A physician who has made a complete examination of a person without having been told his age could probably make an accurate estimate of it because of his knowledge of how the aging process works. But what would happen if he were to travel back in time and examine Adam and Eve immediately after they were created and was then asked to estimate their age? If he didnt know they had been created directly he would assume they had been born as babies and base his estimate on how long it would take for them to reach their present state if they had undergone the normal aging process. The result would be that his estimate would be much higher than their actual age.
Scientists who try to discover the age of the earth usually begin by assuming that the natural processes which are occurring now have been going on since the formation of the world and that there has never been any kind of divine intervention. They have come to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old because that is how long it would take for these processes to bring about the conditions we see existing today.
But what if the Biblical account of creation is true? Then scientists who try to measure the earths age are in the same position as the doctor who tried to estimate the age of Adam and Eve. Their age estimates are off because they have a false idea of how the earth came into existence.
If the doctor who examined Adam and Eve were observant enough he would notice that they didnt have navels. This would show that they hadnt begun their existence inside their mothers wombs and so werent born the way other people are. Since they didnt come into existence the way other people did then the usual methods of estimating age wouldnt apply to them.
There is also evidence that the earth isnt as old as most people believe. One example is finding soft tissue in the bones of dinosaurs that supposedly lived millions of years ago. This is from an article titled Soft Tissue in Fossils in the October 2012 issue of Answers magazine.
The fact that Adam and Eve lacked navels would indicate that they had been created directly by God but what would happen if the doctor who examined them was an atheist? Would the evidence convince him that God existed or would he try to find some explanation for their existence that didnt force him to abandon his beliefs? A look at how scientists have reacted to the discovery of soft dinosaur tissue shows that the second response is the most likely one. Here is more of the article quoted above.
The belief that earth is billions of years old has become such an integral part of our culture that even some Christians who believe the Bible is true accept the prevailing beliefs and interpret the creation account in Genesis to make it conform to those beliefs.
The issue of Answers containing the articles I quoted from has much more scientific evidence that shows that the earth is younger than most people believe. You can read it online here:
Answers Magazine, Volume 7, Number 4 - Answers in Genesis
Scientists who try to discover the age of the earth usually begin by assuming that the natural processes which are occurring now have been going on since the formation of the world and that there has never been any kind of divine intervention. They have come to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old because that is how long it would take for these processes to bring about the conditions we see existing today.
But what if the Biblical account of creation is true? Then scientists who try to measure the earths age are in the same position as the doctor who tried to estimate the age of Adam and Eve. Their age estimates are off because they have a false idea of how the earth came into existence.
If the doctor who examined Adam and Eve were observant enough he would notice that they didnt have navels. This would show that they hadnt begun their existence inside their mothers wombs and so werent born the way other people are. Since they didnt come into existence the way other people did then the usual methods of estimating age wouldnt apply to them.
There is also evidence that the earth isnt as old as most people believe. One example is finding soft tissue in the bones of dinosaurs that supposedly lived millions of years ago. This is from an article titled Soft Tissue in Fossils in the October 2012 issue of Answers magazine.
Ask the average layperson how he or she knows that the earth is millions or billions of years old, and that person will probably mention the dinosaurs, which nearly everybody knows died off 65 million years ago. A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption.
Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.
Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzers review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 6269] titled Blood from Stone.)
Soft tissue couldnt have survived for such a long time so this is evidence that previous age estimates of the world must be wrong. Much more evidence of this kind can be found on answersingenesis.org and scienceagainstevolution.info.Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.
Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzers review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 6269] titled Blood from Stone.)
The fact that Adam and Eve lacked navels would indicate that they had been created directly by God but what would happen if the doctor who examined them was an atheist? Would the evidence convince him that God existed or would he try to find some explanation for their existence that didnt force him to abandon his beliefs? A look at how scientists have reacted to the discovery of soft dinosaur tissue shows that the second response is the most likely one. Here is more of the article quoted above.
Some evolutionists have strongly criticized Schweitzers conclusions because they are understandably reluctant to concede the existence of blood vessels, cells with nuclei, tissue elasticity, and intact protein fragments in a dinosaur bone dated at 68 million years old. Other evolutionists, who find Schweitzers evidence too compelling to ignore, simply conclude that there is some previously unrecognized form of fossilization that preserves cells and protein fragments over tens of millions of years. Needless to say, no evolutionist has publically considered the possibility that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old.
If there is evidence that the earth is much younger than most people believe, why do most people believe it is much older? The answer is found in the article The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth in the same issue of Answers.
In the rush to examine all these amazing scientific evidences, its easy to lose sight of the big picture. Such a mountain of scientific evidence, accumulated by researchers, seems to obviously contradict the supposed billions of years, so why dont more people rush to accept the truth of a young earth based on the Bible?
The problem is, as we consider the topic of origins, all so-called evidences must be interpreted. Facts dont speak for themselves. Interpreting the facts of the present becomes especially difficult when reconstructing the historical events that produced those present-day facts, because no humans have always been present to observe all the evidence and to record how all the evidence was produced.
Forensic scientists must make multiple assumptions about things they cannot observe. How was the original setting different? Were different processes in play? Was the scene later contaminated? Just one wrong assumption or one tiny piece of missing evidence could totally change how they reconstruct the past events that led to the present-day evidence.
Thats why, when discussing the age of the earth, Christians must be ready to explain the importance of starting points and assumptions. Reaching the correct conclusions requires the right starting point.
All of us have a desire to live our lives as we want without having to account to any higher authority for our actions. If we believe that the earth was created only a few thousand years ago we will be forced to believe that there is a God who intervenes in the affairs of the universe and who therefore cares about how we live. This is the reason most people, including scientists, subconsciously ignore evidence of Gods work and try to find alternate explanations for why we exist.The problem is, as we consider the topic of origins, all so-called evidences must be interpreted. Facts dont speak for themselves. Interpreting the facts of the present becomes especially difficult when reconstructing the historical events that produced those present-day facts, because no humans have always been present to observe all the evidence and to record how all the evidence was produced.
Forensic scientists must make multiple assumptions about things they cannot observe. How was the original setting different? Were different processes in play? Was the scene later contaminated? Just one wrong assumption or one tiny piece of missing evidence could totally change how they reconstruct the past events that led to the present-day evidence.
Thats why, when discussing the age of the earth, Christians must be ready to explain the importance of starting points and assumptions. Reaching the correct conclusions requires the right starting point.
The belief that earth is billions of years old has become such an integral part of our culture that even some Christians who believe the Bible is true accept the prevailing beliefs and interpret the creation account in Genesis to make it conform to those beliefs.
The issue of Answers containing the articles I quoted from has much more scientific evidence that shows that the earth is younger than most people believe. You can read it online here:
Answers Magazine, Volume 7, Number 4 - Answers in Genesis
