How many times have you heard it stated as fact that the earth is over four billion years old? Do you know how the evolutionists arrived at that number? It is obvious that none of the rocks had a date written on them, so how can one make such statements with certainty? Is there any evidence which would suggest that the earth is actually younger than four billion years old? When one reads the mainstream newspapers and magazines, it seems to be taken for granted that the earth is at least four billion years old and that the universe is in excess of fifteen billions years old.
In a 1992 article in Time entitled "Echoes of the Big Bang," it was boldly stated as a fact that the so-called "Big Bang" from which our universe is supposed to have been born took place about 15,000,300,00 years ago (May 4, 1992, p. 62). As I read further in the article looking for the evidence of this rather precise dating, I found that no proof was forthcoming. Instead, I read of unnamed "scientists" and "researchers" who have "interpreted" an unspecified set of "data" to "suggest" that this conclusion is "possibly" in keeping with their "dominant explanation of the cosmos." That is really some concrete evidence upon which to base such firm statements! In this article, we want to look at specific facts from real sources in an attempt to question current claims about the age of the earth made by those supporting the general theory of evolution. The Bible account of creation and implications regarding the age of the earth do not conflict with the actual facts of the physical world. The Bible is, however, irreconcilable with the general theory of evolution and its implications regarding the age of the earth.
There are many ways to estimate the age of the earth by examining various processes at work in our world and estimating the duration of their action. For instance, we can find a rock with a radioactive element in it and try to estimate its age by comparing the amount of that element remaining with the amount which has been used. We can gauge the erosion of sediment from the continents into the oceans and the rate of erosion in order to make an estimate of the earth's age. Measurements of the sun, the earth's magnetic field and other forces can help us estimate their rate of change and provide a basis upon which to make some estimate about the age of our world.
1. That the process rate is constant or has a known functional variation.
2. That the process system is closed or one with known external effects.
3. That the starting components' quantities in the process are known.
The problems with these three vital assumptions is that none of them are provable or testable. It is impossible for us to be certain that any of our assumptions are true. Therefore, at the very best, the estimates of the earth's age that we get from these methods form an outer bounds possible for the earth's age. In other words, the age may be younger, but cannot be older. It is also important to remember that the lesser limit must rule in comparing one process to another. Let us examine the reason for this fact.
The oldest estimates of the earth's age have come from those measuring the deterioration of uranium to lead and assuming that no lead existed originally, but that it is all the result of decay from uranium. Old ages are also obtained from the rubidium-strontium and potassium-argon methods using similar assumptions. Without getting into technical points about the lack of validity of such assumptions, let us remember that if younger dates exist they must logically rule.
Robert Garrels and Fred Mackenzie wrote Evolution of Sedimentary Rocks in which they listed and quantified sources and rates at which sediment is added to the ocean each year. The total addition of sediment to the world's oceans was found to be 27.5 billion tons per year. Though some geologists may not accept this as a constant rate throughout earth's history, it is up to them to show the facts which demonstrate a different rate of sedimentation. Until they produce such facts, we divide the total mass of ocean sediment by the known rate and find the outer limit of the age of the earth's oceans to be 29.8 million years. That is far too little time to provide for the evolution of all living creatures out of the ancient oceans as the theory holds and far less than the current claims made for the age of the earth. Thus, the evolutionists are at odds with the facts. But there are more facts to consider.
There is the problem for evolutionists which comes from the known rate of the sun's shrinkage. Physics Today (Vol. 32, No. 17, 1979) reported on the work of astrophysicist John Eddy who has shown that the sun shrinks at a constant rate of 0.1% per century over the past 400 years of recorded observations. That means the sun would have touched the earth if it were 20 million years old and that life would have been impossible just 100,000 years ago due to the sun's proximity to earth. Again, that leaves no time for the evolutionists' theories and totally destroys their claims regarding the age of the earth. They respond by claiming the sun expands and contracts in cycles. However, they cannot show facts to say when it contracted earlier nor the limits of its expansion and contraction. As noted in an earlier article, the fact is that life on earth is possible only within a very narrow range of distance between the earth and sun. To assume it has alternately expanded and contracted only within that very narrow range merely adds another unproven speculation to their theory.
The problem does not stop there. The strength of earth's magnetic field or dipole has been measured ever since Karl Gauss first evaluated it in 1835. Physicists like Sir Horace Lamb and Dr. Thomas Barnes have examined the depletion of the earth's magnetic field and shown that, given its rate of depletion, it cannot be older than about 10,000 years. That fact conflicts with the general theory of evolution and the current claims regarding the age of the earth. It is up to the evolutionists to show us facts that would explain a four-plus billion year history of the earth's magnetic field activity or an explanation for its natural origin in the recent past. Until those facts are proven, we must abide in the boundary of known facts about the duration of this process.