Article From evolution-facts.org about the age of the earth.

[Trev_27]

How old is Planet Earth? This is an important question, for even though long ages of time are not a proof of evolution, yet without the long ages evolution could not occur (if it were possible for it to occur).

Actually, there are many evidences that our world is quite young. Here are some of them:

First we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE STARS that the universe itself is quite young:

I - STAR CLUSTERS—There are many star clusters in the universe. Each one is a circular ball composed of billions upon billions of stars, each with its own orbit. Because the orbits are elliptical, they have a tendency to be interlocking. An extremely large circular star cluster, with similar stellar orbits within it is found at the center of each saucer-shaped island universe. Evidence indicates that each of these giant packs of stars is moving in a certain direction. Science tells us that some of these clusters—with their stars—are moving so rapidly that it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were, very old.

2 - LARGE STARS—Some stars are so enormous in diameter that it is thought that they could not have existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial larger mass would have been impossibly large. These massive stars radiate energy very rapidly—some as much as 100,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our own sun. On the hydrogen basis of stellar energy, they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be far too gigantic.

3 - HIGH-ENERGY STARS—Some stars are radiating energy so intensely that they could not possibly have survived for a long period of time. This includes the very bright 0 and B class stars, the Wolf-Rayert stars, and the P Cygni stars. Radiation levels of 100,000 to 1 million times as much as our own sun is emitted by these stars! Yet, by the standard solar energy theory, they do not contain enough hydrogen to perpetuate atomic fusion longer than approximately 50,000 to 300,000 years.

4 - BINARY STARS—Many of the stars in the sky are binaries: two stars circling one another. But many of these binary systems point us to a young age for the universe.

"Many such pairs consist of two very different types of stars, one theoretically very old and the other young. How could this be if they had to evolve together in order to form a pair? Such problems have frustrated theorists in their efforts to understand how binary stars could have evolved. Perhaps the great age of stars is a fiction." Robert E. Kofahl, Evolution Refuter (1980), p. 128.

5 - HYDROGEN IN UNIVERSE—According to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. *Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintains that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen in the stars, therefore the universe must be youthful.

6 - AGE OF THE UNIVERSE—For much more information on this topic, see the chapter appendix entitled Age of the Universe, at the end of chapter 3 (Origin of the Solar System).

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that our solar system is quite young:

7 - SOLAR COLLAPSE—Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years life here would have ceased to exist, for recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—for life to be sustained on our planet. (See chapter 2, Origin of the Stars, for more on this. Also see "The Shrinking Sun" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, pp. 57-59.)

"Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct, visual measurements that indicate that the sun's diameter is shrinking at a rate of about. 1 percent each century or about five feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinking has been going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques also confirm that the sun is shrinking, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much."—W. T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p 19.

18 - SOLAR NEUTRINOS—In 1968 it was discovered that the sun is emitting hardly any neutrinos. This evidence points directly to a very youthful sun. These neutrinos ought to be radiating outward from the sun in very large amounts, but this is not occurring. This fact, coupled with research discoveries that the sun is shrinking in size, point to a recently-created sun. (See solar collapse and antimatter in chapter 2, Origin of the Stars, for more information on this.)

"The lack of solar neutrinos is almost irrefutable evidence for a recently created sun . . .

"If the sun had formed as is assumed by most scientists today, nuclear fusion could never have become is energy source. Evidence from the solar neutrino experiment, global solar oscillations, and measured solar shrinkage all are strong evidence against the existence of nuclear fusion in the sun. Any alternate energy source necessarily means a shorter maximum lifetime."—Paul M. Steidl, "Solar Neutrinos and a Young Sun" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, pp. 60, 64.

9 - COMETS—Comets journey around the sun and are assumed to have the same age as our world and solar system. But, as *Fred Whipple has acknowledged, astronomers have no idea where or how comets originated. Yet we know that they are continually disintegrating. This is because they are composed of bits of rocky debris held together by frozen gases and water. Each time a comet circles the sun, some of the ice is evaporated and some of the gas is boiled away by the sun's heat. Additional material is lost through gravitational forces, tail formation, meteor stream production and radiative forces. The most spectacular part of a comet is its tail, but this consists of material driven away from its head by solar energy. All the tail material is lost in space as the comet moves onward.

A number of comets have broken up and dissipated within the period of human observation. Some of those regularly seen in the nineteenth century have now vanished. Others have died spectacularly by plunging into the sun.

Evidently all the comets should self-destruct within a time frame that is fairly short. Careful study has indicated that the effect of this dissolution process on short-term comets would have totally dissipated them within 10,000 years.

There are numerous comets circling our sun, including many short-term ones, with no source of new comets known to exist. If they were "millions of years old," the original size of each comet would have had to be larger than our sun,—in which case our sun would have been orbiting the comets, and not vice versa! Yet we have hundreds of comets in our solar system with closed elliptical orbits, proving that they are locked into our solar system and did not originate outside of it.

"Each time a comet approaches the sun on the near part of its orbit, the sun's radiation warms and drives away part of the gases, dust, and frozen water it contains. Moreover, the strong gravitational force near the sun partially disrupts the solid chunks making up the core of the comet. Ultimately, these effects of the sun cause the comet to disintegrate and disappear, and this has actually been observed to happen.

"Careful studies of comets by British astronomer R.A. Lyttleton and others have led to the conclusion that all of the short-term comets should have disappeared in about 10,000 years."—R.E. Kofahl and ICL Seagraves, The Creation Explanation (1975), p. 144.

"Short-term comets" includes all those which return close to the sun every several centuries or less. According to Lyttleton's calculations (and he is a confirmed evolutionist), they would have all been wiped out within 10,000 years. See *R.A. Lyttleton's 1968 book, Mysteries of the Solar System, for more information on this.

In reply, evolutionists speculate that there is a hypothetical "Oort cloud" on the edge of the solar system, which is manufacturing new comets. But there is no scientific evidence that such a cloud exists.

"Evolutionary theories are totally incapable of accounting for comets in an old solar system. They cannot explain the formation, maintenance or return of comets. the chemical composition, behavior, and orbits of comets are not consistent with large ages and naturalistic formation. Comets are young objects. And since there is no natural mechanism which can account for a recent formation of comets, they must have been created recently in a recently created solar system."—Paul Steidl, "Comets and Creation" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1987, p. 159.

"According to Richardson's figures, out of an original family of 1,000 short-period comets, at the end of 3,000 years only 1 or 2 would be left! Slusher concludes, 'The destruction and the loss of comets puts a definite upper limit on the age of the solar system. Instead of 4.5 billion years, it appears at the most to be only a few to several thousand years old.' "—News note in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1973, p. 174.

10 - COMET WATER—It has only been in recent years that scientists have discovered that comets are primarily composed of water, and that so many small comets are continually striking the earth. Yet each strike adds more water to our planet. Scientific evidence indicates that, if the earth was billions of years old, our oceans would be filled several times over with water.

"Photographs, taken from earth-orbiting satellites, seem to show tiny, ice-filled comets striking the earth's upper atmosphere at a rate of one every three seconds. As each comet vaporizes, about 100 tons of water should be added to the earth's atmosphere. If this began when the evolutionists say the earth started to evolve, the earth and all its oceans should have several times more water than it now has."—W. T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p 18.

11 - SOLAR WIND—As the sun's radiation flows outward, it applies an outward force on very, very small particles orbiting the sun. All of the particles smaller than 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter should have long ago been "blown out" of our solar system, if the solar system were billions of years old. Yet research studies by satellites in space have shown that those small particles are abundant and still orbiting the sun. Therefore our solar system is quite young.

12 - SOLAR DRAG—This is a principle known as the "Poynting-Robertson Effect." A solar drag is exerted by our sun on the small rocks and particles (micrometeoroids) in our solar system. This causes these particles to spiral down into the sun and be destroyed. The sun, acting like a giant vacuum cleaner, sweeps up about 100,000 tons (90,720 metric tons) of micrometeoroids each day. The actual process by which this occurs has been analyzed. Each particle absorbs energy from the sun and then re-radiates it in all directions. This causes a slowing down of the particle in its orbit and causes it to fall into the sun. At its present rate, our sun would have cleaned most of the dust and particles in less than 10,000 years, and all of it within 50,000 years.

Yet there is an abundance of these small pieces of rock, and there is no known source of replenishment. This is because each solar system would lock in its own micrometeoroids so they could not escape to another one, and the gravity on each planet and moon would forbid any of its gravel to fly out into space.

(In summary: Particles smaller than 100,000th of a centimeter are hurled out of the solar system by the solar wind effect, and particles smaller than that are pulled into the sun by the Poynting-Robertson Effect. The Poynting-Robertson Effect is illustrated by rain which, falling on a rapidly moving car, tends to slightly slow it. In a similar manner, solar radiation, striking particles orbiting the sun, lessens their speed. )

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE OTHER PLANETS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that it is quite young:

13 - TEMPERATURE AND EROSION ON VENUS—Temperatures on the surface of the planet Venus reach 900°F [482°C]. *Emmanuel Velikovsky predicted that such a high Venusian surface temperature would be found, and so it turned out. Velikovsky said that this would provide clear evidence that Venus was only a few thousand years old: Both this high temperature, as well as other surface features, do indeed support a young age for that planet. Many large craters up to 100 miles [160.9 km] in diameter pock its surface. Yet scientists cannot explain how meteors could get through the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere without burning up. They are also astounded that Venus should show such minor effects of erosion. The dense atmosphere should long ago have worn away all the craters if the planet has the age postulated by evolutionary theory (4 billion years).

14-EROSION AND WATER ON MARS—A similar problem exists in relation to the planet Mars. When the Mariner satellites orbited Mars, they sent back detailed photographs of its surface. Large numbers of craters and volcanoes were seen, as well as a dust storm that lasted for months. It was obvious that many of the craters had sharp edges, indicating only a small amount of erosion. Yet more than a few thousand years of the kind of weather activity regularly occurring on Mars would have seriously eroded those edges. Long-term erosion should also have obliterated the strong color differences clearly visible on the surface of the planet.

A small amount of water has been found on Mars. But powerful ultraviolet radiation from the sun should long ago have split the hydrogen and oxygen apart, releasing the oxygen into the atmosphere while the hydrogen escapes into outer space. There should now be no water and a sizable amount of oxygen above the surface. But this is not the case. Considerable amounts of hydrogen are indeed now observed to be escaping from the planet into outer space, but there is very little oxygen in the atmosphere,—and the water is still there on the surface. It is all a great mystery to scientists who, in spite of the evidence, declare the planet to be billions of years old.

 

[Trev_27]

15 - COMPOSITION OF SATURN'S RINGS—*G.P. Kuiper reported in 1967 that the trillions of particles in the rings circling the planet Saturn are primarily composed of solid ammonia. Since solidified ammonia has a much higher vapor pressure— than even ice, reputable scientists recognize that it could not survive long without vaporizing off into space. This is a strong indicator of a young age for Saturn's rings. (More on this will be found in an appendix, entitled Age of the Universe, at the end of chapter 3 (Origin of the Solar System).

16- BOMBARDMENT OF SATURN'S RINGS—Meteoroids bombarding Saturn's rings would have destroyed them in far less than 20,000 years.

"The rings that are orbiting Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune are being rapidly bombarded by meteoroids. Saturn's rings, for example, should be pulverized and dispersed in about 10,000 years."—W.T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p 18 [former engineering professor at MIT, and later chief of Science and Technology Studies, U. S. Air-War College].17-MORE RING PROBLEMS—NASA Voyager treks have disclosed that Jupiter and Uranus also have rings encircling them! (In addition, a 1989 Neptune fly-by revealed that it also has rings—four of them.) These discoveries have only augmented the problem of the evolutionists, for it would indicate a young age for those planets also. They try to come up with a theory that can explain one set of rings—and then more are discovered elsewhere and their theories are again thrown into confusion. *Bradford Smith, a Voyager scientist, summarized their quandary in this way:

"The theory that explained how Saturn's rings could persist through 4.6 billion years of solar system evolution also explained why Saturn was the only planet that could have a ring.

"Then those theories had to be revised to account for the rings of Uranus. The revisions implied that Jupiter would not have a ring. Now Jupiter has been found to have a ring and we have to invent a theory to explain it . .

"Dust and grain-sized particles can be ruled out as major constituents of the ring [of Jupiter]. The intense radiation in Jupiter's magnetic field would sweep them out. . No theory has yet been developed that explains how all three of these planets could have rings for so long."—*Bradford Smith, quoted in Mark Tippetts, "Voyager Scientists on Dilemma's Horns," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1979, p. 185.

18-JUPITER'S MOONS—The Voyager I space probe was launched on September 5, 1977. Aimed at the planet Jupiter, it made its closest approach to that planet on March 5, 1979. Thousands of pictures and thousands of measurements were taken of Jupiter and its moons.

Ever since Galileo first saw them, its four largest moons have been called "Galilean moons." This new data about these four moons provide us with invaluable information. Io is the innermost of the four, and was found to have seven active volcanoes) These volcanoes spew plumes of ejecta from 60 to 160 miles [96.5 to 257 km] above Io's surface. This is astounding.

"The volcanic plumes shoot forth at speeds up to 2,000 mph [3,218 km/h], 20 times faster than volcanic eruptions on Earth."—*J. Schefter, Popular Science, Vol. 215, 1979, pp. 54.

Nothing on our planet can match this continuous stream of material being shot out by Io's volcanoes at a velocity of 2,000 miles per hour [3,218 km per hour]. The usual evolutionary model portrays all the planets and moons as being molten 5 billion years ago. During the next billion years they are said to have had active volcanoes. Then, 4 billion years ago, the volcanism stopped as they cooled. Io is quite small, yet it has the most active volcanoes we know of. Obviously, it is quite young and its internal heat has not had time to cool.

The evolutionist reply to this is that perhaps there might be radioactive rocks below its surface which are causing those volcanoes!

"What causes such violent volcanic activity? To keep a body the size of Io in a state of continuous volcanic activity through geologic time by radiogenic heating would require an unreasonably large fraction of long-lived radionuclides. "—*Elske Smith and *Kenneth Jacobs, Introductory Astronomy (1973), p. 962.

Of the five Galilean moons, Ganymede and Callisto have no volcanoes and a high density of impact craters, Io has volcanoes and no impact craters, and Europa has no volcanoes and no impact craters. Io has the most marks, pits, and brightly colored areas of any of the four, but no impact craters.

If all four moons evolved, they should be essentially alike in physical characteristics. The theorized millions of years they have existed should cause them to have the same amount of volcanoes and impact craters, but this is not so. In contrast, a recent creation would explain Io's volcanoes and the variety of surface features.

More recent data now indicate that Jupiter's moon, Titan, may also have volcanoes.

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM OUR OWN MOON that it is quite young:

19 - MOON DUST—Although most people do not know it, one of the reasons so much money was spent to send a rocket to the moon was to see how thick the dust was on its surface)

Evolutionists had long held to the fact (as we do) that the earth and moon are about the same age. But many scientists think the earth and its moon are billions of years old. If that were true, the moon would by now have built up a 20-60 mile 132 to 96.5 km] layer of dust on it! In the 1950s, * R.A. Lyttleton, a highly-respected astronomer, said this:"The lunar surface is exposed to direct sunlight, and strong ultra-violet light and X-rays [from the sun] can destroy the surface layers of exposed rock and reduce them to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year. But even this minute amount could, during the age of the moon, be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep."—*R.A. Lyttleton, quoted in R. Wysong, Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 175.

 

[Trev_27]

In 5 to 10 billion years, 3 or 4/10,OOOths of an inch per year would produce 20-60 miles [32 to 96.5 km) of dust. In view of this, our men at NASA were afraid to send men to the moon. Landing there, they would be buried in dust and quickly suffocate! So first NASA sent an unmanned lander to its surface, which made the surprising discovery that there is not even 20 feet [32 km] of dust on the moon! But in spite of that discovery, Neil Armstrong was decidedly worried about this dust problem as his March 1970 flight in Apollo 11 neared. He feared his lunar lander would sink deeply into it and he and Edwin Aldrin would perish. But because the moon is young, they had no problem. There is not over 2 or 3 inches [5.08 or 7.62 cm] of dust on its surface! That is the amount one would expect if the moon were about 6-8,000 years old.

Dr. Lyttleton's facts were correct; solar radiation does indeed turn the moon rocks into dust. With only a few inches of dust, the moon cannot be older than a few thousand years.

It is significant that studies on the moon have shown that only 1 /60th of the one- or two-inch dust layer on the moon originated from outer space. This has been corrobated by still more recent measurements of the influx rate of dust on the moon, which also do not support an old moon.

There has been a noticeable silence on this matter after the Apollo landings began. Evolutionary scientists are baffled by this obvious evidence for a young moon, when all theoretical calculations do, indeed, support Lyttleton's analysis that if the moon were really old, it would have a great thickness of moon dust resulting from millions of years of bombardment by solar energy and by meteorites of all sizes.

Before the first manned landing on the moon, *Isaac Asimov summarized the problem of thick moon dust produced over the billions of years that it has existed:

"But what about the Moon? It travels through space with us and although it is smaller and has a weaker gravity, it, too, should sweep up a respectable quantity of micro-meteors.

"To be sure, the Moon has no atmosphere to friction the micro-meteors to dust, but the act of striking the Moon's surface should develop enough heat to do the job. . On the Moon there are no oceans to swallow the dust, no winds to disturb it, or life forms to mess it up generally, one way a another. The dust that forms must just lie there, and if the Moon gets anything like Earth's supply, it could be dozens of feet thick. In fact, the dust that strikes crater walls quite probably rolls downhill and collects at the bottom, forming drifts that could be 50 feet deep or more. Why not?

"I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship [to the moon], picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight." —*Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science: A Thirty-Year Retrospective (1989), pp. xvi-xvii (This was *Asimov's first published science essay (1958), reprinted in a 1989 book.)

20 - LUNAR SOIL—Analysis of lunar soil negates the possibility of long ages for the moon's existence. The dirt on the moon does not reveal the amount of soil mixing that would be expected if the moon were very old.

21 - LUNAR ISOTOPES—Many wonder what value there has been in collecting moon rocks. One of the most surprising moon rock discoveries is seldom mentioned: Short-lived Uranium 236 and Thorium 230 were found in those stones! Short-term radioactive isotopes do not last long; they rather quickly turn into their end product, which is lead. If the moon were even 50,000 years old, these short-life radioisotopes would long since have decayed into lead. But instead they were relatively abundant in the moon rocks! The importance of this should not be underestimated. The moon cannot be older than several thousand years.

One of the objectives of the moon trips was to find evidence in the moon rocks that would support evolutionary theories about its origin. But that proved to be unproductive. It is of interest that the 12 Apollo astronauts who landed on the moon, from 1969 through 1972 (when the U.S. lunar landing program ended), brought back to earth a total of 842 pounds [381.9 kg] of lunar rocks and dust. Divided into the total cost of the Apollo program, which was estimated at $50 billion when the project ended, the moon samples cost roughly $3 million per ounce [28.35 g]!

22 - LUNAR RADIOACTIVE HEAT—Rocks brought by Apollo teams from the moon have been dated by the various radiometric methods. A variety of very conflicting dates has resulted from these tests (see chapter 7, Dating Methods, for a discussion of this). But the factor of relatively high radioactivity of those rocks indicates a young age for the moon:

"The content of radioactive elements in the moon rocks is so high that if the moon were actually millions of years old, the heat produced by radioactive decomposition would have melted the moon."—R.E. Kofahl and K.L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (1975), p. 145.

23 - LUNAR GASES—Several inert gases have been found on the surface of the moon. Scientists believe that these gases came from the sun, in the form of "solar wind." Mathematical calculation reveals that, at today's intensity of solar wind, the amount of inert gases found on the moon would be built up in 1,000 to 10,000 years,—and no longer. These calculations are based on Argon 36 and Krypton 84 concentrations. Even 20,000 years ago would be far too lengthy a time. Therefore the moon could not be older than about 6-10,000 years.

24 - LUNAR PHENOMENA—A growing collection of data of transient lunar activity (moonquakes, lava flows, gas emissions, etc.) reveals that the moon is not a cold, dead body. It is still adjusting to inner stresses and is not yet in thermal equilibrium. Yet, all things considered, if the moon were very old it should not show such thermal activity.

25 - LUNAR RECESSION —Scientists have discovered two interesting facts: (1) the moon is already far too close to the earth, and (2) it is gradually moving farther away from us. This is called recession of the moon. Due to tidal friction, the moon is slowly spiraling outward away from planet earth! Based on the rate at which the moon is receding from us, the earth and the moon cannot be very old. This is an important point and in no way can be controverted. The present rate of recession clearly indicates a young age for the earth-moon system. If the moon were older, even 20 to 30,000 years old,—it would at that earlier time have been so close that it would have fallen into the earth!

"Since 1754, observations of the moon's orbit have indicated that it is receding from the earth. As tidal friction gradually slows the earth's spin, the laws of physics require the moon to recede from the earth. However, the moon should have moved from near the earth's surface to its present distance in several billion years less time than the 4.6 billion year age that evolutionists assume for the earth and moon."—W. T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p 17.

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE ATMOSPHERE that the earth is quite young:

26-ATMOSPHERIC HELIUM—The radioactive decay of either uranium or thorium produces helium. According to evolutionary theory, these decay chains have been going on for billions of years, and should therefore have produced a much larger quantity of helium than is found in our world. The amount of helium on our planet is far too small, if our world has existed for long ages.

To fit the evolutionary pattern, our atmosphere would now have to contain much more than our present 1.4 parts per million of helium. Some evolutionists have suggested that the helium is escaping out into space, but no evidence has ever been found to substantiate this. Research has shown that, although hydrogen can escape from the earth, helium is not able to reach "escape velocity." In order to do so, the temperature of the planet would have to be too high to support the life that evolutionists say has been here for over a billion years.

To make matters worse, not only are we not losing helium to outer space,—we are getting more of it from there! Cook has shown that helium, spewed out by the sun's corona, is probably entering our atmosphere.

There is, at the present time, 3.5 x 1015 grams of helium in our atmosphere, and the rate of helium formation is about 3 x 1011 grams per year (* M.A. Cook, "Where Is the Earth's Radiogenic Helium?" in Nature, January 26, 1957, p. 213.) Calculations based on this information indicates a very youthful age for our planet.

"If the earth was billions of years old, the radioactive production of helium in the earth's crust should have added a large quantity of helium to the atmosphere. Current diffusion models all indicate that helium escapes to space from the atmosphere at a rate much less than its production rate. The low concentration of helium actually measured would suggest that the earth's atmosphere must be quite young."—*L. Vardiman, "The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere Estimated by its Helium," Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, Creation Science Fellowship, (1986).

"Helium gas being released from radioactive decay is continually being released into the atmosphere from the earth's crust. The estimated rate of this release, compared with the total helium now in the atmosphere, suggests that the atmosphere may be only about 12,000 to 60,000 years old . . [To add to the problem] it may be that helium from the sun is adding to the earth's atmospheric helium."—Robert Kofahl, Evolution Refuter (1980), p. 125.

Atmospheric helium is produced from three sources: (1) radioactive decay of uranium and helium in the earth's crust and oceans; (2) cosmic helium flowing into our atmosphere from space, but especially from the sun's corona; (3) nuclear reactions in the earth's crust caused by cosmic ray bombardment. Since the atmosphere now contains about 4 billion tons (3.63 billion metric tons] of He-4, and assuming that only uranium and thorium are the sources of it all and that its release rate has been constant, the age of the earth can be calculated from it: that point in the past when there was zero He-4 in the atmosphere.

"One prominent scientist has calculated the total annual rate of helium-4 flow into the atmosphere, not including cosmic helium, to be 330,000 tons [299,376 metric tons] per year. From this rate we find that the atmosphere [enveloping our planet] has a maximum age of 12,000 years."—R.E. Kofahl and K L Segraves, The Creation Explanation (1975), p. 186.

After stating the above, Kofahl and Segraves conclude that, using all three helium sources in the calculation, earth's atmospheric age would be reduced to 10,000 years. In addition to this, a worldwide catastrophic event in the past such as the Flood, could for a short time have unleashed much larger amounts of helium into the atmosphere. Such an event could significantly reduce the total atmospheric age. Helium content is a good measure, since there is no known way it can escape from the atmosphere into outer space.

27 - CARBON 14 DISINTEGRATION—The present world-wide buildup of radiocarbon in the atmosphere would have produced all the world's radiocarbon in several thousand years. Yet, ironically, it is Carbon 14 that is used by evolutionary scientists in an attempt to prove that life has existed on our planet for millions of years!

*Willard Libby won a Nobel Prize for his discovery of radiocarbon dating. His dating method has several flaws, one of which we will mention here. He assumed that the C-14 rate of production would equal its rate of disintegration. But Robert Whitelaw, a nuclear and engineering expert at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, found that the production rate is not equal to the disintegration rate. In fact, his calculations reveal a recent turning on of the C-14 clock,—otherwise the two factors would be balanced. Whitelaw's research indicates that the clock was turned on approximately 8,000 years ago.

(Much more information on radiocarbon dating will be found in chapter 7, Dating Methods.)

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM METEORITES that the earth is quite young:

 

[Trev_27]

28 - METEOR DUST—Meteors are continually hurtling into the atmosphere and landing on our planet. They are then known as meteorites. But small amounts of meteor dust (called micrometeors and too small to see) also enter our atmosphere, and gradually settle to earth. The composition of these materials is iron, nickel, and silicate compounds.

On the average, about 20 million meteors collide with the earth's atmosphere every 24 hours. It is now known that, because of meteorites and meteorite dust, the earth increases in weight by about 25 tons [22.7 mt] each day.

We have here another evidence of a young earth, for the amount of meteorites and meteorite dust earlier accumulated in rock strata, in relation to the amounts reaching the earth at present, would indicate an age in thousands of years, not millions.

*Hans Pettersson of the Swedish Oceanographic Institute did careful study into the subject. Here is a report on his findings by *Isaac Asimov:

"Pettersson calculated that the total quantity of dusts of meteor origin in the atmosphere, up to a height of 60 miles [96.5 km] amounts to 28,600,000 tons [25,945,920 mt] . . half the total—14,300,000 tons [12,973,000 mt] of such

dust—settles to earth each year, as [another] 14,300,000 tons [12,973,000 mt] of new dust must enter the atmosphere . . Of course, this goes on year after year, and the earth has been in existence as a solid body for a good long time, for perhaps as long as 5 billion years. If, through all that time, meteor dust had settled to the earth at the same rate it does today, then by now, if it were undisturbed, it would form a layer 54 feet [164.5 dm] thick over all the surface of the earth."—*Isaac Asimov," 14 Million Tons of Dust per Year" in Science Digest, p. 34

Asimov's article was afterward corroborated by an article by Pettersson in the February 1960 issue of Scientific American.

Asimov discards the problem by saying that "crustal mixing" removes the dust. Somehow, he says, all those meteorites have disappeared. But his "crustal mixing" theory does not explain the problem. Meteoritic materials are composed of iron, with large amounts of nickel and other less common minerals. Yet there is not enough of these elements in the crust (the top layer) of earth's surface to agree with the idea of an old planet. For example, the average nickel content of meteorites is 2.5 percent, whereas there is only 0.008 percent nickel in the rocks and soil of earth's crust. Similar calculations with similar results have been made with iron.

River water carries about 0.75 billion pounds [.3402 billion kg] of nickel each year to the ocean, and the ocean contains about 7000 billion pounds [3,175 billion kg]. The amount of nickel in the oceans could have been carried there from land in 9,000 years (or in half that time if a fair amount of nickel was in the oceans to begin with). So the absence of high amounts of nickel on land could not be caused by erosion into the seas. If the earth were as old as the evolutionists declare it to be, there would, on the average, be over 600 pounds [272 kg] of nickel on each square foot of the ocean floor, but it simply is not there.

Once again, we find that the earth could only be a few thousand years old.

"If the disintegration of comets [alone] produces 14,300,000 tons [12,972,960 mt] of meteoritic dust each year, and if the earth were but one billion years old—and most evolutionists consider the world to be considerably older than that —there should be an 11-foot [33.5 dm] layer of meteorite dust upon the earth, especially on the floor of the ocean. Where is it?"—H.R. Siegler, Evolution or Degeneration: Which? (1972), pp. 54-55.

29 - METEOR CRATERS—Meteor craters are fairly easy to locate, especially since we now have such excellent aerial and satellite mapping systems. For example, the meteor crater near Winslow, Arizona, is 3/4 mile [1.2 km] in diameter and 600 feet [1,829 dm] deep. Efforts have been made to locate meteor craters in the rock strata, but without success. They always lie close to or on the surface. This and erosional evidence indicate that all the meteor craters which have struck the earth are all only a few thousand years old. No larger meteors struck the earth prior to that time, for no meteor craters are found anywhere in the lower rocks.

30-METEOR ROCKS—Meteorites of various types are continually plunging into earth's atmosphere, and some reach the surface and are then called "meteorites." Supposedly this has happened for millions of years—yet all the meteorites discovered are always near the earth's surface! None are ever found in the deeper ("older") sedimentary strata. If the earth were very ancient, many should be found farther down. This is an evidence of a young earth. It is also an indication that the sedimentary strata was rather quickly laid down not too long in the past.

"No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column."—*Fred Whipple, "Comets," in The New Astronomy, p. 207.

"While there are many meteorites buried in the upper few feet or so of soil, there are few or none lower down, and in particular in the alleged geological column. Surely this is a strange situation, from the uniformitarian viewpoint. A Creationist, on the other hand, will have no trouble in seeing why this is so. For the materials of the column were not lying there for ages to accumulate meteorites; they were deposited very quickly."—News note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1978, p. 88. (See also *K Hindley, "Fallen Stars by the Ton" in New Scientist, 75(1059:20-22 (1977)).

*Asimov's theory, that "crustal mixing" removed all trace of the meteorites, was mentioned earlier.

"It has been estimated that at least a million meteors have hit the Earth's land surface, which is only 25 percent of the planet. Every last trace of more than 99 percent of the craters thus formed has vanished, erased by the effects of wind, water, and living things."— *Isaac Asimov, Asimov's Book of Facts (1979), p. 404.

But the nickel from those meteorites should still be there littering the earth's surface and to be found beneath it. But this is not the case.

31 - TEKTITES—Tektites are a special type of glassy meteorite. Large areas containing them are called "strewn fields." Although some scientists claim that tektites are of earthly origin, there is definite evidence that they are actually meteorites. Every so often, a shower of tektites falls to the earth. The first were found in 1787 in what is now western Czechoslovakia. Those in Australia were found in 1864. They were given the name tektites, from a Greek word for "molten," because they appear to have melted in their passage through the atmosphere. Tektites have also been found in Texas and several other places. Each shower lies on the surface or in the topmost layers of soil; they are never found in the sedimentary fossil-bearing strata. If the earth were 5 billion years old, as suggested by evolutionists, we should expect to find tektite showers in all the strata. If the earth is only a few thousand years old, and a Flood produced all the strata, we would expect to find the tektites only in the topmost layers of the ground, and not in the deeper strata. And that is where they are.

The tektites are found on top of, what evolutionary theory calls, "recent" soil, not beneath it. The evidence is clear that the tektites did not work their way up from beneath or wash down from older sediments at a higher elevation. Stream erosion studies in Czechoslovakia show that glass objects similar to tektite material will wear down to 1/90th of their original mass within only 40 km [24.84 miles]. In addition, studies made of australites (tektites found in Australia) revealed a complete lack of etching (scratch marks) on them. Comparing the data from the Czech and Australian tektites, it is clear that (1) both were found in their original locations, and (2) neither have been subjected to terrestrial weathering more than a few thousand years (see *Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Science, No. 17).

In the 1960s two independent teams of investigators searched for additional australites in the field and, upon finding them, made radiocarbon datings of the wood by them and beneath them. Based on a Carbon 14 age of 7,300 years, these investigators say that the tektites cannot be older than an adjusted 6,500 years. This would make the age of the earth very young (see *Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, 18:409-418, and "Journal of Geophysical Research, 75:996-1002.)

(We recognize that carbon 14 dating tends to yield dates that are too old, but 6,500 years is far less than the millions that the evolutionists offer.)

That, in brief, is the story of the tektites, and it is yet another striking evidence of a young earth.

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE that the earth is quite young:

32 - EARTH ROTATION—The spin of the earth—which is now about 1,000 miles [1,609 km] an hour—is gradually slowing down. This is caused by gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon, and other factors. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning on its axis! This is yet another evidence that our world is not very old.

Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backwards from our present spin rate, and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. And we today, would still have the effects of that. Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64.3 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.

 

[Trev_27]

33 – MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY— As you probably know, the earth has a magnetic field. Without it, we could not use compasses to identify the direction of magnetic north (which is close to the North Pole). Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, a physics teacher at the University of Texas, has authored a widely-used college textbook on electricity and magnetism. Working with data collected over the past 135 years, he has pointed out that earth's magnetic field is gradually decaying. Indeed, he has shown that this magnetic field is decreasing exponentially according to a decay law similar to the decay of radioactive substances.

"During the past 150 years, the magnetic field has declined in strength by 10 percent. If the decline continues at this rate, the field will reach zero in about 1,500 years." "The strength of today's [geomagnetic] field, for instance, seems to be decreasing by about seven percent each century."— *Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1991), pp. 15, 21.

"It is known that the earth's magnetic field is decaying faster than any other worldwide geophysical phenomenon. A comprehensive ESSA Technical Report gives the values of the earth's magnetic dipole moment (the vector which gives the strength and direction of the magnet) ever since Karl Gauss made the first evaluation in 1835. The evaluations have been made about every 10 or 15 years since then. Each evaluation required accurate worldwide readings over an epoch (a year or so) and special mathematical reduction to 'wash' out the 'noise.' These reliable data clearly show this relatively rapid decay. The report stated that on a straight line basis the earth's magnetic field would be gone in the year 3991 A.D. But decay is exponential and in this case has a half-life of 1400 years.

"A relatively recent NASA satellite preliminary report shows a rapid decay in the earth's magnetic field. No knowledgeable scientist debates the fact of the rapid decrease in the earth's magnetic field, nor does he question that the associated electric current in the core of the earth is using up energy. The present rate of loss is seven billion kilowatt hours per year. The earth is running out of that original energy it had in its original magnetic field. "—T.G. Barnes, "Depletion of the Earth's Magnetic Field," in Creation: the Cutting Edge, p. 155.

In 1835 the German physicist K.F. Gauss made the first measurement of the earth's magnetic dipole moment, that is, the strength of earth's internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent!

On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it now has. Just 20,000 years ago, enough Joule heat would have been generated to liquefy the earth. One million years back, and the earth would have greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, and the earth would have vaporized! It would appear that the earth could not be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. (For more data on this, see two articles by Barnes: Battle for Creation (1976), pp. 230242; Creation: the Cutting Edge (1982), pp. 154165.)

"As the magnetic field energy decays, it is transformed into heat. The energy involved in this hypothetical extrapolation less than 30,000 years into the past would be sufficient to heat the entire earth to 5000°C (9032°F] and completely vaporize it by now. The earth obviously is not now either melted or vaporized. In the light of this analysis of the earth's decaying magnetism observed for 130 years, extrapolation of earth history 4.5 billion years into the past leads to an absurdity. The evidence supports an earth history of not much more than 10,000 years. "—R. E. Wahl and K.L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (1975), p. 194.

This magnetic decay process is not a local process, as one would find in a uranium mineral, but worldwide; it affects the entire earth. It has been accurately measured for over 150 years, and is not subject to environmental changes since it is generated deep in the earth's interior.

"All the recent commotion about the exponential depletion of our natural resources has singularly failed to mention that we are also running out of a rather vital, apparently nonrenewable resource, the Earth's magnetic field, quite rapidly."— *Fredrick B. Jueneman, "Magnetic Depletion" in Industrial Research and Development, 20(8):13 (1978).

The data pertaining to this has been carefully evaluated and checked.

"The only dependable historical data on the strength and direction of the earth's main magnet are the evaluations which were first made by Gauss in the 1830's and the subsequent evaluations made through worldwide magnetic observatory collaboration every few decades thereafter. These data show an exponential decay in the earth's magnetic field with a half-life of only 1400 years. A solution to Maxwell's equations for the electric currents and associated magnetic field of the earth's magnet reveals that there is an electric current of 6.16 billion amperes flowing in the core of the earth and a power loss (going into heat) of 813 megawatts at the present time.

"It is obvious that this magnetic decay phenomenon could not have been going on for more than a few thousand years, as the magnetic field would have been implausibly large for the earth. This is strong physical evidence that there must have been a relatively recent origin of this electromagnet or some unknown catastrophic 'reenergizing' event. The validity of this theoretical and observational result is confirmed by means of an independent check, namely an evaluation of the total magnetic energy in the earth's present field and checking it against a hypothetical reference magnet of the same strength and dimensions. The check is excellent, and leaves little doubt that this physical solution is the most meaningful interpretation of the earth's magnetic history."—Thomas G. Barnes, S.I.S. Review, 2:42-46 (1977).

The problem is a serious one.

"If this decay rate persists, the earth's dipole magnet will vanish in A.D. 3991."—*Keith McDonald and *Robert Gunst, "An Analysis of the Earth's Magnetic Field from 1835 to 1965," in ESSA Technical Report, IER 46-IES 1(1967), p. 1.

Additional evidence was obtained from NASA's Magsat satellite which orbited the earth from October 1979 to June 1980. It was designed expressly to study earth's magnetic field. The data was analyzed by * Robert Langel, chief project scientist, who issued the official report.

"A satellite launched by NASA in 1979 has gathered new data on the earth's decreasing magnetic field. Magsat, as the satellite was called during its eight-month lifetime, measured the earth's main magnetic field.

"The overall intensity of the earth's field was found to be declining at a rate of 26 nanoteslas per year, with a half-life of just 830 years) Thomas Barnes' results based on earlier data gave a decay rate of 16 nanoteslas per year and a 1400 year half-life. . Extrapolation shows that the field strength should reach zero in 1200 years. The earth is younger, and time later, than many think."—Donald B. Deyoung, "Decrease of Earth's Magnetic Field Confirmed, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1980, pp. 187-188.

"If one takes the Langel projection, the earth's magnetic shield will vanish completely in the year 3180 A.D. If one takes the projection in a 1967 ESSA technical report, the vanishing data for the earth's magnetic field is 3991 A.D."—TG. Barnes, "Satellite Observations Confirm the Decline of the Earth's Magnetic Field, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1981, p. 40.

The half life of carbon 14 is approximately 5,700 years. The earth's magnetic field is decaying about eight times faster than the rate of decay for C-14. Yet without its magnetic field, the inhabitants of earth would have no protection against harmful cosmic rays. Normally, most of them are deflected by our magnetic field. But the few that enter, produce showers of secondary rays in the atmosphere and then head downward. They have been found in the bottom of deep lakes. (Since it is cosmic rays which originate carbon 14 in our atmosphere, this ongoing change in earth's magnetic field produces changes in carbon 14 rates. This, in turn, dramatically affects C-14 clock dating results and makes those dates unreliable.

"If one computes the magnetic field strength back in time 10 thousand years, the earth's magnetic field would have been as strong as that of some magnetic stars. The reasonable assumption has been made that the earth never had a magnetic field as strong as a star's magnet.

"On the basis of an original magnetic field strength of the earth that is less than that of a magnetic star, the origin of the earth's magnet is less than 10 thousand years ago.

"Since there is no power generating plant in the earth, its origin must have been at the time of creation. This means that the young magnetic age of the earth's magnet also means a young age for the earth itself. These conclusions are based upon the decay theory of the earth's magnet. That is supported by (1) The real-time evaluations of the earth's magnetic moment [from 1835 to the present]. (2) The only rigorous theoretical explanation of the present processes in this electromagnet. (3) Three types of independent confirmational checks on that theory."—Thomas G. Barnes, "Earth's Young Magnetic Age Confirmed," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1986, p. 33.

None other than * Isaac Asimov agrees with the basic findings in regard to the decay of our planet's magnetic core:

"Earth's magnetic field has been weakening. It seems to have lost 15 percent of its strength since 1687. At the present rate of decrease, it will reach zero in 2,000 more years. Between the years 3500 and 4500, the magnetic field will not be sufficiently strong to ward off charged radiation from outer space. "—*Asimov's Book of Facts (1979), p. 326.

Evolutionists try to defend their long ages theories with radioactive half lives, but radioactive mineral decay rates are highly unreliable because they are open systems, and are subject to many forms of contamination and other factors which can change their clock mechanisms (see chapter 7, Dating Methods). If any fundamental planetary process ought to be a reliable indicator of the earth's age, it should be this earth's magnetic field—and it indicates an upper limit of decidedly less than 10,000 years for the age of the earth.

"The facts are:

"(1) The earth's dipole magnet is located in the core of the earth more than a thousand miles from the earth's crust (where the observable rocks are located).

"(2) It is an electromagnet dissipating almost a billion joules of energy per second now.

"(3) It is known to be decaying more rapidly than any other worldwide geophysical phenomenon. If the present decaying process continues, the magnetic field will have vanished within the extreme limits of time of 2,000 years to 11,000 years, depending upon whether one uses an evolutionary or a creationist presupposition.

"(4) There is at present no known source of energy to re-energize the magnet when its energy runs down to zero. One can safely say there is no theoretical reason at present to consider anything other than a single continuing decay process that started in the not-too-distant past, a creation only thousands of years ago, not millions or billions of years ago."—Thomas G. Barnes, news note in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1982, p. 196.

Most of the factors described above would apply to the age of the earth, which appears to be decidedly less than 10,000 years. Most of the following items of evidence would apply to the length of time since the Flood, which evidence indicates may have occurred about 4,350 years ago.

 

[Arikay]

A comment to evolutionists,
I know this is a PRATT list, but be nice to him as I asked him to post it, so we could go over it.

 

[danaman5]

Uh, captain, we got a PRATT sighting off the port bow here.

The moon dust calculations that the article refers to are old and inaccurate. (As is the argument itself) Newer dust calculation methods have shown the amount of moon dust on the moon to be right as it should be.

Edit:

Sorry Arikay, I started writing before you posted. My comment on the moon dust still stands, though.

 

[Trev_27]

WOW!!! THATS A LOT!!! All credit goes to
http://www.evolution-facts.org/1evlch06a.htm
If i broke any rules by posting this, please take it off. Thanks. I just wanna see what other people say to this.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

I've seen every one of your list so far and possibly if you posting Dr Dino's list... all 70 disproved in a matter of ... MINUTES... I'm not going to take my time and disprove them but I'm sure Airkay or MartinM could do it quickly

 

[Trev_27]

whats PRATT?

 

[Arikay]

Trev, to start (since refutation generally takes twice as long) can you pick 5 items out of this list that you think are perticularly good, or ones that you like?

 

[Arikay]

Points Refutated A Thousand Times.

Most of these items have been refuted for 5 years, many for 10 years and some have been known to be wrong since before I was born.

Some are just completly inacurate, like the statement that Carbon 14 dating has been used to show the earth is millions of years old. C-14 dating has a general cap of 50,000 years using the AMS method and about 25,000 -30,000 years using the traditional gas method.

whats PRATT?

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Well you can start by removing 1-6 since those happen in an old universe as well since stars are constantly born and die. Like on number 4... hahaha... do they really think that we think that those stars have been burning like that for 13+billion years?

Didn't even look past 6 since the first few were so bad. First they need to learn their opponents position.

 

[Trev_27]

I dont necassarily think all of these are true, I was just quoting a website to see other peoples reactions. I gotta go. Peace

 

[Arikay]

I thought I would give some short answers to 5 on the list.


#7: Shrinking sun,
This is based on one report that hasn't been repeated since, suggesting human error in the report. Further readings don't show the sun shrinking at a steady rate as is suggested.

The sun most likely does change size on a cycle, getting slightly bigger, then slightly smaller, however this change is no where near what they are talking about.
So, no the sun isn't shrinking at a constant rate.


#18 Solar Neutrinos
Just like with the shrinking sun this is a case of ignoring new information. We have found the Neutrino's that were expected. What they didn't mention is that Neutrinos are very hard to detect and it took a bit to create the technology and ideas needed to detect them.


#19 Moon Dust
The calculations that suggested the moon to be covered in dust were found to be in error. They were found to be in error quite awhile ago, so why they are still being used by this article is unknown.


#21 Lunar Isotopes
Th-230 is a decay product of U-238 which has a half life of around 4.5 billion years, so new Th-230 is constantly being created by the decay of U-238. U-236 can be produced by neutron capture.


#32 - Earth Rotation
Only if you use bad math. Using correct math you end up with a rotation only about double the speed of todays 4.5 billion years ago.


There are many many other errors in these as well. None are correct.

 

[Adam Kadamon]

I dont necassarily think all of these are true,

Ok. Well, this suggests you think some are true? Or maybe you have questions?

I was just quoting a website to see other peoples reactions. I gotta go. Peace

You want a reaction?

AHH! MY EYES! I got dizzy reading all that...and I only skimmed. 0.0

Peace.

 

[Adam Kadamon]

Actually, Number 33 caught my attention. I recall a discussion on it. Not my area of expertise...so I don't know why I'm bringing it up now.

I'd like to add (about the Shrinking Sun)

As I understand it, the changes in size that Arikay mentioned are miniscule (I don't have exact calculations on hand) And considering the sun is gaseous, it's hard to get exact measurements.

 

[michabo]

I dont necassarily think all of these are true, I was just quoting a website to see other peoples reactions. I gotta go. Peace

Perhaps you can pick a few that you do understand and agree with. If we give you answers to things you don't agree with, what good will it do? If we give you answers to things you don't understand, what good will it do?

And I hope this doesn't mean you are going to just post and run...

 

[michabo]

I read through some of the points, but skimmed through the rest after I realized that it wasn't going to end, but some of the points are really funny! Like the comets (which assumes that all comets are in an orbit which drags them towards the sun), or the amount of Hydrogen in the universe (which assumes that all hydrogen is slowly transmuting to Helium by itself). My favorite is the youth of stars, which is shades of the "the oldest living tree is 5,000 years old therefore the earth is 5,000 years old" argument that we saw a couple weeks ago.

I hope that Trev does distill this list to a manageable handful so we can go through them properly.

 

[einstein314emc2]

33 – MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY

The earth magnetic field flips on irrgeggular intervals. This evidence just shows that it will happen again soon.