to science if we gave up the forced commitment to the geological time chart. (11)

Starting point and other preconditions. Radioactive measurements are based on an idea that in rock types there are mother elements and daughter elements, and the age of a rock type can be determined on grounds of their relations. The less mother elements there are left in a rock type, the older the rock type is deemed, while the more there are these elements, the younger it must be.

   In addition to this, there are three important basic assumptions in radioactive measurements. They are:

1. There have not been any daughter elements in a stone in its initial state, there have only been mother elements. The disintegration must have begun from a point zero.

2. Nothing may have been taken away or added to the stone.

3. The disintegration rate has always remained the same.

However, as far as the previous assumptions are concerned, they are not provable. Among other things, we encounter the following problems in these assumptions when using radioactive methods:

The first problem is the starting point. How could we know what the rock was like in the first place? It would be quite strange if, in the initial state, all the elements had appeared one hundred percent pure and without their daughter elements, although the latter are widely present in the earth's crust. The perception of their original relationship is based only on assumption and guesswork, which cannot be proven.

    This is similar to there being seven pieces of cake and five biscuits on a table, and somebody asking us to tell them how many there were originally. It's certainly impossible if we haven't been there to check the situation in the first place. We need to know the original situation on the table - just like in radioactive measurements we need to know the amounts of substances - otherwise there is no reliable basis for the measurements:

The history of the dating of KBS ashstone reveals that no matter how carefully the researcher selected his stone samples or how accurately he carried out his laboratory work, he can always be accused of using contaminated material or incorrect metho-dology if the timing result is "wrong". There is no need to prove the charges. Incorrect age is enough proof. The literature suggests that even if radiometric timings are valid in principle (which they are not), the selection of a demonstrably pure and non-contaminated rock sample requires omniscience that is inaccessible to mortal humans. Radioactive dating methods are a classic example of self-deception and circular reasoning. They are the myth of human evolution. Naeser and his colleagues ¹² have expressed the problem well:

The accuracy of all dating results can only be guessed because we do not know the real age of any geological sample. We can only try to obtain the best consistence between P-Ar and other dating methods. (13)

External factors are another possible factor that can confuse the calculations. Problematic issues may include heating and molding of the stones (this can easily occur with volcanic rocks from which the measurements are taken) and flowing of water through stone. All of these events may cause the mother and daughter elements to be driven and accumulated elsewhere, and this may change the contents of materials and the measuring results. If only a minor change in the proportions occurs, it may distort the entire age determination. It is then not on a reliable basis:

However, this is not the only problem with the method. If sand is added into an hourglass or sand leaks from the upper or lower part of the hourglass, the accuracy of the method is worthless. It is impossible for us to know whether uranium or lead has dissolved from the stone over the supposed period of thousands or millions of years or whether more of one of the elements has been accumulated in the stone. The method is useless if we do not know this for certain. It has been estimated that 10,000–50,000 tons of this kind of uranium that has dissolved and disintegrated from stone is washed into the seas annually. (14)

Contradictory results. An indication of the ambiguity of radioactive methods is the fact that the results have been contradictory and have varied a great deal, as is to be expected for rocks and samples found in the ground. Their concentrations, i.e. the assumed ages, have varied widely and the following observations have been made. They show that the concentrations of stones can be measured, but determining their age is questionable. If we see similar throws in our own watch, with a margin of error greater than 99%, we would reject it immediately.

   The first example is about volcanic stones (Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand) that were surely known to have been crystallized from lava only 25 - 50 years ago as a consequence of a volcanic eruption. This information was based on the observations of eyewitnesses.

    Samples of these rocks were sent for dating to one of the most respected commercial dating laboratories (Geochron Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts). The results, which contradict the practical observations, can be seen in the following account:

Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory whose P-Ar laboratory director has done a dissertation on P-Ar dating. The laboratory was not informed of the exact collection location of the samples or their assumed age. However, they were reported to be likely young and that there were very little argon in them. This ensured that the analytical work would be particularly careful.

   The "ages" obtained from the P-Ar analyzes are listed in Table 1. The "ages" of the rocks range from <270,000 years to 3.5 (+- 0.2) million years, although they have been found to have cooled from lava 25–50 years ago. One sample from each flow gave an “age” of <270,000 years or <290,000 years, while all other samples gave an “age” of millions of years. The laboratory processed the samples with a low "age" in the same batch, which indicated a systematic error in the laboratory. So the lab manager checked his equipment again. The results were similar. This ruled out a systematic error by the laboratory and confirmed that the low results were correct. Furthermore, repeated measurements of samples already analyzed (A#2 and B#2 in Table 1) did not yield similar results, but given the analytical uncertainties associated with low argon concentrations, this was not surprising. Clearly, the argon content varies in these rocks. Some geochronologists may say that <270,000 years is indeed the correct "age" for these samples, but how would they know that 3.5 million years would not be the correct "age" unless they already knew that the lava flows were recent ?!

... We know the true ages of the rocks because, according to observations, they had formed less than 50 years before the age determination. Still, their "age" was estimated at up to 3.5 million years. Ages are therefore incorrect. How can we trust this 'age-determination method' when it is used for rocks whose age we do not know? If the method fails to determine the age of rocks, the genesis of which we have an unbiased eyewitness description, why should we rely on it when it comes to rocks whose age we cannot independently verify from history? (15)

Other examples illustrate the problems of radioactive dating. Again, they show how concentrations can be measured in rocks, but they don't have to have anything to do with actual age. It has happened, as shown in the following example from the Grand Canyon, that the top layer is "hundreds or tens of millions of years" older than the bottom layer. Of course, that can't be true, and that's why such age determinations belong only to science fiction:

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". (16)

The potassium-argon method can theoretically be used to determine the age of younger rocks, but it also cannot be used to determine the age of the fossil itself. The ancient "1470 man" discovered by Richard Leakey was determined to be 2.6 million years old using this method. The age was determined by Professor E.T. Hall, who told that analysis of the first rock sample yielded an impossible age of 220 million years. This result was rejected because it did not fit the evolutionary framework, and thus another sample had to be analyzed, which gave a reasonable age of 2.6 million years. Later age determinations of the same discovery have ranged from 290,000 to 19,500,000 years. The potassium-argon method therefore does not seem particularly reliable, nor does the way evolutionists interpret the results. (17)

Carbon-14 method. One radioactive method for age determination is the carbon-14 method. It differs from other radioactivity methods in that its half-life is only about 5,700 years and that it only measures the age of organic samples. In this method, the chances of making mistakes are much smaller than in other radioactivity methods, but it also has its problems, of which the following can be mentioned:

Weakening of the Earth's magnetic field is one factor that has an essential impact on radiocarbon measurements. As we stated before, the Earth's magnetic field has not remained the same; instead, it has continuously weakened so that the halflife is now approximately 1,400 years. The weakening of the magnetic field has also affected the amount of radiocarbon formation:

The Earth's magnetic field is weakening. This weakening is very slight, but the decrease has been observed for a long time (...) since the situation is this, a little more Cosmic rays come through. The influence of these cosmic rays can be seen, for example, in the fact that more carbon-14 is formed." (…) (Magazine Uusi Suomi, article 26 February, 1990, Maan magneettikenttä pienenee jatkuvasti, “Magnetic Field of Earth Continuously Weakening)

Thus, when the magnetic field was much more powerful some centuries ago – even tens of times more powerful than now – it has also had an effect on the formation of radiocarbon: formerly it was formed much less than now or perhaps not at all.

    In other words, the former means that today, when we examine samples from earlier times, they look significantly older than they really are. They can look centuries or even thousands of years older than their own age, because in the earliest times radiocarbon could hardly form due to the stronger magnetic field. If the decisive weakening of the magnetic field is not taken into account, then even long periods of time can be mistaken in determining the age. The samples look much older than they actually are:

If the amount of carbon-14 has been lower in the past because there has been more magnetic protection against cosmic rays, then we have estimated the time passed after the life of these organisms as too long. (Science Digest, December 1960, p. 19)

Vague results. Even though the possibilities for errors when using carbon-14 method are much smaller than with the other methods, this method is not always accurate. Generally, errors in this method produce age estimates that are older than their actual age because of the weakening in the magnetic field, as mentioned above. The following kinds of mistakes have been noted:

 • The measured age for living slugs has been 2,300 years (Keith and Anderson, Radiocarbon dating: Fictitious results with mollusk shells, Science, Vol. 141, 1963, p. 111).

• Living trees have been measured to be 10,000 years old (Huber, B., Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions, The physiology of Forest Trees, Ronald Publishers, New York, 1958.). Thus, the margin of error was 10,000 years.

 • In Durrington Walls of England, an old structure was dated at 2620–2630 B.C. using carbon-14 method. However; completely undisputed archaeological evidence indicates the structure to be approximately a thousand years younger (The Genesis Flood, Henry M. Morris and John C. Witcomb, p. 43).

 • A living mollusk was dated as 3,000 years old (Creation Research Society Journal, June 1970).

• C. A. Reed points out a good example of the uncertainty with carbon-14 method in the Science magazine (11 December 1959). The error made in the example was thousands of years and contradicted undisputed archaeological evidence:

A classic example of the uncertainty of the C-14 method are samples taken from 11 prehistoric villages in northern Iraq. C-14 showed that the samples dated back 6000 years, although based on all archaeological evidence, the village had only been inhabited for 500 years.

Quickly decomposing radioactive elements. Usually, methods have been used for age determination in which the half-lives of radioactive substances are enormous.

   However, there are elements in the soil whose half-lives are only fractions of the previous methods. Especially polonium is an interesting substance. Experiments made with it have indicated how ideas of a red-hot beginning of the Earth and billions of years are questionable.

   Thus, when it comes to the birth of the Earth, it is usually explained that it would have initially had a glowing hot and molten surface, which would have then gradually solidified. More than 4,000 million years ago, the Earth is believed to have been like a boiling boiler, in which there were no possibilities for life. From that began a slow solidification that took up to millions of years.

   However, some methods based on radioactivity, like the radio halos of polonium, do not refer to slow solidification. Instead, they refer to quick forming of the Earth. These radio halos of polonium have been found all over the world in granite. These halos should not even be there if the stone formations had actually slowly solidified over the course of thousands of years. This is because of a simple reason: in order to remain detectable, these halos cannot have been formed in stone that is under 300 degree Celsius (!), and secondly because the half-life of polonium 218 is only 3 minutes (!), way too short for slow solidification. (Gentry, R.V., Radio halos in a radio chronological and cosmological perspective. Science, 5 April 1974, vol. 184, pp. 62–66). Both of these facts indicate that the common idea of slow solidification of the Earth during millions of years cannot be true. The only possibility is that the bedrock has crystallized in the blink of an eye simultaneously with the formation of polonium, because the existence of radio halos cannot be explained any other way.

It is interesting that in some types of bedrock rocks, 'halos' (a kind of "bubbles") formed by certain, very quickly decomposing polonium isotopes can be observed, which tell that the bedrock has formed in the blink of an eye. The situation is the same as if you tried to capture the bubbles of the effervescent tablet by deep freezing the bubbling water glass in a split second. (18)

Pleochroic halos are disturbances, color changes in the crystals of some types of rocks caused by radioactive radiation. These ring-like halos have been caused especially by the radioactive particles of uranium, thorium, and polonium (Po, atomic number 84) contained in the mica crystals, from which alpha radiation has been emitted... These halos, which can be found in Precambrian solidified rock types, can have been born only if the Earth has been created instantaneously.  If their formation (cooling, solidification) had occurred slowly, these halos could not have been born because of the high dissipation speed of polonium minerals. Gentry concludes that the pleochroic halos of polonium refer to creation in a moment and very much call into question radiometric dating (except for radiocarbon dating) in general. (19) 

4. Signs on the Earth

When talking about dating methods, radioactive measurements are often mentioned first, although they give very indefinite results, as shown above. When trying to determine the age of something, they are almost always mentioned first.

   However, there are many other methods, i.e., methods based on practical observations in nature, and which usually give only fractions of the readings that radioactive measurements represent. These methods based on practical observations were used for a long time before radioactive measuring but they were rejected very soon after the new methods appeared. This was a major mistake because most of the methods were based on practical observations.

   Furthermore, one should note that if we use these methods as a yardstick, they give only fractions of the ages given by the geological time chart and many radioactive methods. Billions or hundreds of millions of years must be deducted in order for the geological time chart to be consistent with these methods. A Finnish geologist mentions in his book, how methods that were based on practicality, were abandoned with the arrival of radioactive dating:

Arthur Holmes (1896-1965) dealt with the dating of different periods of the country's history and he worked most of his life on this problem. In addition, he managed to write an excellent geology textbook. Holmes has made the first age tables of geological periods. With radioactive dating methods, the rocks began to age quickly. All other methods of determining the age of rocks were quickly abandoned, although in fact numerous new problems arose, such as the question of where the sodium disappeared after it had entered the sea over billions of years, and which should have reached its current salt content in 90 million years, according to Joly. (Nils Edelman, Viisaita ja veijareita geologian maailmassa, p. 218)

The accumulation of sediments, the flow of minerals into sea and the speed of erosion. As stated, before the use of radioactive methods, other means of dating were in use. For example, such as the accumulation of sediments, the flow of minerals into the sea, and the speed of erosion. All of these methods are based on the current accumulation and erosion speeds in observed areas. They are based on a principle made known by Charles Lyell: the present time is the key to the past.

      What results do these methods yield? Interestingly, the results from these methods are far younger than results obtained using radioactive methods. In addition, if the speeds have been higher before, e.g. due to disasters (the Flood?), they change the numbers even lower. Then most of the obtained amounts of age can disappear away:

The accumulation of sediments in river estuaries is one way of measuring time periods. It is based on the fact that when you know the total volume of the estuary and then divide it by the current accumulation rate per year, you get the age of the estuary.

   What about the results of this method? It is rather interesting that the ages of deltas range from a few thousand years to about 13 -14 million years. For example, the Mississippi delta, to which the Mississippi River annually brings about 230 million cubic meters of sediment, has been calculated to be only 4,000 years old. (Wysong, R. L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 163). However, if early transportation speed was greater, the age of this delta would be younger. The following practical example suggests the same. It shows how quickly deposits can form and how many samples are evaluated as older than they really are. It is unlikely that the same processes have continued for millions or billions of years:

An example of how huge mistakes can be made in estimating the accumulation speed of sediments is the following case: remains of an Indian were found close to New Orleans from the layers of the Mississippi Delta, and Dr. B. Dowler estimated the remains to be 57,000 years old. After a while, from the layers of the same delta and even deeper, in Fort Jackson, a piece of a tree was found and proven to originate from a Kentucky riverboat. Because of this, 57,000 years were reduced to 200 years at most. Dr. Dowler had estimated the rate of sediment accumulation in this estuary to be much slower than it actually has been. If the errors regarding the rate of accumulation of sediments are usually of this order of magnitude, then our estimates of the age of continental shelves and ocean basins are more than 100 times too large. (20)

The flow of minerals into the seas. When studying the flow of minerals into the seas, it has given the age of the oceans only 100 to 260,000,000 years (Dudley J. Whitney: The face of the Deep [New York, Vantage Press 1955] / Chemical Oceanography . Es, by J.P. Riley and G. Skirrow [New York Academic Press, Vol. 1, 1965] p. 164. See also Harold Camping, "Let the Oceans Speak", Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 11, [June, 1974], pp. 39-45). Such substances as sodium, nickel, magnesium, silicon, potassium, copper, gold, silver, mercury, lead, tin, aluminum and many other substances have been included in the calculations, so the test results have been obtained on the basis of several elements. After measuring the transport of these substances at the current rate, and knowing the current concentration of minerals in the seas, it has resulted in a time that is many times less than is usually indicated for the age of the seas. What do these results show? This means that we should take at least four billion years out of the geological time chart in order to be consistent with the measurements. In addition, it is not taken into account that the flow may sometimes have been many times more intense - among other things. Because of the Flood mentioned in the Bible - and that some of the minerals may have been in the seas from the very beginning.

Erosion rate. Many evolutionists emphasize that the same processes observed in nature have continued in the same way for millions and billions of years. They think so, even though many practical observations contradicting long time periods.

    One problem associated with long periods of time is erosion. Evolutionists assume the age of the continents to be billions of years, but if erosion has continued in the same way all along, they would have been worn away long ago.

    If current rates of erosion and decay are used as a basis, it would mean that all the continents would be washed into the sea in about 14 million years! This is a remarkable observation. For example, on the European Alps, the surface of the Earth is estimated to wear away and be lowered by approximately one meter in 1,500–4,000 years (Charles Schuchert, Geochronology, or the Age of the Earth on Grounds of Sediments and Life). If the mountains were tens- or hundreds of millions of years old they should have already been worn away several times. Billions of years must be subtracted from the geological time chart because it does not agree with erosion observations:

With the present erosion speed, all the present continents or at least the sedimentary rocks would be washed away into the oceans as sand in approximately 14 million years. The rivers of the Earth take approximately 40 billion cubic meters of water into the oceans in a year. At the same time, a part of each continent flows into the sea: 15–20 billion tons as solid matter and approximately four billion tons dissolved. The erosion speed is so high that North America, for example, would erode away in 10 million years (Creation ex nihilo, 3-5/2000) (…) The same goes for volcanic basalt in Parana, Brazil and Etendeka, Namibia. Wouldn’t the erosion of 65 million years have already worn away the sedimentary rocks? (21)

The European Alps have mainly formed from Mesozoic (Jurassic and Cretaceous periods) and Tertiary rock types, of which the latter are in the valleys, and the former on higher mountains (!). These Mesozoic layers must have been worn by erosion at least from the beginning of the Tertiary period, i.e., for approximately 60 million years according to radioactive measurements. If the average speed of erosion has been one meter in 2,000 years on the Alps (in our time, one meter in 1,500–4,000 years), approximately 30 km of the layers older than Tertiary period should have been worn away during that time. The fact that the speed of erosion has varied does not change the sheer scale of this figure. The fact that a large part of the Mesozoic rock types are still left on the Alps is an indisputable piece of evidence against the results of radioactive measurements. (22)

5. The geological time chart is wrong

GEOLOGICAL DATING. Almost as important as radioactive dating is dating by means of geological strata and index fossils. In this method the history of the Earth is divided into a group of long geological periods (Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devon, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Perm, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, Quaternary), the corresponding strata of which should be found in the same order in nature. The length of periods can vary from millions to even hundreds of millions of years. The basic assumptions of this method include the following three things:

1. Slowly and over the course of millions of years, strata have been formed that have piled up on top of each other. The lowest of these strata can be tens or hundreds of millions of years older than the overlying young strata.

2. Second, there are special fossils, index fossils, which have been widespread in their time. A geological time scale has also been compiled from the index fossils, i.e. the so-called a geological pillar that should reveal when they appeared and lived.

    If someone finds a trilobite anywhere, it would always have to be at least 200 million years old, because trilobites are thought to have died out right then.

    If dinosaur bones were found in the deposit, the deposit and these bones should always be at least 65-120 million years old, because dinosaurs are thought to have lived then.

    Correspondingly, a layer containing human fossils cannot be more than a few million years old, because people are assumed to have lived on Earth for exactly this time.

3. Thirdly, when fossils are found in strata, the fossils should be in the order that the more primitive and older the organisms are, the lower they are located. This is considered to prove how life has evolved from its primitive forms to its current forms.

Why is the Geological time chart erroneous? Evidence that the Geological time chart with its hundreds of millions of years is badly erroneous, is evident in numerous factors. In textbooks, problems connected with it are rarely mentioned; instead, the chart is presented as a scientific truth. But in fact, this chart drawn up in the 19th century is far from the truth and practical observations in nature. Among other things, the following factors are problematic:

The age of the oldest strata. If the geological time chart that describes hundreds of millions of years is true, it means that the oldest geological periods should be hundreds of millions of years old. For example, the Precambrian period was supposed to be 4600-600, the Cambrian period 600-490 and the Carboniferous period 350-290 million years ago.

    However, the amazing discovery is that fossils from these oldest deposits have been found to contain radioactive carbon, which should not be present at all if they are that old. Because the half-life of radioactive carbon is only approx. 5700 years, it is clear that it cannot be present in samples that are millions of years old. It's an impossibility.

   However, the fact is that radiocarbon appears in many fossils, as well as in coal, peat and oil deposits that have been regarded as tens of millions or hundreds of millions years old. This means that these strata with their fossils cannot be millions or hundreds of millions years old but at most tens of thousands of years. The appearance of radiocarbon makes the long periods of time impossible. Also the age of "hundreds of millions of years" old graphite or anthracite has surprisingly been measured as only 40,000-60,000 years (Junker, R., Scherer, S., ”Entstehung und Geschichte der Lebewesen”, Weyel Biologie, 1988, p. 160).

   The next quote clearly shows that the age of the oldest strata is in reality measured only in thousands of years because of the radiocarbon appearing in them. As it appears repeatedly even in fossils of the Cambrian period, the long periods of the geological time chart cannot be true:

(…) 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!”  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

Baumgardner also sent a diamond to a carbon-14 laboratory for measurement. This had never been done before because the act of measurement was regarded as absurd – great madness. A diamond that was formed deep in Precambrian rocks is as old as the Earth itself. In addition, links between a diamond’s crystals are very strong, so biological contamination cannot enter a diamond. Therefore, it was thought that attempts to date diamonds using carbon-14 dating methods were useless. However, the lab returned a surprising report: The diamond was approximately 58,000 years old! (25)

Deficiencies in strata. One notion that comes up in textbooks is that we can find complete geologic strata sequences around the Earth, in which all the strata of the geological time chart are perfectly in order on top of each other. That's how things should be, if the assumed evolution over millions and billions of years is correct.

   The fact is, however, that complete geologic strata sequences have not been found anywhere. Only fractions of them have been found. Periods of "tens" or "hundreds of millions of years" are often missing altogether. For example, in the famous Grand Canyon, which has often been used as an observational example, only five of the twelve most important strata have been found there. The geological chart there, as elsewhere, is incomplete and does not correspond to the view presented in books. The complete geologic strata sequence exists only on paper and in textbooks. It does not exist in nature. It is exceptional to find even three or four of the twelve (or thirteen) strata on top of each other.

   Furthermore, the original geological chart was based on a very small area that does not correspond to other areas of Earth. This, together with the deficiencies of the strata, makes the use of the chart problematic:

A student, when first encountering this chart, naturally believes that geologists have found the different rock strata in the correct order in one cycle where each stratum follows the former in a regular order, and all of these in one place where the rock has been formed in the way indicated on the chart. But nothing is further away from the truth: no series of the sort has been found anywhere on the Earth. (26)

The usual division of the history of the Earth's crust has arisen in Central Europe and Western Europe. The German mineralogist Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749 - 1817) can be considered the originator of this division. However, it is clear that Werner's division of the sequence of earth-layers does not hold true in a large part of the world, in fact it does not fit anywhere. He constructed a theory concerning the entire Earth, based on research on a small area only. However, there are mountains only a few kilometers from his home that, based on their formation, are in total conflict with his dogma.

 One must therefore really wonder about the lack of judgment with which evolution scholars of our time have adopted those almost two hundred year old hypotheses. - The artificial division of the entire earth's history into a group of long geological periods is more than suspicious. If the theory is true, then infinite times must have passed in certain places on Earth without leaving any sign of erosion or stratification. There are cases where the so-called the newer layers are located immediately above the older ones. (27)

Disorder in strata. In addition to the fact that the strata are imperfect around the Earth, they also appear in disorder, i.e. contrary to the geological time chart. It means that the strata that have been considered the oldest are on top, while the younger strata have been found beneath them. Such inconsistencies occur throughout the Earth, which is evidenced by the inaccuracy of the geological time chart. Here are some examples:

• Precambrian and Cambrian strata that should include the lowest and simplest forms of life are located on the uppermost layers in many areas on the Earth. According to the evolutionary view, they should be hundreds of millions of years old.

• Fossil species, such as ammonites, have been found on mountain slopes at an altitude of several kilometers. These species should have lived in the earliest times and thus be – according to the geological order – at the bottom. Nevertheless, they have been found in the topmost layers on mountain slopes, in other words, in a totally wrong place from the point of view of the geological chart.

• In the salt ridges of Pakistan, the main parts of a mountain are Cambrian  ("500 million years old"), but under these layers there are Tertiary strata (“less than 60 million years old”).

• From the top of the Mt. Muthen in the Alps, rocks from the Tertiary period (less than 60 million years old) have been found under rocks from the Triassic period (200 million years old). Similarly, in Switzerland east of Lake Luzerne in the mountains, the Cretaceous layer is the highest. It has Jurassic limestone below it and Tertiary at the bottom, even though it should be above the others.

• In Glacier National Park in North America, there is Precambrian limestone ("1,000 million years old") over a slate formation from the Cretaceous period (“100 million years old”).

The same thing, the disorder in strata is also indicated by the following quotes. They indicate that places can be found around the world can in which old and young strata are in reverse order or contradict the geological time chart. They show that the order of the geological time chart is true only on paper, not in nature:

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. (Researcher James D. Dana in his book Manual of Geology p. 899) (28)

When a geologist finds strata so that the one deemed the oldest is on the top, we must forgive him if he is not sure whether he is standing on his head or his feet. There are extensive areas in South Alberta, a national park in the United States, Canada, Germany, Russia, and in the Alps where the order of the strata is quite the opposite, and also in many other places the strata are quite disorderly. (Sir Archibald Geikie, the former leader of the British Geological Research Society) (29) 

6. The strata have formed quickly

One of the basic assumptions of geological dating is that the strata have formed slowly over hundreds of millions of years. It has been assumed that they accumulated on top of each other so that the lowest strata can be tens or hundreds of millions of years older than the young strata resting on top.

    However, there are many points against such long periods. It was already stated above that the presence of radiocarbon in Cambrian fossils and other old deposits is something that only refers to thousands, not millions of years. Radiocarbon could not occur if the fossils and deposits were millions or hundreds of millions of years o

ld.

    Next we will consider other evidence that contradicts the notion that strata have formed slowly over a period of millions of years. Among them are the following things that we are going to explore:

• Long tree trunk fossils in strata

• Fossils in strata

• No erosion

• Fast formation of strata at St. Helens during our time 

Long tree trunk fossils in strata contradict the notion that strata were formed slowly over a period of millions of years. Fossils of tree trunks extending through several strata have been found in different parts of the world. For example, an old photo of the Saint-Etienne coal mine in France shows how each of five petrified tree trunks penetrate through about ten strata or more. According to the evolutionary view, the strata should be millions of years old, but despite everything, tree trunks extend through these "millions of years" old strata.

  A good question based on the previous one is whether these are trees that are millions of years old, or whether the land masses and strata have formed around them quickly. It is impossible for both to be true at the same time, but certainly the latter option is more likely, because tree trunk fossils cannot be created in any other way than by being buried quickly. Otherwise, they would have rotted a long time ago:

Many signs refer to several overlapping strata being formed as a consequence of a continuous and world-wide process, since the fossils of many plants and large animals pass vertically through several different strata, without there being signs of thousands of years of exposure to erosion at their upper or lower ends. Therefore, a tree trunk has remained in an upright position in the middle of quickly accumulating layers of sediment. Large dinosaurs have also been found in similar positions. A 24-metre-tall tree trunk going through more than ten layers was found near Edinburgh, and everything indicated that the trunk had been quickly carried in place. Neither have any signs indicating erosion between various geological periods been found between the different strata. (30)

Thick trunks that have remained in an upright position are bursting through layers tens of meters thick, showing how quickly everything has happened. The strata cannot be a result of slow formation of peat, as the supporters of evolution claim. (31)

Fossils in strata. One clear evidence of the rapid stratification of soil layers is the fossils in them. For when there are fossils in the strata, their origin can only be explained by mud and mudslides having buried an animal or plant very quickly. This holds true also for all index fossils and the tree trunk fossils mentioned above.

 In fact, whenever we meet fossils, they prove that some plant or animal has been buried very quickly under mud and earth masses and then soon turned into a fossil (The petrification event itself does not have to take long, because petrified wood has been produced in laboratory conditions in just a couple of days.). If burial had not occurred, the animals and plants would otherwise have quickly rotted or been eaten by other animals.

    Thus, when we find fossils today, they only prove that the strata in which they are found must have formed in a short moment, only a few days and weeks, and not over millions of years. They have been buried in the strata quickly, because otherwise no fossils could have remained of them. Millions of years would not help their creation at all. Many scientists themselves admit that many deposits and fossils are best explained by rapid catastrophes. Fossils cannot be created in any other way. This kind of silt and mud deposits around plants and animals can best be explained by a flood of destruction, such as the Flood mentioned in the Bible.

    The next comments also refer to the fast stratification that enabled creation of fossils. They show that the strata were not born as a consequence of long and slow processes:

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)

No erosion. If the strata were formed slowly over millions of years, there should be clear signs of erosion between them. However, when different strata have been studied worldwide, these signs cannot be found between them - neither in the famous Grand Canyon nor anywhere else. On the contrary, it seems that the strata are quite uniformly related to each other and have formed on top of each other without breaks:

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. (32)

The lack of erosion between the strata suggests three points:

1. It has not taken millions of years for the strata to be formed; rather, they were formed in quite a short time, perhaps in a couple of days or weeks.

2. The topmost strata are almost the same age as the lower strata, that is, they must have accumulated almost immediately on top of the previous ones. This is also evidenced by tree trunk fossils, which may pass through more than ten strata. The difference in time between the uppermost and the lowermost stratum is not necessarily more than a few hours or days.

3. Thirdly, the formation of the strata strongly suggests a catastrophe model, a flood that has piled the strata on top of each other. Geologists themselves admit that the best way to create strata is through floods and water. What better alternative to this than a global flood that would move strata of earth on top of each other in a short time? According to the Bible, the waters reigned over the earth for 150 days.

    A quote from the school textbook (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 176,177) refers to the same issue. It talks about the birth of coal, which is supposed to have happened during a special Carboniferous period, when forests were covered by water and silt. However, a more likely explanation is the Flood where exactly the same thing happened. It would also explain the existence of fossils, since they can only be created by rapid burial:

The most significant mineral coal deposits of the Earth were created approximately 300 million years ago. This time is called the Carboniferous period. During this period, the climate was warm and damp. Vegetation was more luxuriant than ever in history, at least in low swamp areas. It is assumed that the atmosphere contained more carbon dioxide than nowadays. Treelike ferns, horsetails, and club mosses grew into forests. Mineral coal was created when these forests – as the climate sometimes became warmer and the ice sheets melted – were buried by water and silt.

Mount Saint Helens, new strata and canyons. It has also been proven in practice that strata can form quickly. In connection with the eruption of the Mount Saint Helens volcano in 1980, a series of overlapping strata with a thickness of almost two hundred meters was formed, and in just a few weeks. So it didn't take millions of years, but in just a few days strata of different quality piled up on top of each other.

    In addition, it is worth noting that less than 2 years later, after the movement of land masses, canyons were formed in the same area, where water began to flow. These canyons did not form gradually over a period of millions of years as a result of flowing water – as the birth of Grand Canyon has been explained – but were formed quickly, and water started to flow in them very soon afterwards. It is probable that other large canyons were born in the same way.

    Let's look at a quote that illustrates the point. It first talks about how an overlapping series of several strata with a thickness of tens of meters was formed in the Mount Saint Helens area. But in addition, it is told about how a canyon was later formed in the same area, where the water started to flow. The process did not take millions of years, as evolutionists would have assumed, but everything happened in a short period of time:

In some places, the ground was now covered by a new multiple-layer surface that was almost 200 meters thick. Over a million tree trunks, without branches or bark, lay on large areas and covered the surface of a lake that once was so beautiful. All vegetation had disappeared. The view was like from a dead planet. (…)

   This is real evidence of how strata can be born in just a few moments. But more evidence supplied by nature was on its way. Less than two years after the explosion, in March 1982, the new surface strata began to move. They formed a huge stream of mud, which irresistibly set off towards the lower regions. The mud stream took everything away. The trees stood upright in the stream with their roots. Houses and bridges did not cause any problems for the mudslide. New strata were created again, but now they were lower than the previous destruction area. However, what interested researchers the most was what was left over in the previous destruction area. Only a part of the layers had started to move. Now there were huge canyons whose walls were in places more than 50 meters tall. In photographs, this area now looked exactly like the Grand Canyon in Colorado.

Researchers, who had for decades studied the birth of the Grand Canyon and the composition of its strata, were extremely grateful. The natural forces had, in a startling way, supported their catastrophe theories. (…)

   The strata of the canyon formed without interruption by the powerful movement of water and volcanic eruptions. The strata were simultaneously soft and covered by water. When the water then flowed away, during the following years, several collapses in the area took place – extensive mudflows that, as watery landslides, formed large canyon areas. Only the strata that had solidified enough to become hard were left. In the case of St Helens, this theory was supported by actual evidence. Within a few years, the strata created under the influence of the eruption, over hundred meters thick, hardened and began to turn into a rock-like shape. Some of the strata contained materials whose hardening resembled that of concrete. Small streams were formed onto the bottom of the canyon, and then grew into rivers. The picture was now even more complete: the water streams did not form canyons. Instead, the bottoms of the canyons were well suited as beds for the flows. The theory of the birth of canyons over millions of years created by Darwin was proven incorrect by nature itself. (33) 

7. Why the index fossil method is wrong?

Next, we are going to study the index fossil method. It is a method based on the idea that there are special fossils, so-called index fossils. They lived only for a short period of time and were widespread. A geological time scale or so-called geological column was compiled with these fossils. Location in this column should indicate when they existed. According to this theory, the trilobites, the dinosaurs, and humans existed in the following periods:

 • Trilobites should always be at least 200 million years old, because they are believed to have become extinct at that time. It is believed that trilobites lived 570- to 200 million years ago.

 • Bones and fossils of dinosaurs should always be 65- to 120 million years old, because it is believed that they lived at that time.

 • A stratum including human fossils may not be older than a couple of million years, since it is believed that people have inhabited the Earth for this period of time.

HUMANS LIVED BEFORE DINOSAURS? Even though the index fossil theory states that trilobites lived tens of millions of years before the dinosaurs, and dinosaurs lived tens of millions of years before humans, not all finds support these basic assumptions of evolution. On the contrary, according to some finds, humans lived long before dinosaurs, i.e., at the same time as the trilobites. We already discussed in the previous chapters how Lady Guadeloupe and the Calaveras skull were found in strata that are 25- to 28 million years old, but human remains referring to periods ten times as long have also been found. Let’s study some of these finds and other finds connected to this subject:

The footprints of humans on rocks 250 million years old. Human footprints on rocks found in Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico, Kentucky, and some other states are very puzzling finds. These rocks are supposed to be as old as 250 million years. Either the index fossil method is faulty, or the coal period was only a couple of thousand years ago. Regarding these finds, Albert C. Ingallis stated:

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)

The following description from 1938 also tells how traces that look like human footprints have been found in strata "more than 200 million" years old, i.e. long before the supposed era of the dinosaurs. It has been difficult for researchers to understand how they can exist in such "old" strata. The conclusion from the text is that man must have already lived in the carbon age 250 million years ago or the geological time chart with millions of years has been mistaken. Certainly the latter option is more likely because no one believes that man lived that long ago. Conclusions such as these can be made if we stick tightly to the geological time chart and the millions of years:

The human-like footprints in the rock are a puzzle to scientists. They can't be human because they're far too old - but what strange, bipedal, amphibious animal could have made them?

    What is it that lived 250 million years ago and walked on its hind legs with human-like feet?

    ... (...) This is a mystery of science to which the answer is yet to be found (...) Not that science would stop trying. (...) But for now, all that has been seen are 12 footprints that peculiarly resemble those left by human feet, each 9 ½ " long and 6" wide at the widest point, where the toes spread. The prints were found in a sandstone formation about 12 miles from Berea that is known to date back to the Carboniferous period. These foot prints were found by Dr. G. Wilbur, a professor of geology in the University of Berea, and Mr. William Finnell.

    Recently prof. Burroughs was visited by some Kentucky mountain men who took him to their hills and showed him another place where there were many footprints. This mountain seems to have been an "old Kentucky home" for an entire family of mysterious animals, since Professor Burroughs tells that the prints varied in size from small 4½" long ones to the previously described footprints that were almost 10" long. (...)

    The footprints are extremely strange. They are just the right size to be human - nine or ten inches tall - and almost the right shape. Almost everyone who sees them first thinks that they are made by a human foot and it is almost impossible to convince someone that they are not human...

    But even the boldest estimates of human presence on earth are only a million years - and these traces are 250 times that old...

    Such is the riddle. A quarter of a billion years ago, this human-like animal left footprints in a wide spread of sand, which time hardened into rock. Then he disappeared. And now scientists are scratching their heads. (Science News Letter 34, 278, 1938)

Trilobites and man. According to the current understanding, trilobites were supposed to live long before dinosaurs, let alone humans. However, discoveries have been made that suggest the simultaneity of man and trilobite on Earth. According to the evolutionary view, such finds could not be possible, since there should be more than 200 million years between trilobites and man. Such discoveries once again prove the unreliability of the index fossil method. It also shows how humans, trilobites and other organisms classified as index fossils could have lived simultaneously, but only in different ecological zones. Sometimes they are found buried in the same strata, even though they have appeared in different zones:

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. (34)

Objects made by human in strata dating back 300 million years. Another example of inconsistencies in current dating systems is finds of goods belonging to man, or even human fossils in "ancient" strata. For example, coal layers dating back ”300 million years” have yielded finds, such as a gold chain, an iron pot, and other objects that belonged to a human. Human fossils have also been found in similar strata (Glashouver, W. J. J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 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). If we take these finds as such, then man must have lived 300 million years ago, or else the age of these carbon deposits will be measured in just thousands of years. Certainly, the latter option is true, because no one believes that man lived 300 million years ago.

Footprints of humans and dinosaurs and a charred branch. In Glenn Ross, Texas, distinct footprints of both dinosaurs and humans were found in the same chalk layer; and as the clay was moved away, the human footprints were found to continue below the ground level. (It is true that all researchers do not accept these finds, but this may be because of their preconceptions.) Roland T. Bird, a representative of the American Museum of Natural History, commented about these human footprints: "They were the most remarkable thing I have ever seen: on the ground there were footprints that looked like that of a human, perfect to every detail."  But the finds did not stop there.  Only 200 meters from the footprints mentioned above, a two meters long charred branch was found inside a chalkstone and by means of radiocarbon dating, this branch was determined to be only 12,800 years old! If we draw a conclusion based on the charred branch, it means that the Cretaceous period when the dinosaurs lived occurred in the immediate past, only a couple of thousand years ago.

    The next comment will follow up on the topic. It addresses how discoveries of human footprints in dinosaur strata have been made in various areas around the world. These kinds of discoveries should not exist, if the geological time chart and its millions of years are accurate. These finds suggest the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs on the planet.

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. (35)

4,000 year-old pollen in a Precambrian stratum. The oldest period or the Precambrian period should have existed on the Earth 7/8 of the entire time the Earth has been in existence, i.e., we are talking about an era that took place 4,500- to 600 million years ago. At that time, there should have been only the very simplest of life in the seas. However, it is rather strange that coal (Manusco, J.J., Seavoy, R.E., Precambrian Coal or Anthraxolite: A Source for Graphite in High-Grade Schists and Gneisses, Economic Geology, 76:951,1981), pollen from conifers and broad-leaved trees as well as wood have been found from the very same stratum. The wood has been dated at 4,000 years old by means of radiocarbon dating. (Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models, London, Max Parrish, 1966). The existence of these kinds of discoveries would again suggest that the Earth and its strata cannot be hundreds of millions or billions of years old. These finds favor the idea of a young Earth and strata.

Finds of the Cambrian period. What about discoveries from the Cambrian period? It is assumed that this period began 600 million years ago and that life only existed in the sea. Interestingly enough, spores of over 60 tree species, pollen, and pieces of wood have been found in the lowest parts of the Cambrian strata. These finds indicate that life was versatile on the ground and not just in seas during the Cambrian period. This should not be possible according to the geological time chart but hundreds of similar finds suggest that the whole chart is wrong.

An illustration of a lizard bird. A bird that very much resembles an Archaeopteryx or a lizard bird was found in an ancient Maya relief. According to the traditional point of view, this bird and humans could not have lived at the same time on the Earth, because the lizard bird is deemed a contemporary of the dinosaurs. These kinds of discoveries, however, suggest the coexistence of the lizard bird (Archaeopteryx) and 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. (36)

Living fossils. When referring to the extinction of the dinosaurs and other species, periods of tens of millions of years are usually mentioned. This is said even though several species disappeared from the Earth during the last centuries. Extinction is quite common.

   One good example of how it is possible to err by tens of millions of years when determining the extinction times of some organisms are the so-called living fossils that still exist on the Earth. They are species that were supposed to have become extinct ages ago, but that still live on the Earth in the very same form as their fossilized forefathers. These animals prove that the geological chart with its millions of years and the general view of evolution are not necessarily true. They also indicate that these species, like the already extinct species – such as the trilobites and the dinosaurs – may have lived only a couple of thousand years ago. It is probable that several of these species were destroyed in the Flood mentioned in the Bible that piled up the strata of the Earth's crust and at the same time gave birth to fossils in the soil.

   Next, we will study some fossils that still live today, even though they were supposed to have become extinct way back in the past. They prove how one can err by tens of millions of years:

Lobed-finned fish coelacanth, deemed one of the important links in evolution, was believed to have become extinct as early as 70 million years ago. However, living specimens quite similar to their fossilized progenitors have been discovered. The newspaper article below discusses this issue:

Ancient Fish Spotted on Coast of South Africa

On Friday, South African divers told about having seen a 400 million year-old fish species, coelacanth that is a member of the crossopterygians or lobed-finned bony fish, on the east coast of South Africa. This fish, called the "living fossil", was thought to have long become extinct until it was caught in a fisherman's net off the coast of South Africa in 1938.

   Diver Pieter Venter told about having seen three coelacanths in October near Sodwana Bay at a depth of 104 meters. Venter is the first diver not inside a diving bell to see a coelacanth in its natural environment.

   Last Monday, Venter's diving team came across three coelacanth again 115 meters below the surface, and this time they were able to capture the fish on film. "The first time was like seeing a UFO without taking a picture of it," Venter said.

   One of the divers, 34-year-old Dennis Harding, died after having come to the surface, apparently because of a clot in his brain resulting from insufficient pressure balancing. Apparently he had assisted another diver, who had lost his consciousness, back to the surface. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 2 December 2000)

Tuatara, a saurischian lizard that can grow up to half a meter tall, was believed to have become extinct 135 million years ago. However, this lizard still lives in New Zealand and looks the same as before.

A mollusk called Neopalina galathea was believed to have become extinct 280 million years ago. Yet, the mollusk has been alive all this time in the waters of Central America.

Sea lily. In 1986, a living sea lily was found in the waters of New Caledonia. It was believed that this plant became extinct 140 million years ago, but it has also remained the same all these "140 million years."

Five-toed llamas were believed to have become extinct 30 million years ago. However, ceramics in which five-toed llamas are depicted have been discovered. Their skeletons have also been found amidst the remains of the Tiahuanaco culture.

The case of a crustacean species. A rather new news reports  a crustacean species, which should have gone extinct 250 million years ago. The article once again illustrates how millions of years and extinction dates lack a reliable foundation. We might actually only be dealing with hundreds and thousands of years.  If scientists were honest, they should admit that they don’t know these things:

Living fossil found in Tunturijärvi

Researchers have found a living fossil from a lake in Enontekiö. The crustacean species in question has not been detected in decades.

   Researchers from the University of Helsinki and the Finnish Forest Administration found the species in mid-August from Somasjärvi, which is located near the Halti fell at the border between Finland and Norway.

   The found was made, when the researchers were fishing arctic chars for genetic research. The crustaceans had been eaten by fish.

   The found crustaceans are living fossils that have stayed structurally unchanged for 250 million years. (Etelä-Suomen sanomat, 27/8/2013)

8. Evolution or ecological compartments?

One of the basic assumptions of the theory of evolution is that fossils should appear in the order that the older and more primitive the organisms are, the lower they are always located. The trilobite, which is believed to have lived between 570 and 200 million years ago and which is considered primitive, should therefore be located lower in relation to man and dinosaurs. Similarly, other Cambrian organisms should also be located lower than humans and dinosaurs. (As regards the “primitiveness” of the trilobite, we can note that the eye of a trilobite is more sophisticated than that of any other known living organism.) Generally, it is presumed that the oldest strata include only the remains of marine organisms, whereas the more recent strata also include the remains of land organisms. This is because it is believed that life was born in the sea, developed there, and gradually moved onto dry land.

    Therefore, it is assumed that evolution – and the order of fossils in strata – have progressed according to the following model:

• Organisms of the Cambrian period, such as the trilobite that lived on silt bottoms of the sea and generally marine invertebrates. All Cambrian animals, as well as plants, are believed to have lived in the seas. It is believed that the Cambrian period began 600 million years ago.

• Fish that lived in the seas. They are believed to have appeared 430 million years ago.

• Amphibians that thrived in the riparian zone. They are believed to have evolved from the fish and laid their eggs in the water.

• Reptiles that are believed to have evolved from the amphibians. Their eggs can develop also in a dry environment, because their eggs are different in structure from those of the amphibians.

• Birds and mammals that appeared last on the Earth.

Why are trilobites not found in upper strata, and bears and other mammals in Cambrian strata? One book raises the question of why certain fossils do not regularly occur in all the strata, and why no fossils of quadrupeds can be found in the oldest strata. (Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Permian – these are deemed the oldest periods, when life is believed to have appeared only in the seas). This is regarded as a good demonstration of evolution:

Lister's compatriot John Woodward (1622-1722) noted that certain fossils occurred in certain groups of strata and not irregularly spread into all the strata. Neither he nor anyone else understood to draw conclusions from this fact.

    …Lyell denied evolution, even though he himself had divided the Tertiary period into smaller parts based on the abundance ratio of fossils of extinct and living species. He now tried to explain, for example, the absence of four-legged fossils from the oldest sediments by the fact that these fossils had been destroyed over time. It is true that the fossils of terrestrial animals occur mainly in continental sediments and that they are at great risk of being exposed to erosion and destruction, but this can hardly explain the complete absence of fossils of the highest animals in the old sediments. (37)

However, there is a much more logical explanation for the previous observations: ecological zones. The fact that trilobites and other marine organisms that lived in the mud bottoms of the seas are not found in the upper strata and quadruped fossils in the lower ones is simply due to the fact that some are marine and some are land organisms. It does not need to prove that trilobites lived at a different time than other organisms. Nor have mammals had to live at a different time than amphibians, because even today there are different ecological compartments in such a way that there are sea, swamp, highland, mountain and other similar zones.

Of the previous animal species (trilobites, fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds and mammals), even today fish would swim above the trilobites, amphibians would be at the water's edge, i.e. above the fish, reptiles would be more on dry land and higher than frogs, and mammals (bear, lion, giraffe, elephant, etc.) would be even higher on dry land and in forests. It would be more of a surprise if trilobites and other seabed animals were found only in the upper layers, e.g. above the mammals, and not at all in the lower ones. That would certainly be impossible since trilobites were marine animals. As animals of the seabed, they would always be buried first and lowest, while for animals of dry land it would happen later.

Correspondingly, one can think, could a bear, a cow and a lion even have lived among the fauna of the Cambrian period, that is, in other words, in the sea? Wouldn't that have been impossible since they are land animals and wouldn't survive in the sea? Therefore, it should not be surprising if today they are found as fossils in different strata, even if they lived at the same time.

    All these animals have therefore been able to live at the same time, but only in different ecological compartments. There doesn't have to be any difference in their time of appearance on Earth. For example, the three important index fossils – the trilobite, the dinosaurs, and human beings – might have lived simultaneously on Earth, but in different zones. They are usually not found in the same strata, but this is because the trilobites were marine animals, the dinosaurs land animals (mainly living in coastal areas and in flat country), and it is not likely that people would have lived in close vicinity to the dinosaurs. Only the supposed idea of evolution can lead us to think that they lived at different times:

The trilobites of the Cambrian period usually do not co-occur with Cretaceous dinosaurs. What could be the reason for this? According to the theory of evolution, it is because trilobites became extinct millions of years before the dinosaurs evolved. However, there is an even more natural explanation, because if trilobites and dinosaurs lived today, they would hardly be found in the same place. They live in different ecological zones. Dinosaurs are terrestrial animals, while trilobites are inhabitants of the seabed... So there is no real obstacle to the possibility that all the life buried in the soil layers could have lived at the same time, but in different ecological zones. Catastrophism could thus explain the entire series of geological strata, just as the founders of geology assumed. (38)

References:

1. Iain Nicolson ja Patriot Moore: Tieteen maailma: aurinkokunta, p. 69, (The Solar System)

2. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 382

3. Kimmo Pälikkö / Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 86,87

4. Iain Nicolson ja Patriot Moore: Tieteen maailma: aurinkokunta, p. 89, (The Solar System)

5. Kimmo Pälikkö / Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 91

6. Larry Vardiman: The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1990), 28.

7. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 245,246

8. Kimmo Pälikkö / Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 144,145

9. Science, 3.3.1961, s. 624 - Cit. from: Onko ihmimen kehityksen vai luomisen tulos

10. P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, s. 28. Cit from Onko ihminen kehityksen vai luomisen tulos

11. Hermann Schneiderin writing in Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 300,308,309

12. Naeser, Hurford, Gleadow, lukijakirje, Nature 267 (16. 6. 1977): 649

13. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 293

14. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 82

15. Andrew A. Snelling: Radioaktiivisen iänmäärityksen epäonnistuminen, Luominen-magazine nro 3, p. 34,35,

http://luominen.fi/ajoitusmenetelmat/_radioaktiivisen-ianmaarityksen-epaonnistuminen

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

17. Sylvia Baker: Kehitysoppi ja Raamatun arvovalta, suomeksi toimittanut Pekka Reinikainen, p. 104,105

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

19. Uuras Saarnivaara: Voiko Raamattuun luottaa?, p. 134

20. Uuras Saarnivaara: Kaikkeuden synty, p. 122

21. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu, p. 103

22. Uuras Saarnivaara: Kaikkeuden synty, p. 125

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. A.M. Rehwinkel: The Flood, Saint Louis, Mo. 1951, s. 265 - Cit. from "Kehitysoppi ja uskon kriisi", Wiljam Aittala, p. 38

27. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 80

28. Cit. from: Kaikkeuden synty, Uuras Saarnivaara, p. 60,61.

29. Toivo Seljavaara: Oliko vedenpaisumus ja Nooan arkki mahdollinen, p. 28.

30. Sylvia Baker: Kehitysoppi ja Raamatun arvovalta, p. 121, suomeksi toimittanut Pekka Reinikainen

31. Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 124,125

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

33. Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 116 – 119

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

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

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

37. Nils Edelman: Viisaita ja veijareita geologian maailmassa, p. 55,237,238

38. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 173, 184

More on this topic:

When did the Dinosaurs Live? Learn why dinosaurs lived in the recent past, at the same time as humans. Millions of years are easy to question in light of the evidence

Fictional History - Why millions of years are not true? Scientists are ignorant of the early stages of the universe and life, as well as their age. There are good reasons why millions and billions of years are fables

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

Slowly or quickly? Nature programs often tell about processes over millions of years. However, several facts are against millions of years

How does the eye see? - Do we see things as they are or as they were? We are told that we see from space and stars only past, not the present. However, this view is easy to question