By the word of the Lord the heavens were created, and by the spirit of his mouth all their host: he gathered, like heaps, the waters of the sea, he laid the abyss in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all who live in the world tremble before him, for he spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it appeared (Ps. 32:6-9).

Obsolete methods for determining age in archeology

First of all, it is necessary to deal with the methods that provide science with dating in millions of years, describing the existence of the planet Earth.

Now, when determining the age of archaeological finds, both human bones and ceramics, the following methods are used: radiocarbon, potassium-argon, uranium-thorium, rubidium-strontium, ionium-radium, etc. The radiocarbon method is considered the most trustworthy by everyone.

Western scientists, who, unlike the Soviet ones, were not subjected to censorship, write the following: “The radiocarbon dating method undoubtedly has deep and serious shortcomings. Although it has been greatly improved and mastered over the past thirty-five years, the underlying assumptions are still very controversial and there are many indications that it may soon find itself in a crisis situation ... It is not surprising, therefore, that a good half of the dating results are in doubt ”( Robert E. Lee Radiocarbon Ages in Error, Anthropologial journal of Canada, 19, 1981, 9.).

“Regardless of the usefulness of the radiocarbon method, it must be recognized that it is not able to provide accurate and reliable results. The contradictions encountered within the framework of this method are enormous, the chronological data obtained are unsystematic and dependent on each other, and the dates considered correct are essentially taken from the ceiling ”(Ydid, p. 29.).

“In recent years, scientists have realized with horror that the rate of radioactive decay is not as constant as previously thought, and, moreover, is subject to the influence of external factors. This means that during global catastrophes, the “atomic clock” can go wrong, and as a result it may turn out that the end of the Mesozoic period did not come 65 million years ago, but quite recently, when man already existed on Earth ”(Frederic B. Jueneman,“ Secular Catastrophism", Industrial Research and Development (June 1982), p. 21.).

Here are some dates of the most accurate, according to evolutionists and atheists, method.

"Carbon-14 dating showed that only the killed seal died 1300 years ago" (Antarctic Jornal, Vol. 6, 1971, p. 211.).

Checking the shells of live snails showed that they died 27,000 years ago! (Science, Vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61.).

"The age of the shell of a living mollusk has been determined to be 2300 years" (Science, Vol. 141, 1963, P. 634-637.).

Even in Soviet times, it was believed that "... the radiocarbon method can only be used in a limited chronological range ... dates over 35-40 thousand years must be treated very carefully ..." (Geochronology of the USSR, The latest stage, L., vol. 3, 1974, pp. 21-22.).

In turn, with other dating methods, the situation is even narrower. This was recognized even by Soviet scientists, but Western scientists speak out uncompromisingly: “When using the potassium-argon method, it is common practice to discard those dating results that significantly differ up or down from the rest of the sample of results or from other available data, such as, for example, the existing geochronological scale. The difference between taken into account and discarded data is unreasonably attributed to the capture or loss of argon" (A. Hayatsn "Pottassium-Argon Ysocron Age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 16, 1979, p. 974.).

Thus, with the collapse of the USSR, which was the center of evolutionary theory, discussions about the age of the earth in billions of years became quieter.

You can see on the example how the dating of the finds contradict each other. Until now, the period of the reign of King Hammurabi has not been precisely established. There are three options in academic circles: 1955-1913. to R. Khr.; 1792-1750 BC, and, finally, 1728-1686. to R. Chr.

There are other options in which the dates of his reign are presumably named according to the British Encyclopedia - 2067-2055. to R. Chr., according to the French encyclopedia "Larus" - 2003-1961. to R. Chr. So you can see that even with a large number of finds (as in this case with the reign of Hammurabi) and the age of the finds is not more than 4000 years, the disagreements reach 400 years. The science of the Soviet era, despite the restrictions on the impossibility of dating more than 35 thousand years, managed to date the remains of a person and his tools at hundreds of thousands and even millions of years.

Material evidence refutes the billion-year theory

There are irrefutable facts that confirm the youth of our planet. Let's consider them without delving into physical, chemical, astronomical scientific evidence.

– Earth's magnetic field. Everyone knows the fact about the intensity of the earth's magnetic field, which falls twice in 1400 years. It turns out that 1400 years ago the planet's magnetic field was twice as strong as it is today. 2800 years ago - the magnetic field was four times stronger than today. According to these indicators, the maximum age of the Earth was determined, which amounted to about 10,000 years, since further the strength of the earth's magnetic field would be unacceptable.

– meteor dust. Dozens of tons of meteoric dust fall on the earth, given this, the conclusion is obvious that if the age of the earth were millions of years, then our planet would be, first of all, under a large layer of cosmic dust (up to several tens of meters in height), and secondly, the earth's crust would have very large deposits of nickel (meteor dust includes up to 2.8% nickel). According to today's indicators of nickel content and the amount of meteoric dust, we can safely say that the earth has an age of no more than 6000-7000 years.

– Age of the Moon. When sending an American spacecraft to the moon, there were fears that it could fall deep into meteor dust, since the moon, according to the theory of evolution, was formed several billion years ago, just like the Earth, according to these conclusions, the dust should have been very a large number of. To everyone's surprise, when the crew landed on the surface of the moon, they found that the moon was covered with a thin layer of dust, it was discovered that the moon has a magnetic field, seismic activity, thermal radiation, and thus it was revealed that its age does not exceed 6000 years.

– Silicon supply to the ocean with river water, does not make it possible to set the age of the earth more than 8000 years. The amount of nickel supplied to the ocean with river water indicates the young age of the planet - this age can be a maximum of 9000 years.

– The slow removal of the moon at a rate of 4 cm per year from the Earth. Previously, the speed was higher. If we assume that the Moon was in contact with the Earth, then it took 1.37 billion years to move away to today's distance. This age is not real, but the maximum possible, but even this age does not suit evolutionists, because they claim that the Moon is 4.6 billion years old. In addition, this age is much less than the ages obtained by radiometric dating of the rocks of the Moon.

– Salt is entering the oceans much faster than it is leaving them.. If we assume that the processes took place over billions of years, then the water in the seas and oceans would be much saltier. Even with a variety of assumptions, the seas cannot be more than 62 million years old (this is not a real, but the maximum possible age), evolutionists claim an age of billions of years.

– Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (non-fossilized) dinosaur bones. This gives the right to claim that the last dinosaurs existed no more than a few thousand years ago, and not 65 million years, as evolutionists say. (Humphreys, D. R., 1986. Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis Flood. Proc. First ICC, Pittsburgh, PA 2:113-126.)

– Evidence for Rapid Formation of Geological Strata after the Flood Period: absence of erosion between rock layers, which are supposedly separated by millions of years; the absence of a disturbed rock structure, which appears as a result of the existence of organisms (worm passages, plant roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystratic fossils (they cross vertically several layers of rock - if we assume that the burial was slow and gradual, then it turns out that they were in an upright position for millions of years); curved, but solid, layers are of great thickness, indicate that earlier the rock was soft and flexible and many other examples.

– population growth. To correctly calculate population growth, it is important to know three indicators: the average number of children in a family, the average age of a generation, and average life expectancy. Using these generally accepted parameters, we can calculate, taking as a basis the 5th chapter of the book of Genesis, the approximate population in the antediluvian world. When calculated, the following figures come out: the average life expectancy is 500 years, the average age of a generation is 100 years, and suppose that the average number of children in a family is six, then we get that 235 million people lived on the planet before the Flood. Provided that a person exists for a million years according to the theory of evolution, and the average age of a generation is 35 years (taking into account epidemics, wars, accidents), then it turns out that there were 28,600 generations on earth. If we assume that each family had an average of two children (this figure is deliberately underestimated), then it turns out that by now the population of the earth should have corresponded to an over fantastic sum: ten to the five thousandth power! In turn, studying the growth of the earth's population, we can say that our planet has more than 4000 years after the Flood, and this exactly matches the data of the Bible (H. M. Morris ed. Scientific Creationism (public school), San Diego, 1974, p. 149- 157; 185-196.)

In his pamphlet Evidence for a Young World, Dr. Russell Humphreys gives examples of other processes that do not agree with the billion-year theory.

Only 6 thousand years

While studying at school, from an early age we were diligently invested in the theory of evolution with billions of eras. It is important to note that the number of theories of evolution was about a thousand, and all of them often went in opposite directions, contradicting each other. We indicated that "it was" in the past tense, because the theory evolution in the West is no longer taught in most schools and universities, since this theory does not correspond to the data of science and does not even have scientific justification.

Often in the territory of the former Soviet Union, the topic of the origin of life on earth was hushed up, because upbringing in an atheistic spirit did not allow talking about the Creator.

The Bible, on the other hand, reveals a completely different picture to us. It says that man was created on the sixth day of creation about six thousand years ago. Thus, according to the time scale, which is based on Biblical data, places man at the beginning of the history of the world, and not at the end, as the theory of evolution claims.

Now Eastern philosophy is very popular, which is admired by many and is elevated in the understanding of the universe above the Bible. It is worth referring to the “sacred” texts of Hinduism, which describe the state of the world at the very beginning: “When the world began to exist several million years ago, it had a flat triangular shape with high mountains and many reservoirs. He rested on the heads of elephants, standing on a turtle, "resting", in turn, on a giant snake. If the elephants started to shake themselves off, there would be an earthquake.” In turn, the Bible tells about the structure of our world in this way: “He is the One who sits above the circle of the earth ...” (Is. 40:22) and “hung the earth on nothing” (Job 26:7).

That is, the Bible for another 2500 years, before the discovery of Copernicus, already said that the earth has a round shape. About 1700 BC. Job wrote that the earth was "hung on nothing." Such information from Scripture was difficult to understand for many centuries, and today we can confidently say that God gave understanding to the ancient patriarch about the structure of our planet.

So on the scales on one bowl there are turtles and elephants that make you smile, and on the other bowl there are very accurate scientific data. For all that, the Bible describes the water cycle in nature many centuries before the advent of scientific conclusions. “All rivers flow into the sea, but the sea does not overflow; to the place from which the rivers flow, they return to flow again ”(Eccl. 1: 7), it is also said that“ air has weight ”:“ When He gave weight to the wind, and arranged the water according to measure ... ”( Job 28:25).

Which is correct 6 days or 6 periods?

There are those who perceive the 6 days of the creation of the Earth as 6 great periods. Where is the truth? Everything was as described in the book of Genesis in the first chapter, and there are constantly used a few words "... and there was evening and there was morning ..." (Gen. 1:5). "Day" in this case equals days, namely 24 hours. Leviticus 23:32 says that the day is counted "from evening to evening." This confirms that the Earth was created in six calendar days. Such information is justified by the logic of creation. It is important to remember that vegetation was created on the third day, and the sun on the fourth. The existence of vegetation would not be possible if it were not a literal day, a long time, would it?

The fourth commandment again says that the days of creation were literal: “... for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it” (Ex. 20:11).

Every day and every night they talk about the Creator as the Creator of time for man - day and night, and a week of seven days.

According to the Bible, Adam, the first man, was created on the sixth day of the existence of the planet Earth. Accordingly, we can calculate the age of the Earth for the chronology of mankind. Assuming that the calculations of Genesis are correct, it can be argued that the six days of the creation of the Earth described there are a literal 24 hour day, devoid of any chronological gaps.

Based on the genealogy of Adam and all his descendants, up to Abraham, recorded in the fifth and eleventh chapters of Genesis, who make up a single family line, we can calculate the age of our planet. By determining where Abraham was chronologically in history, and adding the time periods described in Genesis, it becomes clear that our earth is about 6,000 years old, plus or minus a few centuries.

So what about the most popular assumption, that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, accepted by most scientists and studied in the world's most reputable institutions? This age has been determined by two main methods: radiometric and geological dating. Scientists who support the younger age (6,000 years) insist that radiometric dating cannot be considered reliable due to the fact that it relies on a number of incorrect assumptions, and geological dating uses circular inferences. They also point to the debunking of myths associated with the "ancient Earth", such as the popular misconception that stratification, petrification, the formation of diamonds, coal, oil, stalactites, stalagmites, etc. it takes a lot of time. Scientists who support the theory of the “young planet” present their evidence, instead of the arguments of their opponents that they refute. They admit that they are a minority today, but they are confident that over time, more scientists will reconsider their positions on the assumption of an "ancient Earth" that is ruling in modern times.

In principle, the age of the Earth cannot be accurately determined. Whether it's 6,000 years or 4.6 billion years (and everything in between), both of these theories are based on guesswork. People who adhere to the version about 4.6 billion years believe in the reliability of the radiometric method and in the impossibility of anything that could prevent the natural decay of radioisotopes. Those who adhere to the 6,000 year version believe that the Bible is true, and that there are other factors that explain the "observable" age of the earth (which we can easily track), such as a global flood or the creation of a universe by the Lord that "seems" to exist for a very long time. time. For example, we can take Adam and Eve, whom God created as adults and full-fledged people. If a doctor had to test them on the day they were created, he would probably assume that they were, say, 20 years old, although they were not even a day old. Be that as it may, there will always be reasons to believe in God's Word above the atheistic speeches of modern scientists with an evolutionist worldview.

When writing this answer on the site, materials from the got site were partially or completely used Questions? org!

The owners of the Bible Online resource may partially or not at all share the opinion of this article.

A lot of time has passed since the earth appeared. Moreover, according to the scientific point of view and according to biblical teachings, the data on the age of our planet do not coincide at all. So how old is the earth according to the Bible? Let's consider in more detail.

The story of the creation of the world

According to the events that are told in the Bible, you can calculate her age.

As a result, the age of the Earth according to the Bible is 6,108 years (until 2017).

From the Bible, we learn in detail about everything that has happened on Earth since the first day of its creation. Reading and analyzing this holy book, we understand more and more that it contains historically correct data.

The proof of this is the exact dates of birth and death of people, real events that took place with specific numbers.

• Genesis 5 reveals to us the sequence and length of life of Adam and his descendants. In total, this period takes 1,056 years.
• Genesis 7 and 11 cover a large period from the beginning of the life of Noah and the Flood to the birth of Abraham - 2008 years.
• Genesis 21 speaks of the life of Abraham and his son Isaac - 2,108 years.
• Genesis 25 and 26 show us in detail the time from the birth of Jacob to his campaign in the Egyptian lands. The earth is already 2,298 years old.
• Genesis 47 tells about life in Egypt and leaving this country - 2298 years.
• The book of Exodus (chapter 12) leads us to the building of the temple. This is already 3,208 years.
• The Book of Kings (chapter 6) ends this time period with the captivity of the Babylonians and stops at 3553.

The era begins, which was marked by the appearance, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We know that Jesus began his ministry when he was 30 and completed it at 33. The events of this time are also listed in chronological order:

Different versions of the calendar

Humanity has been concerned about the creation of the world since ancient times. How did the Earth appear, how old is it? In total, there are 3 main theories in the world: philosophical, biblical and scientific. Which of these positions to choose and which to believe, everyone must decide for themselves. But science and philosophy are limited by reason and cannot go beyond mathematical reflections. It's just science fiction, nothing more. According to these two versions, the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years, with which the supporters of the biblical version fundamentally disagree.

Divine theory is based on a document whose name is the Bible. It is here that you can find specific numbers and years. It is worth noting that famous scientists adhere to this theory: Sergey Golovin, Karl Bach and Henry Gelley.

If we stop believing in the Bible, we can say that our ideas about faith are also wrong. Is it correct?

Everything has its beginning and its end. This statement also applies to life on Earth, which, of course, someday will stop. How much time do we have left in order to be able to recognize the inevitability?

What does history teach us?

Fossils found on our planet tell us that life has existed here for at least 3.5 billion years. During this gigantic period of time, the Earth experienced everything: the ice age, the displacement of the continents, the extinction of dinosaurs and the release of a lethal dose of radiation into the atmosphere. Until now, not a single cataclysm has been able to completely destroy life. Is it possible to repeat one of the scenarios that our planet experienced during its existence on a larger scale? This is how scientists think about possible options for the development of the universal apocalypse.

Volcanic apocalypse

Estimated timeframes: 0 to 100 million years.

The last volcanic eruption, which claimed the lives of 85% of the species living on land, and 95% of the inhabitants of the deep sea, occurred 250 million years ago. It was during the mass extinction of the end of the Permian period of the Paleozoic era. The lava that erupted in the place where the Cis-Urals is now located covered an area 8 times larger than the territory of Great Britain.

None of the scientists is sure why such a cataclysm turned into a tragedy of apocalyptic proportions, but no one doubts that the ancient volcano influenced the course of history. In light of past events, some scientists are concerned about the giant volcano Yellowstone. However, even he is not able to bring such devastating damage to the planet, as the volcano once did, which put an end to the Permian period.

Henrik Svendsen from the University of Oslo in Norway notes that such large-scale eruptions were not uncommon in that period, they occurred 200, 180, and 65 million years ago. It is almost impossible to track their cyclicity, but it is also not necessary to exclude the repetition of this in the future.

It all depends on the location of the eruption.

Based on his own research, Svendsen concluded that a mega-eruption would be capable of destroying all life, depending on the place in which it occurs. So, 250 million years ago, salt could presumably be the “killer” of most of the life on the planet. The bowels of the Urals and Siberia are rich in salt deposits to this day.
During the Permian period, salt, which became an element of volcanic activity, entered the atmosphere. This caused a huge number of adverse chemical reactions for the ozone layer. The living species inhabiting the planet at that time, without protection in the form of ozone, could not oppose anything to harmful cosmic radiation. Thus, most living organisms died.

Currently, massive salt deposits exist on the territory of the Perm Territory, Eastern Siberia, and also on the territory of Brazil. And if the next potential volcano forms in any of these regions, there is no doubt that most of the living species that inhabit the planet will die.

What will be left after the volcanic apocalypse?

Of course, life itself will not disappear from the face of the planet. This happened 250 million years ago, when bacteria and unicellular organisms remained untouched by cosmic radiation.

Asteroid impact threat

Estimated timeframe: 450 million years.

If one massive asteroid contributed to the destruction of all large dinosaurs, could this happen again? In fact, such strong impacts of asteroids on our planet have happened only occasionally in history. The Earth experienced "acquaintance" with some large asteroids, but this did not result in such large-scale tragedies. So, one of the largest craters on our planet - Manicouagan, is located on the territory of modern Canada.

Scientists suggest that the age of this giant funnel is supposedly 215 million years old. The surviving fossils speak eloquently of the fact that the impact of that asteroid did not lead to the extinction of the dinosaurs. This was made possible by the relatively inert crystalline rocks contained in the resulting crater. And if the giant crater contains sedimentary rocks, it will release gases into the atmosphere and, as a result, cause massive poisoning of living beings.

The earth will lose its magnetic field

Estimated timeframe: 3 to 4 billion years.

Something similar could happen on Mars. According to scientists, the Martian magnetosphere collapsed approximately 3.7 billion years ago, at which time the planet entered a permanent snowball state. It is now Mars dry, cold and barren. But it probably wasn't always like that. We do not attach importance to the words that the Earth's magnetic field is gradually weakening. Because many of us are aware that such processes complete their cycle over billions of years. In addition, Richard Holm from the University of Liverpool argues that if the magnetic field changes, it does not mean that it dies. Perhaps it simply makes some kind of transformation, but this fact cannot affect life in general.

Encounter with wandering stars

Estimated timeframe: next millions of years.

What would happen if another star invaded the solar system? It may seem implausible, but some astronomers have identified stars that are on a collision course with the Sun. So, 70,000 years ago, when ancient people left Africa, Scholz's star, or Red Dwarf, was within the boundaries of the solar system, passing through an area called the Horta cloud.

The sun will get too hot

Estimated timeframe: 500 million years.

Scientists say it could happen sooner than we think. We can't escape the inevitable. The sun will gradually become too bright and too hot. The oceans will dry up, and the carbon dioxide on the planet will become so abundant that plants will not be able to cope with photosynthesis. The death of plants will inevitably entail the death of animals and humans. This may happen unexpectedly, but there will still be microbes on Earth, which, however, will now be vulnerable.

Conclusion

In the famous work by Agatha Christie "Murder on the Orient Express" there were several killers. Scientists do not exclude a similar development of events regarding life on Earth. There may be several factors that destroy living things, and they can act at approximately the same time.

When did it all start? This is a common question that many have asked. Did the act of creation take place millions or billions of years ago, or was it something that happened only a few millennia ago? The question of the age of the Earth is a topic that has interested and interests many.

The evolutionary point of view on the age of the Earth is that the Earth is very old. Most scientific sources on this subject indicate that the age of the Universe is from 15 to 20 billion years, and the Earth is about 4.5 to 5 billion years.

The study of the biblical story about the beginning of all beginnings shows that the Earth is a young planet. A review of the genealogies, or generational records, beginning with Adam, contained in Scripture, indicates that Creation Week took place approximately six thousand years ago. The suggestion of such a young age of the earth is, to most of those who accept the evolutionary model, ludicrous. It is absolutely clear that there is a huge difference between five billion and six thousand years. If one is correct, the other cannot but be a serious mistake.

An interesting fact is that many have their own idea of ​​the age of the Earth, without even bothering to make sure that there are reliable facts confirming this age. The science of geochronology is engaged in determining the age of the Earth. Currently, there are more than eighty different methods used in geochronology. Unknown to most people, most of these methods confirm the young age of the Earth, and not the billions of years advocated by evolutionists. Below, when discussing the evolutionary model, we will see why the concept of long periods of time is so necessary for the plausibility of evolutionary theory.

Geochronology is based on the most important principle of the theory of evolution, which consists in the fact that the present is the key to knowing the past. This concept, better known as the principle of uniformitarianism, postulates that various factors such as erosion by wind and water, volcanic activity, and the rise and fall of land are currently occurring at the same rate as they occurred in the past. . Based on this assumption, geochronologists are trying to determine the age of the Earth, as well as other celestial bodies in the Universe. Using this principle, let's look at some of the evidence that indicates that the Earth and the Universe are not at all as old as we are told.

Evidence for a Relatively Young Earth

Space dust on the moon

With the advent of artificial satellites, scientists have been able to measure the amount of cosmic dust that enters the Earth's atmosphere every year. Based on the data obtained, scientists calculated that during the billions of years of the Earth's history postulated by evolutionists, a layer of dust more than 15 meters thick would have to settle on it. However, due to erosion caused by the conditions of the earth's atmosphere, a layer of dust of this thickness could not have been preserved in any place on the globe. The fact of the accumulation of cosmic dust caused great concern for the fate of the first research vehicles launched to the Moon. Unlike the Earth, the Moon is not eroded by wind and water. Since most evolutionary scientists believe that the Earth and the Moon are the same age, it was expected that modules landing on the Moon's surface would land on more than fifteen meters of dust. Therefore, the design engineers designed wide cushions for the modules so that the space sensors would not sink deep into the dust layer. When the first landing on the moon took place, scientists were shocked: the expected accumulation of dust did not appear. In fact, the layer of dust was about one and a half meters thick, which indicates that the period of its accumulation is less than 10 thousand years. Creationists such as Dr. Wernher von Braun, who based their opinion of the young age of the earth on the description in Genesis, have predicted this before. Assuming that the current accumulation rate is the same as it was in the past, the amount of accumulated cosmic dust shows that the age of the Moon, and therefore the Earth, cannot be as great as evolutionists believe.

Earth's magnetic field

Another method of geochronology that speaks about the young age of the Earth is the measurement of its magnetic field strength. An analysis of the data recorded over the past 130 years indicates that the strength of the magnetic field is getting smaller and smaller every year. If plotted using the collected data and assuming that the rate of magnetic decay was the same in the past as it is today, then the strength of the Earth's magnetic field just 10,000 years ago should have been equivalent to the magnetic field strength of a magnetic star. It is obvious that life in such conditions would be impossible. If this graph is extrapolated back, say, 30 thousand years, then the strength of the Earth's magnetic field will be sufficient to increase the temperature to 5000 ° C or more. This temperature is sufficient to transfer many of the elements that make up the Earth into a liquid or gaseous state. Hence the conclusion: the Earth cannot be as old as the evolutionary model suggests. Another important factor to consider is the effect that the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field has on the Van Allen radiation belts that surround our planet. These belts are very important, because. they determine the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth's surface. In turn, cosmic radiation is an important factor in determining the rate of formation of the radioactive isotope carbon-14. Carbon-14 is a method used to date organic material and is based on the assumption that the amount of radioactive carbon in the earth's atmosphere has always remained constant. If there were any fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field in the past, then the accuracy of this method would be highly questionable. This issue will be considered in more detail when describing the methods of radiometric dating.

Shrinking Sun

There are many other methods that show that the Earth and the Universe are much younger than is commonly believed. For example, recent measurements of the Sun's size indicate that the Sun is shrinking. If we assume that the rate of contraction of the Sun in the past was the same as now, then it turns out that a million years ago the size of the Sun must have been so large that its radiation would have made life on Earth impossible.

Comets

The presence of comets in the solar system indicates a much younger age than previously thought. Scientists have suggested that the age of the solar system and its constituent comets is approximately the same. It is known that the solar wind carries particles of the comet's nucleus into outer space. And if comets had already been circulating in the solar system for billions of years, as is supposed, then by now they would be completely scattered. Some studies have shown that this would have to happen in 10,000 years or even less.

Erosion of the continents

Erosion processes under the influence of wind and water are an important point indicative of the young age of the Earth. At the present rate of erosion, the continents would be completely eroded to sea level within 14 million years. Although 14 million years is a period much longer than the age of the Earth suggested by the creation model, it is less than half a percent of the age suggested by the evolutionary model.

Oil and gas deposits

Another interesting observation that supports the concept of the Earth's youth is related to the extremely high pressures under which oil and gas fields are located under the Earth's surface. Many of these deposits are surrounded by porous material that would allow the high pressure to gradually disappear over millions of years. The lingering pressure clearly indicates that the age of oil fields cannot be as old as evolutionary theory suggests. These are just some of the methods of geochronology used to confirm the idea of ​​a young Earth. Undoubtedly, there is a sufficient amount of evidence to challenge the previously established ideas that the age of the Earth and the Universe is calculated in billions of years.

Evidence for the antiquity of the earth

In geochronology, there are a number of methods that allegedly indicate an extremely large age of the Earth. This, of course, is consistent with the evolutionary concept. The methods we are about to consider are called radiometric dating methods. Most scientists are convinced that such dating technology is accurate and reliable. It is very common to read scientific publications about the use of radiometric methods for dating certain layers of the Earth. These methods have become an important basis for proving that the earth is billions of years old.

Let's see how time is measured using radiometric dating methods. The most commonly used methods are:

Uranium-lead
Rubidium-strontium
Potassium-argon.

In each of these systems, the parent element, or element undergoing decay (uranium, rubidium, potassium), gradually changes, turning into a daughter component (lead, strontium, argon, respectively). The use of an instrument called a mass spectrometer makes it possible to measure the ratio of parent to child elements. The radiometric decay rate is then used to determine how long the decay process took.

The radiometric dating method is based on three assumptions:

1. The system should initially consist only of parent elements.

2. The decay rate from the moment this process begins must be constant.

3. The system must be closed all the time. Nothing should either leave the system or enter it from outside.

In assessing these underlying assumptions, the highly speculative nature of radiometric dating methods becomes apparent. None of these assumptions can be tested or proven, and therefore is not scientific. First, no one can know the original composition of the system. The statement that the system began to function in the presence of 100% of the parent element and 0% of the child element is nothing more than a guess. Secondly, there is no reason to believe that the decay in the past has always occurred at the same rate as it does today. Any process in nature takes place at a speed that is influenced by countless environmental factors. In the case of radioactive decay, for example, a sharp change in temperature changes its rate very significantly. Thirdly, in nature there is no such thing as a closed system. The very idea that any process can go on for a long time without any outside interference is purely hypothetical. It is absolutely impossible to claim that mother and child elements have never been added to or removed from the system for millions of years.

To better understand how dating is done, let's look at a few examples. If a scientist wants to determine the age of a particular rock or layer, what method should he use? One common material used in dating is volcanic rock. Fossils are often found in layers surrounded by volcanic material. To determine the age of a fossil, the age of the volcanic material either above or below the fossil, or surrounding it, is estimated using potassium-argon or uranium-lead methods. Often these data are published in scientific journals and are perceived as accurate and reliable.
How reliable are the radiometric data?

How reliable are these dating methods? We have already seen that the theory behind this procedure is based on several assumptions that cannot be tested. Is there any other evidence that there is good reason to question these practices? There are many examples of inconsistencies that raise serious doubts about the reliability of radiometric dating. Let's look at some of these examples.

Lunar soil brought to Earth by the Apollo 11 spacecraft (1969) was dated using four different radiometric methods. The results of these four datings showed different ages:

Pb207-Pb20b - 4.6 billion years,
Pb206-U238 - 5.41 billion years,
Pb207-U235 - 4.89 billion years,
Pb208-Th232 - 8.2 billion years.

Lunar rocks taken from the same location and dated by the potassium-argon method showed an age of 2.3 billion years. Five different ages were determined in five different ways. Which of these dates is correct, and is any of them correct? These results were reported in Science, Volume 167, January 30, 1970.

The Apollo 16 expedition brought lunar rock to Earth, which was dated in three different ways and received an age of 7 to 18 billion years. However, this result was doubted by other researchers due to the excess lead in the samples. Removal of lead through acid treatment yielded an age of 3.8 billion years, which was considered acceptable. This was reported by Science, Volume 182, January 30, 1973, p. 916.

A more reliable method of verification is to date material whose age is known. Let's see what happens when volcanic material of known age is dated by radiometric methods. The Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 73, July 15, 1968, reported that potassium-argon dating of volcanic rocks formed in Hawaii in 1800-1801 showed the age of the formation from 160 million to 3 billion years. This indicates a huge discrepancy between the actual age and the age determined by the radiometric method.

Another example of erroneous dating is reported by Science, Volume 162, and October 1968. Volcanic rocks known to be less than 200 years old have been radiometrically dated to be between 12 and 21 million years old. Thus, the reliability of these dating methods is questionable. It should be remembered that evolutionary scientists consider this same dating technology to provide indisputable confirmation that the earth is billions of years old. Many of us have read scientific publications that report data on findings that support the evolutionary view of the origin of life. Most readers rely entirely on the accuracy of these data and accept them unconditionally. Let's look at some examples to show how this data is obtained.

In June 1973, National Geographic (Journal of the National Geographic Society of the United States) published an article entitled "Skull-1470" about a human-like skull discovered by Richard Leakey in Africa. Readers were informed that the age of this skull was determined to be 2.8 million years. The article says the scientists used a potassium-argon radiometric technique to date the volcanic material that contained the skull.

Another interesting article appeared in National Geographic in December 1976. It reported on the skeletal remains found by Donald Carl Johanson. Johanson, who called his very important discovery "Lucy", argued that this organism represented the most likely intermediate in the supposed series of generations from ape to man. The article said that the age of this sample is approximately 3 million years. The age was determined by the potassium-argon method by dating the volcanic material in the layers surrounding these fossils.

Mention may also be made of an article by Mary Leakey entitled "Footprints in the Ashes of Time" published in National Geographic in April 1979. The article says that these footprints were made by ape-like people who lived 3.6 million years ago. And in this case, it is reported that dating was carried out on volcanic material using the potassium-argon method.

Before giving these three examples, we talked about the large discrepancies in the dating of volcanic material of known age. It has been said that volcanic material formed as little as 200 years ago was radiometrically dated to be millions of years old. In the light of such facts, we must question the reliability of radiometric dating methods.

Carbon-14 dating

The methods described above relate to the measurement of the age of inorganic materials. Let us now turn to the dating method usually used to determine the age of organic material, i.e. material that was once part of a living organism.

The carbon-14 dating method is based on measuring the amount of the radioactive isotope carbon-14 present in all living tissues. When exposed to radioactive cosmic radiation, nitrogen atoms in the Earth's upper atmosphere are converted into radioactive carbon-14. Some of these radioactive atoms are then incorporated into carbon dioxide molecules, which are in turn taken up by plants through photosynthesis. Animals eat and assimilate plant material or meat from herbivores. Thus, any living organism, be it a plant or an animal, contains some amount of radioactive carbon-14.

When the organism dies, the intake of carbon-14 stops, and the decay of this radioactive element begins, turning it into nitrogen. By measuring the amount of radioactive carbon in a sample, it is possible to obtain data on the time of death of the organism. The more carbon-14 present, the younger the age; the smaller it is, the older the sample.

Like other radiometric dating methods, carbon-14 dating is based on several important assumptions. First, for this method to work, the amount of radioactive carbon in the Earth's atmosphere had to be constant. This means that the rate of formation of radioactive carbon should have been equal to the rate of decay throughout the entire age of the samples. Secondly, it must be assumed that the decay rate in the past was the same as it is today. Third, since the death of the organism, there should have been no incorporation of radioactive carbon into the sample.

In order to impartially assess the accuracy of the named method of dating, let us turn to the facts. There are a number of data-driven and observable factors that indicate that; that the rate of formation of radioactive carbon in the past has not been constant.

1. The strength of the Earth's magnetic field has decreased by approximately 14 percent over the past 130 years. As a result of the weakening of the magnetic field, cosmic rays more easily penetrate the Earth's atmosphere, thus increasing the rate of formation of carbon-14. This observation shows that the rate of its formation has not been constant in the past.

2. An important factor is also volcanic activity. One of the main components of volcanic emissions is carbon dioxide. Periods of active volcanic activity must have upset the carbon-14 balance needed for the method to be reliable.

3. Solar flares contribute to the formation of radioactive carbon in the Earth's atmosphere.

4. The nuclear tests carried out over the past few decades have also contributed to the increase in the rate of formation of radioactive carbon.

5. A sharp increase in the rate of formation of radioactive carbon causes asteroids and meteorites to fall to the Earth. So it was, for example, in 1908 in Siberia after the explosion of the Tunguska meteorite. Changes in the age rings of trees in different parts of the planet indicate that in the year following this explosion, radioactivity on Earth was increased.

Reliability of carbon-14 dating

So how reliable is carbon-14 dating? Is it possible to accept as accurate, undoubted data published in scientific articles? Many scientists claim that the dating of organic material is as accurate and as trustworthy as a Swiss watch. Let us consider several examples that give reason to question the reliability of this method.

1. Live molluscs were "dated" using the "carbon-14" method. The results of the analysis showed their age: 2300 years. These data were published in Science, Volume 130, December 11, 1959.

2. It was reported in Nature, Volume 225, March 7, 1970, that a carbon-14 study had been carried out on organic material contained in the mortar of an English castle. It is known that this castle was built 787 years ago. However, carbon-14 dating gave an age of 7370 years.

3. Freshly shot seals were "dated" by carbon-14 and determined their age at 1300 years. The mummified corpses of seals that died 30 years ago have been dated to be 4,600 years old. These results were published in the Antarctic Journal of the United States, Volume 6, 1971.

Below is a selection of data from the scientific journals Radiocarbon and Science. A comparison is made between carbon-14 dating and geological time dating of samples. The geological record, or age, was determined by evolutionists over 100 years ago and is still accepted by most scientists as accurate and unquestioned.

Sample dating

Sample Carbon 14 method Geological method
Saber-toothed tiger 28000 100000 – 1000000
Mammoth 11000 20000 – 35000
Natural gas 14000 50000000
Hard coal 1680 100000000

As you can see, the discrepancies between the data obtained by the carbon-14 dating method and the data of the geological method are very large. However, both methods are accepted as valid by evolutionary theorists, although it is clear that one method contradicts the other.

In examining the facts concerning the age of the earth, we have seen that there are sufficient grounds to support the concept of a young earth. As can be seen, most methods of geochronology indicate a small age of the Earth. The radiometric technology for dating fossils and earth layers is not as reliable as we have been told. Therefore, it is obvious that one should not be considered a religious eccentric or a fanatic who adheres to the biblical concept of a young Earth. According to the creation model, the Earth is young. This is confirmed by the observed facts.

Biblical approach.

The fact that various scientific methods for calculating the age of the Earth give a value of the order of ten thousand years does not surprise us - this is quite consistent with the data obtained from the Bible. Using the time tables found in 1 Samuel 6:1, Exodus 12:40, and Genesis 47:9, 25:26, and 21:5, Abraham was born around 2000 B.C. According to the genealogies of Genesis 11, you can calculate when Noah lived, and from Genesis 5, you can calculate when Adam was created. Even if we do not consider the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 strictly sequential, then in this case the intervals between them can only be increased to certain time periods, otherwise these chronologies generally lose their meaning. Even if we assume that there are time gaps of about a thousand years between the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, we can assume that Adam was created no earlier than 20 thousand years ago. If we assume that there are no gaps between genealogies, then Adam was created about 6 thousand years ago. If we take the first chapter of the Book of Genesis literally, Adam was created on the sixth day of the creation of the Earth - that is, the Earth and Adam were created at the same time. So, the figure of 10 thousand years fully corresponds to what the Bible says about the time of the creation of Adam and, accordingly, the Earth.

An editorial in the influential journal Science, dated January 8, 1982, states: "...those who put forward the creation theory ... do not have substantial experimental information to support their prejudices." This is not true. As we can see, the data of many scientific disciplines indicate that the Earth is not thousands of millions, but only a few thousand years old. Those who reject this evidence cling to their prejudices - because if they admit that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, then the question of evolution will disappear by itself. And then they will have to discard their tenderly cherished evolutionary ideas and acknowledge the existence of the Creator, along with all the consequences that follow from this recognition.