Heres you an article to digest.
How old is the earth? Does it really matter? Some suggest it does not. Dr. Hugh Ross, a theologian/scientist, who contends that the earth is billions of years old, has characterized the issue as a trivial doctrinal point (1994, p. 11). Others allege that the Bible simply does not speak to this matter. One writer states: Any attempt to ascribe a specific or even a general age to either man or the Earth from a Biblical standpoint is a grievous error (Clayton, 1968, Lesson 4, p. 3).
The basic issue
If it is true that the Bible is completely silent on this topic, then certainly we ought not to make an issue of it. But, is the Bible silent regarding the age of the earth and the human race? We pose these questions for reflection:
Do the Scriptures contain chronological data which allow the careful student to arrive at a relatively reliable estimate as to the antiquity of the human race?
Does the Bible teach that the earth and mankind were created in the same week?
If these questions can be answered affirmatively and we are confident they can then the testimony of inspiration must be respected. Shall the declarations of the Scriptures be dismissed merely because some are intimidated by the assertions of skeptical scientists who are committed to the theory of evolution? And make no mistake about it; the lust for time is paramount in the Darwinian scenario of origins. Dr. Robert Jastrow, one of Americas more popular scientists, says: The key to Darwins explanation is time, and the passage of many generations (1977, p. 112; emp. added). The late George Wald of Harvard University was bolder yet: ...time itself performs the miracles... (1954, p. 48).
Assumptions, or scientific fact?
Here is a crucial question: is the claim of great age for earth/humanity, as alleged by most scientists, based upon solid, scientific evidence? Or is it grounded upon evolutionary-oriented assumptions?
There is no scientific proof that the earth is billions of years old. The average layman thinks there is, but he is mistaken. Dr. Stephen Moorbath, an evolutionist associated with the University of Oxford, wrote: No terrestrial rocks closely approaching an age of 4.6 billion years have yet been discovered. The evidence for the age of the earth is circumstantial, being based upon ... indirect reasoning (1977, p. 92).
Dr. John Eddy, an evolutionary astronomer, stated: There is no evidence based solely on solar observations that the Sun is 4.5 to 5 billion years old. He continued: I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Usshers value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I dont think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that (1978, p. 18).
The techniques for dating the earth result from uniformitarian (evolutionary) assumptions. Radiometric methods for dating the earths rocks are based upon the decay sequences of certain elements. For example, uranium-238 (called a parent element) will, through a series of decomposition processes, ultimately produce lead-206 (called a daughter element). Scientists believe they know the present decay rate. Thus, if a rock contains both uranium-238 and lead-206, the ratio of the two elements will be used to estimate the age of the sample.
It is conceded, however, that in order for this method to be valid, certain assumptions must be granted.
(a) It must be assumed that no lead-206 was in the rock at the time of its formation. But what if lead-206 was a part of the original creation? That would invalidate the accuracy of the age-estimate.
(b) It must be assumed that neither the parent nor the daughter element has been altered in mass since the beginning. However, there is an increasing body of evidence which indicates that both parent and daughter elements, under the proper conditions, can migrate in the rocks, thus radically affecting any result that might be obtained.
(c) The assumption is made that decay rates have remained constant. Again, though, recent research has shown that while these decay rates appear to remain constant within narrow limits, under special circumstances they may be altered considerably. Evolutionist Frederic B. Jueneman declares:
The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such confirmation may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences.
And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [age] to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man (1982, p. 21).
Did he say: Global disaster? What about the Genesis Flood?
Numerous evidences reveal that evolutionary dating methods are not reliable. The following examples demonstrate the folly of giving unqualified endorsement to the various clocks that are reputed to require an ancient earth.
(a) Studies on submarine basaltic rocks from Hawaii, known to have formed less than two hundred years ago, when dated by the potassium-argon method, yielded ages from 160 million to almost 3 billion years (Funkhouser, p. 4601).
(b) The shells of living mollusks have been dated at up to 2,300 years old (Keith, p. 634).
(c) Freshly-killed seals have been dated at up to 1,300 years, and mummified seals, dead only about thirty years, have yielded dates as high as 4,600 years (Dort, p. 210). In our book, Creation, Evolution and the Age of the Earth, we documented one case where muscle tissue from mummified musk ox was dated at 24,000 years, while hair from the same carcass dated only 7,200 years! (1989a, p. 13). Clearly, the evolutionary clocks are drastically in need of repair!
There is scientific evidence for a young earth. Not only are the evolutionary claims regarding the age of the earth without adequate support, the truth is, there are a number of genuine scientific evidences that point to a relatively young earth. Consider the following data:
(a) Dr. Thomas Barnes, professor emeritus of physics at the University of Texas, has done extensive research in the decay of the earths magnetic field. His findings indicate that the magnetic field was created only a few thousand years ago, and is decaying toward extinction (1981, pp. 1-4).
(b) Deep under the surface of the earth are huge reservoirs of oil and water. Many of these reservoirs are characterized by extremely high fluid pressures. These pressures are gradually diminishing (much like air seeping from the tire of an automobile). It is acknowledged that the rock above these pockets is porous enough to allow the pressure to escape in a matter of several thousand years yet the pressure is still there. Dr. Melvin Cook, former professor at the University of Utah and President of IRECO Chemicals (1968 winner of the Nitro Nobel Award), argues that this suggests that these pressure pools were formed only a few thousand years ago. He contends it is evidence for a young earth (1970, p. 5).
Actually, there are many tell-tale features of the earth which suggest that its existence is not to be measured in terms of billions of years. In his recently published book, The Young Earth, Dr. John Morris devotes an entire chapter to Geologic Evidence for a Young Earth (1994, pp. 93-117).
The biblical evidence for a young earth
For the Christian, who honors the testimony of the inspired Scriptures, the final word on this matter is the Bible itself. If it can be demonstrated biblically that humanity and the earth were created at approximately the same time, and if it can be shown that mans history is to be measured in terms of a few thousand years, rather than millions/billions, then it logically follows that the earth should be viewed as relatively young. Consider the following.
