Theory of Origin

By: Taylor Shanks

GOD SAID that He created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. When you track the genealogical record in God's Word you will discover that the earth is just over 6,000 years old.

MAN SAID, "That's absurd! Every intelligent human knows that the earth is billions of years old. That's just another reason to discard that archaic Bible."

Now THE RECORD. You have probably sat in a school classroom and heard or someone has said to you that the world is billions of years old or that bones have been discovered that are millions of years old. The next opportunity you have in such a setting ask the individual to prove it. If you find someone who attempts to prove their old age position, they will typically march out flawed circular reasoning or dating systems built up upon unprovable assumptions. The results of their dating systems have been proven wrong numerous times. The reason the anti-God group has never proven its position is quite simple and that is that their position simply isn't true. Keep in mind that proof is established by two or more reliable witnesses. Where are their witnesses? Recorded history goes back approximately 5,000 years and comes to an abrupt halt and the reason for that is obvious...there isn't much history prior to that point.

Because the evolutionists have no recorded history of man prior to the 6,000 plus years declared in God's Word which is a reliable history book and witness, the anti-Bible groups have no witnesses to support their pre-6,000 years old claims. In order to debunk the authority of God's Word they created an armada of pseudoscientific theories and techniques designed to offset their lack of witnesses...their lack of proof.

I mentioned earlier flawed circular reasoning. For example, if you asked the evolutionists to date a particular fossil they would certify its age by telling you what strata it was found in. And if you pursued and asked how you can tell the age of particular strata they would tell you by the age of the fossil found in it. That kind of sounds like the dog chasing its tail, doesn't it?

I also mentioned erroneous dating techniques. Carbon-14 which is a dating technique used to date once living things is probably the dating system with the most notoriety. After a living thing dies it begins to decay and Carbon-14 decays back to Nitrogen-14. By measuring the levels of Carbon-14 left in the dead specimen a scientist estimates its age. The carbon-14 process has proven far from perfect. On numerous occasions Carbon-14 measurements have shown living things to be of ancient ages as well as attaching ages to dead things, of which their ages have been certified, far older than they actually are. Regarding radiocarbon dating, Dr. G. E. Aardsma, Chairman of the Astro/Geophysics Dept. of the ICR Graduate School, had this to say:

At the present time it appears that the conventional radiocarbon dating technique is on relatively firm ground for dates which fall within the past 3,000 years.

In spite of this 3,000 year limit, anti-creationists have thrown out ages of 70,000 years and more as a result of radiocarbon dating.

Most, due to lack of real interest, are unaware there is a mountain of information to support a 6,000 year old earth. There are 107 scientific measurements alone that prove the earth to be young; scientific research concerning things such as population statistics and the fossil record to Helium in the atmosphere to erosion of the continents.

Perplexing news concerning recent dinosaur bones unearthed in Alaska should have sent a lot of the old-earth proponents back to their bunkers to attempt to shore up their theories. According to the anti-Bible folks there was a huge catastrophe that killed off all the dinosaurs around 70 million years ago. M. Helder in a 1992 article titled, "Fresh Dinosaur Bones Found," published in Creation ex nihilo, Vol. 14, the following information was found:

She could not accept that fresh (not permineralized, meaning unfossilized) dinosaur bones had been found in Alaska. Such bones could never have lasted 70 million years, she said. Unlikely or not, it is a fact that such bones have been found...How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question. One thing is certain: they were not preserved by cold. Everyone recognizes that the climate in these regions was much warmer during the time when the dinosaurs lived...Why then did these bones not decay long ago?...The obvious conclusion is that these bones were deposited in relatively recent times.

Scientists at the University of Montana were shocked when they found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized. Not only were the bones not fossilized but they appeared to have blood cells which would be impossible if they were millions of years old. The following is part of the report issued by the scientists:

A thin slice of T. rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope...the lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center...red blood cells? The shape and location suggested them, but blood cells are mostly water and couldn't possibly have stayed preserved in the 65-million-year old tyrannosaur.

The bone sample that had us so excited came from a beautiful, nearly complete specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex unearthed in 1990...When the team brought the dinosaur into the lab, we noticed that some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilzed...So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme as hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues."

In another effort to make fossils speak in new ways, post-graduate student Mary Schweitzer has been trying to extract DNA from the bones of T. rex. Originally, like Kristi, she had intended to thin-section the bones and conduct a histologic investigation. But under the microscope there appeared to be blood cells preserved within the bone tissue. Mary conducted a number of tests in an attempt to rule out the possibility that what she'd discovered were in fact blood cells. The tests instead confirmed her initial interpretation.

Author, popular lecturer and broadcaster Ken Ham weighed in with the following comment on this subject:

These red blood cells provide excellent evidence that these fossils are not millions of years old, but are no more than a few thousand years old.

Ancient historic accounts, the Bible and thousands of local sightings testify of dinosaurs and fiery flying serpents in recorded history. Even in this present day reports of dinosaur-like creatures exist. For example, in the publication Science Digest, 1981, and in Science Frontiers, number 3367, they recorded that explorers and native Africans reported sightings of dinosaur-like creatures. In the February 6, 1980, issue of the Australian Melbourne Sun it was reported that over recent years 40 people claimed to have seen plesiosaurs off the Victorian coast of Australia.

For more exciting information about dinosaurs, click on to "Dinosaurs" on this web site.

The earth's population also testifies of the earth's age. By taking the earth's present percent of population growth and taking into account the history of Earth's abnormalities and then by simply calculating backwards we should be able to get a bead on the age of our earth. In an article titled "Creation vs. Evolution" I found this following interesting calculation:

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations have evolved the human race?

The earth's magnetic field also points to a very, very young earth. Scientists believe that the earth is a large electromagnet and the source of the magnetic field is probably a large electric current. In 1971, Dr. T. Barnes theorized that nothing keeps the earth going except its own inertia. Because it is not being refueled with energy the Barnes theory says that the current is running down slowly like a flywheel without a motor. Consequently the strength of the earth's magnetic field is decreasing. Since the first measurement of the earth's magnetic field in 1835, it has lost 7% of its strength. According to the Barnes model the strength of the magnetic field should decrease by a constant rate each year and the data is consistent with just such a decrease. Present data points to a magnetic field which has lost one-half of its force over the past 1,400 years. Following this line backwards it is clear to see that Earth's age should be measured in thousands, such as in 6,000, and not billions of years. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., is an ICR Adjunct Professor of Physics and as of 1993, a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. He had this to say:

As measured by clocks on earth, the age of the universe today could be as small as the face-value biblical age of about 6,000 years.

The earth is very young...6,000 years young and we can prove it.

GOD SAID He created the earth in six literal days about 6,000 years ago.

MAN SAID, "That's absurd."

Now you have THE RECORD.