Global Processes Indicating Recent Creation

Recent Creation- Young Earth

Global Processes Indicating Recent Creation



It is widely taught today that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and that the universe anywhere from 8.0 billion years old to eternally old. The Bible, on the other hand, indicates the universe to be only a few thousand years old, and all known human history (as recorded in the historical annals of Egypt, Sumeria and other ancient nations) also is limited to a few thousand years.

The great ages needed to make evolutionism appear feasible are based mainly on a handful of very slow radioactive decay processes (uranium to lead, potassium to argon, etc.). These must each be based on at least three unprovable assumptions.

    Known initial boundary conditions (assumption of no initial radiogenic lead in the uranium/lead mineral).
    Isolated system (no ingress or egress of components of the system during the time it is functioning).
    Constant rate of process (no effect of environmental radiations or any other force on the decay rate).

None of these assumptions are capable of either proof or disproof since conditions are unknown prior to recorded history. All are known to be wrong in almost all natural processes.

On the other hand, there are scores of worldwide natural processes which, even with the above "uniformitarian" assumptions, will indicate ages far too brief for evolution to be feasible. Some of these are listed in the accompanying tabulation, with references for each.

These may all be wrong, of course, because they are all based on the same unreasonable assumptions as for the very few processes that yield old ages.

However, there are many more of them, and the assumptions are more likely to be valid for short time periods than for long periods. Therefore, the weight of scientific evidence (entirely apart from the definitive and conclusive evidence of Biblical revelation) is that the universe is young.

Uniformitarian Estimates -- Age of the Earth



  Process Estimated Age of Earth in Yrs. References

This tabulation is modified from the tabulation originally published as an ICR "Impact" article in Acts and Facts, then also What is Creation Science? by Henry M. Morris and Gary Parker (San Diego, Master Books, 1982), pp. 288-293



Reference Document #1
1. Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1983), 132 pp.

Reference Document #2
2. Melvin A. Cook, "Do Radiological Clocks Need Repair?" Creation Research Society Quarterly 5 (Oct. 1968), p. 70. Also see, Radiocarbon and the Age of the Earth, by Gerald Aardsma (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1991).

Reference Document #3
3. Henry M. Morris, ed., Scientific Creationism (San Diego: Master Books, 1985).

Reference Document #4
4. Melvin A. Cook, "Where is the Earth's Radiogenic Helium?" Nature 179 (Jan. 26, 1957) p. 213. See also The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere, by Larry Vardiman (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1990).

Reference Document #5
5. Henry M. Morris, "Evolution and the Population Problem," ICR Impact Series, Acts and Facts, no. 21 (Nov. 1974).

Reference Document #6
6. Stuart E. Nevins, "Evolution: The Ocean Says No," ICR Impact Series, Acts and Facts 2, no. 8 (Oct. 1973).

Reference Document #7
7. Dudley J. Whitney, The Face of the Deep (New York: Vantage, 1955).

Reference Document #8
8. Salman Bloch, "Some Factors Controlling the Concentration of Uranium in the World Ocean," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 44 (1980) pp. 373-77. See also What is Creation Science? by Henry M. Morris and Gary Parker (San Diego: Master Books, 1987), pp. 283-284.

Reference Document #9
9. Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish, 1966).

Reference Document #10
10. Robert Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville: Earth Science Associates, 1988).

Reference Document #11
11. Harold S. Slusher, Critique of Radiometric Dating (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1980), 58 pp.

Reference Document #12
12. Benjamin F. Allen, "The Geologic Age of the Mississippi River," Creation Research Society Quarterly 9 (Sept. 1972) pp. 96-114.

Reference Document #13
13. R. D. Wilson, et al., "Natural Marine Oil Seepage," Science 184 (May 24, 1974), pp. 857-65.

Reference Document #14
14. "Natural Plutonium," Chemical and Engineering News 49 (Sept. 20, 1971), p. 29.

Reference Document #15
15. Halton Arp, "Observational Paradoxes in Extragalactic Astronomy," Science 174 (Dec. 17, 1971), pp. 1189-1200.

Reference Document #16
16. V. A. Hughes and D. Routledge, "An Expanding Ring of Interstellar Gas with Center Close to the Sun," Astronomical Journal 77, no. 3 (1972), pp. 210-14.

Reference Document #17
17. Harold S. Slusher, "Some Astronomical Evidences for a Youthful Solar System," Creation Research Society Quarterly 8 (June 1971), pp. 55-57.

Reference Document #18
18. Harold S. Slusher, Age of the Cosmos (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1980), 76 pp.

Reference Document #19
19. John D. Morris, The Young Earth (Colorado Springs, Master Books, 1994), pp. 87, 88.

Reference Document #20
20. Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics, a Challenge to Geologic Time," ICR Impact Series, Acts and Facts 16 (July 1974).

Reference Document #21
21. Maurice Ewing, J. I. Ewing, and M. Talwan, "Sediment Distribution in the Oceans -- Mid-Atlantic Ridge," Bulletin of the Geophysical Society of America 75 (Jan. 1967), pp. 17-36.

Reference Document #22
22. Steven A. Austin and Russell D. Humphries, "The Sea's Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2 (1991), pp. 17-33.

Reference Document #23
23. J. P. Riley and G. Skirrow, eds., Chemical Oceanography, Vol. 1 (London: Academic press, 1965), p. 164. See also Harold Camping, "Let the Oceans Speak," Creation Research Society Quarterly 11 (June 1974), pp. 39-45. Uniformitarian geologists, making the unwarranted assumption that ocean chemicals are all in a steady state, have noted that the same method of calculation would give the so-called "residence time" of each element in the ocean, if the influx and efflux of the elements are assumed to be equal. This assumption is wrong, however, as shown in References 8 and 22, for uranium and sodium in particular.

Nathaniel's Story

We've made an impact in Nathaniel's life. Watch how he is now equipped to fight against the lies of evolution. Let's pray for our next generation.