The Reasons Scientists’ Earth Age Assumptions Are Totally Unreliable
Posted: Tuesday, December 27, 2011
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
Few scientists are willing to admit that there are more “young earth” indicators than there are those which supposedly indicate billions of years as the age of the earth. And just as few will admit that their own chosen “clocks” are very unreliable and not a single one can prove the earth is 4.5 billion years old, or whatever their current guesstimate is. We cannot go into very many in a single article but let us look at a few.
1. The particular clock substance has remained unchanged throughout time.
2. The original condition of the substance is known for certain.
3. No outside sources have altered the substance process at any time.
There are no such “clocks” which can meet those three requirements. Therefore, the time estimates are worthless and are normally given simply to meet some other requirement for which evolutionists contend. This is not an idle accusation but is easily shown in many cases, plus there are numerous objections to the length of times which have been put forth, that they cannot disprove, or explain, so they simply pass over them or ridicule them without facts.
Fact # 1: The moon’s gravity pull causes the ocean tides on earth. This serves great purposes, but that is not our subject here. The tidal friction between the earth surface and the water, adds energy to the moon. This adds an increase in it’s distance from the earth. In 1981, that recession was measured at 4 centimeters. If this were constant, it could readily be calculated how far back the moon would have been touching the earth. But the energy added and the distance accrued slows with each increment of distance since the gravity pull becomes less with the distance. Through various calculations, it has been determined that the moon could not be over 7.5 million years old. But the real kicker is, when it was touching the earth, why would it separate. Plus the fact that there is no evidence that they were ever touching. Or, indeed how they could have been.
This is much more than the “under 10,000” years calculated by biblical chronology, however it is even much , much less than the 14.5 billion “shot in the dark” estimate needed for things to evolve as is now promoted.
But the point is, instead of having to separate over 7.5 million, God sat it in it’s proper place that would not cause tidal waves which could overwhelm the land. But that just will not be considered.
Fact # 2: Here is a brief quote from another source concerning the pressure of underground oil:
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps because our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood only about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left. (www.earthage.org)
Fact # 3: The Sun is shrinking, and why should it not be? It is burning out. Studies show that, over the past several hundred years it is shrinking by five feet per hour! At this rate, the earth would have been so hot one million years ago that no life could have survived. And 11,200,000 years ago, it would have been touching the earth. So much for the 4.5 billion now estimated by the scientists.
And finally, Fact # 4, which is only four out of 22 such facts, is the oldest living thing on earth and it’s implications. I am going to once again post a paragraph segment which explains it better than I can:
The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old. The fact that these trees are still alive and growing older means that we don't yet know how old they will get before they die. It also strongly suggests that something happened around 4,500 to 4,767 years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings. Janelle says 1700. This is significant since we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1800 years before the Noachian Flood described in the Book of Genesis. (Ibid)
One item which I will make further comment. These tree ring figures are especially notable since, according to one great ancient biblical scholar, Adam Clarke, who wrote a massive commentary on the entire bible and is among the most respected today, gives the following information. The global flood occurred in 1656 A.M. (Anno Domini) day of the earth. This fits perfectly with those ring counts above.
I feel quite sure, that the die-hard evolutionists discount these features with worthless mumbo-jumbo as is their habit. But until they can provide absolute refutation, I accept God’s word on the subject.
This Article has been viewed 237 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.