How Young Is the Young Earth?
By: John D. Morris, Ph.D.
--
According to the mainstream Big Bang idea, our universe abruptly sprang into existence some 15 billion years ago, sending matter careening through space. After millions of years it had cooled enough to coalesce into billions of rotating proto galactic-discs, and much later into stars. Over the billions of years, some stars underwent super nova, spewing material back into space, which later coalesced into second generation stars, some of which likewise exploded, leading to third generation stars like our sun. The planets are comprised of left-over star dust which didn't fall into the sun.

Even though our earth and its solar system is thought to be about 4.6 billion years old, it is much younger than the first and second generation stars, the galaxies, and sub-atomic particles shooting everywhere through space. Indeed, hardly anything is younger than earth.
--
Conversely, the Bible indicates that the creation of all things was accomplished in a six-day period just a few thousand years ago. The earth was created on Day One while the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day Four. Since thousands is less than billions, the term "Young Earth" has come to describe the recent creation position.

At a recent seminar, my friend, Mr. Tom Godfrey challenged me on the use of the term "Young Earth" for the following reasons:

First, according to our creationist perspective, nothing in all of creation is older than the earth, because it was created "in the beginning" (Genesis 1:1). Consequently, if the earth is young, then everything else is as young or even younger. According to the Big Bang idea, the universe itself is much older than the earth, so in their model the earth could be considered young in comparison. So for them, the descriptor has real meaning. Only by comparing a few thousand years with over four billion years as the age of the earth in two distinct perspectives can we rationalize the idea that the earth is "young." The validity of the term depends entirely on the existence of the two perspectives, both of which are assumed to be viable.

Second, consider a "new" building. Can we also call it a "young" building? I do not think so. A building can be old, but it cannot be young. We reserve the term young for things that are alive and growing toward maturity. Inanimate objects do not qualify, because they are at their best and full sized when first constructed.

So what term would be more appropriate than young? Terms like new and recent avoid the second problem, but not the first. If the earth is new, what can be old? What came into existence less recently from our perspective? The creation of the earth is the least recent event in history.
--
A dilemma indeed. I am not proposing we drop the terms young earth and old earth, for they are descriptive and well established. Tom suggests we call ourselves "historic-earth creationists," not only because it is accurate, but it acknowledges the true history of Scripture. Meanwhile, considering the term helps reinforce an important truth.

Let's see what Answer in Genesis has to say--

A New Belief

Millions of years of erosion by the Colorado River was once the standard explanation for the formation of Grand Canyon. Even some evolutionary geologists reject that view today, attributing the Canyon�s formation to many catastrophic floods. But their worldview can�t accept the single global Flood of Noah�s day and its after effects.
We need to realize that for the first 1,800 years of church history virtually all Christians believed that Noah�s Flood was a global catastrophe. It was not until the early nineteenth century that Christians began to abandon this belief, as deistic and atheistic geologists developed new hypotheses of earth history involving millions of years.

As they looked at the thousands of feet of rock layers and fossils worldwide, many early geologists, both Christian and non-Christian, simply assumed that the Flood could not have produced them. Based on this and other antibiblical assumptions, they invented theories that those rock layers and fossils had formed long before man came into existence. They proposed two groups of theories. Some said the rocks were formed by a succession of regional or global catastrophic floods separated by long ages of time (a view known as �catastrophism�). Others said the rocks were formed by slow, gradual processes of sedimentation and erosion (a view known as �uniformitarianism�).

These old-earth geologists didn�t do any experiments to show whether the Flood waters could have produced these rock layers. And because they didn�t pay careful attention to Scripture, they had inaccurate views of the duration, violence, and complex nature of the Flood. One result of their theories was that people began to believe that Noah�s Flood didn�t happen, or that it wasn�t global, or that it left no surviving geological evidence.

The Evidence

But think about it. A global, year-long, catastrophic Flood did happen at the time of Noah. We can say this with confidence because of the clear authority of the historical record in Genesis. We can also confidently assert that such a catastrophe would have left a massive amount of geological evidence, more than any event before or since. It would have produced vast sedimentary deposits, burying billions of land, air, and sea creatures along with much of the vegetation. And it would have done so on the entire planet. Then as the waters receded with great power from the continents, they would have eroded many of the sediments laid down in the first half of the Flood and redeposited them elsewhere.

Our minds are boggled when we try to imagine the geological devastation. The worst floods since then are like a Sunday school picnic on a sunny day compared to Noah�s Flood. The geological features of the earth today are exactly what we should expect to result from such a complex, destructive event. To say that Noah�s Flood left no geological evidence or that it was all erased by the relatively miniscule processes of geological change since this unique event is an absurdity of the highest order.

The Choice

This small-scale example helps us understand how a global flood can drastically affect geology.

The floodwaters (above) of the Canyon Lake Spillway along the Guadalupe River in Texas were moving at 107,000 ft3/sec (normal 175 ft3/sec). After the waters receded, carved bedrock was the result of the rushing water (below).

So, either the rock record is the evidence of millions of years, or it is largely the evidence of Noah�s Flood. It can�t be both. If we believe what the geological establishment says�that the earth is billions of years old and shows no sign of a worldwide Flood�then that belief contradicts our belief in Noah�s Flood. If we accept God�s inspired, inerrant testimony regarding the Flood, we cannot logically believe in millions of years. Noah�s Flood truly washes away millions of years.
-
While researching the early nineteenth century developments in geology, I often wanted to pound the table in protest as I read the writings of the old-earth geologists and saw how they ignored the biblical text (especially on the Flood) but declared authoritatively that their theories did not conflict with the Bible. At other times, I almost wept with tears of joy as I read the biblically sound, geologically informed, and compelling arguments of a handful of Christians, known as the �Scriptural geologists,� who back then were refuting these old-earth myths. Sadly, most of the church followed the secular thinking of old-earth geologists and ignored or superficially dismissed the arguments of the Scriptural geologists.1

The debate about the age of the earth is ultimately a question of whose word we are going to trust: the all-knowing truthful Creator who has given us His inerrant book (the Bible) or finite, sinful creatures who give us their books that contain errors and therefore are frequently revised. If you firmly trust and carefully read the Bible and become informed on creationist interpretations of the geological record, you can easily see how the rocks of the earth powerfully confirm the Bible�s teaching, both about Noah�s Flood and a young earth.

Dr. Terry Mortenson is a well-known speaker, researcher, and writer. He earned his doctorate in history of geology from England�s University of Coventry and his M.Div. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He worked for 25 years in Eastern Europe and other countries for Campus Crusade for Christ.

The Sea Does Not Have Enough Minerals /ICR

There is not enough salt in the sea or mud on the sea floor for the seas to be billions of years old.

Every year, salt accumulates in the ocean from rivers. Given the present rate it is increasing per year, the current 3.5 percent ocean salinity is much too low if this process has been going on for a very long time.

Mud enters the seas through rivers and dust storms. This occurs at much faster rates than plate tectonic subduction can remove it. Each year, 19 billion tons of mud accumulates. If the oceans were ancient, the oceans would be choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep.
--------
-The Universe Was Created Recently

Many clock-like processes operating in the solar system and beyond indicate that the universe is young. For example, spiral galaxies should not exist if they are billions of years old. The stars near their centers rotate around the galactic cores faster than stars at the perimeters. If a cosmology based on long ages is correct, they should have blended into disk-shaped galaxies by now.

Comets pose a similar problem. They lose material each time they pass around the sun. Why would they still exist after vast eons? Saturn�s rings still look new and shiny. And many planets and moons are very geologically active. Surely the energy they continually expend should have been spent long ago if they are as old as they are usually claimed to be.

Instead, the more astronomers learn about the heavens, the more evidence there is that the universe is young.
----
-NASA Photographs Young Comet -By: Brian Thomas, M.S.

Comets have fascinated their viewers throughout human history. Where did they come from? What are they made of? How did they start orbiting the sun? How old are they?

Modern technology is helping to provide some answers. NASA's EPOXI mission spacecraft obtained some close-up images of the comet Hartley 2, published this month on the NASA website.
The comet was examined by scientists using equipment on the Deep Impact spacecraft, which investigated the Tempel 2 comet in 2005. Most of the spacecraft's fuel has been spent in its journey to intersect Hartley 2.

The "hyperactive, small, and feisty" comet was photographed from only 507 miles away. Jets actively outgassing CO2 were clearly visible. Combined with 2008 spectral data on Hartley 2 from the Spitzer Space Telescope, the new images were used by a team of astronomers to measure the effective size of the comet's nucleus, as well as the rate of its material loss.

Researchers already knew the orbital path and period for Hartley 2. After factoring in the loss of comet material due to outgassing jets, they wrote, "Barring a catastrophic breakup or major fragmentation event, the comet should be able to survive up to another 100 apparitions (~700 yr) at its current rate of mass loss."

A comet's "apparition" occurs when it is visible from earth. Hartley 2 was visible in the Northern Hemisphere around midnight during the early weeks of November 2010. Its next apparition will occur in April 2017.

The data present a question. If the comet has a finite foreseeable lifespan, and if that lifespan is on the order of only hundreds of years, then why does the comet still exist as part of a solar system that is supposedly millions of years old?

Like other comets, Hartley 2 loses mass rapidly, especially when its orbit takes it close to the sun, where solar wind removes outer material. It loses even more material via its jets, which raises another question. Why does this comet still have energy left to push the gases out?

Given the standard evolutionary story of solar system beginnings, comets like this should be just the opposite of "feisty" by now. Instead, they should be lifeless, inert space rocks.

Therefore, the comet must be young. To try and fit young comets like Hartley 2 into a supposedly billions-of-years-old solar system, evolutionists came up with a comet-birthing area called the Oort Cloud. They insist that this "cloud" introduces new comets as the old ones burn out�though it has never been observed. Even if the Oort Cloud existed, the likelihood of a rock being displaced from it, by accidental collisions or otherwise, into a well-ordered orbital path around the sun instead of flying right through the solar system is fantastically small.

The short lifespan of comets, coupled with the fact that there is no observed natural source generating them, remains a thorn in the side of those who attempt to theorize about their origins based on a "billions of years" interpretation of history. When Hartley 2 flies by every seven or so years, its dwindling material and vigorous outgassing activity serve as reminders that the earth, solar system, and universe look young?just as the biblical record of a short earth history predicts.

Evidence for a Young Earth
Written by: CSE
--Creation Science Evangelism


The Oldest Tree

A bristle cone pine is approximately 4,300 years old�dated via tree rings. The method may not be perfect, but it is the best we have for dating trees.

The Oldest Reef

The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old�dated via measuring the growth rate for 20 years.

Even though both are less than 5,000 years old, they are the two oldest living organisms on earth. Their ages easily fit the creationist point of view, but leave loose ends for the evolutionist. Why aren�t there older trees or more ancient reefs? With the evolutionist time line, surely something is closer in age to their �millions of years.�

Evolution doesn�t fit the facts, does it?

Earth�s Slowing Rotation
Prevailing winds are caused by two phenomena. The sun�s heat causes north-south or south-north winds, depending on latitude. The rotation of the earth causes the winds to shift east or west�clockwise north of the equator and counterclockwise to the south. This Coriolis effect is proportional to the speed of the earth�s rotation: the greater the rotational speed, the greater the Coriolis effect. Due to these prevailing winds, the Sahara Desert is in the process of desertification, expanding approximately four miles per year. Calculations based upon the rate of the Sahara�s expansion show the desert to be 4,000 years old. This young age of the Sahara Desert fits quite well in the creationist time line, beginning its desertification process soon after the global Flood. The current slowing rate of the earth�s rotation, and its relationship with the Coriolis effect, allows for a variety of climates around the world without creating a menacing environment. Following the evolutionist time line over a period of millions of years, the Sahara Desert should have already expanded to its maximum size. However, since the earth�s rotational speed is decreasing measurably, the Coriolis effect would have been far greater millions of years ago, exacerbating the evolutionists� difficulty explaining the Sahara Desert�s young age.

Population

In 1810, about one billion people lived on earth. In less than 200 years, the population hit six billion. This fits the biblical chronology perfectly as the current population started about 4,400 years ago with Noah and his family after the Flood. An evolutionary time line would require not only a nearly non-existent growth rate but also three trillion deceased humans within the last million years.1

Declining Magnetic Field
-
Studies over the past 140 years show a consistent decay rate in the earth�s magnetic field. At this rate, in as few as 25,000 years ago, the earth would have been unable to support life because of the heat from the electric current.

Fast-Eroding Niagara Falls

After Charles Lyell published his Principles of Geology in the 1830s, society began accepting the theory that the earth and mankind evolved from a previous lesser state. Lyell used Niagara Falls as one of his illustrations to promote uniformitarianism. He estimated that Niagara Falls was 10,000 years old. He did this to try to discredit the Bible. Skeptics like Lyell leave out one important factor in their calculations�a worldwide Flood, approximately 4,400 years ago.

Factoring a worldwide Flood into the equation, scientists arrive at a higher initial erosion rate for the 71?2 mile Niagara Gorge. Since an increase in the quantity of water is directly related to the rate of erosion, the great volume of water receding after the Flood could easily account for half of the erosion of Niagara Falls. Using the evolutionist time frame, Niagara Falls should have already eroded back into Lake Erie. The reason why Niagara Falls has not eroded farther over the �millions of years� of the earth�s existence continues to elude evolutionists. Science always seems to correspond with the creation time line while evolutionists struggle to make their assumptions and theories plausible.

Salt in the Oceans

The water in the oceans contains 3.6% dissolved minerals, giving the ocean its salinity. Salt, composed of the elements sodium and chlorine, is the primary mineral. For years, scientists have been measuring the amount of sodium in the oceans and have found that an estimated 457 million tons are deposited into the oceans annually, while only 122 million tons leave the ocean via numerous methods.

Given the current amount of salt in the oceans, the data strongly favors a recent creation and global Flood. If applied to the evolutionist�s time frame of millions of years, the oceans would be saturated by salt. Even using liberal estimates of salinity levels,the maximum possible age is 62 million years.

Footnotes
Dr. Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism (Green Forest, AR: Masterbooks, 1985), 167-169. ?

-Creation Science Evangelism

CREATION--
We believe that man was created directly by God and in His image. We believe that God created the heavens and the earth, including all life, by direct act in six literal twenty-four hour days about 6,000 years ago (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17.

The simple but factual account of origins as presented in Genesis provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth and the universe.

The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential with the orginal kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.

The Flood-
We believe that the great Flood in the days of Noah was a literal worldwide flood exactly as recorded in Genesis 6-8.
--
The Gap Theory-
We believe that the "gap theory" has no basis in Scripture.

I wonder sometimes if people realize the significance of honest scientific research. We see scripture verified time and again, and this conforms to the proper method of investigating history: discover, verify, reconcile.

It also vindicates science as a worthwhile field of endeavour, and combats the absurd notion that there could be a reality in which scientific discovery directly contradicted truth.

Thank you CTD!

You are RIGHT ON! Well-Known Pastor and Bible teacher, John MacArthur gives his detailed knowledge of 'investigating history: discovery, verification, using common sense to add up the years of the young-age of earth'.

He explains how we can use the geneological records from Genesis to help determine earth's age. ....

Let's listen in...
http://youtu.be/sRFhuFHcBBs

According to Scripture, God created the universe over six days' time and rested on the seventh day. But why six days? Not because he needed that much time to create, and certainly not because He needed to rest on the seventh. Rather, He was establishing a pattern for the cycle of work and rest�a permanent pattern for the good of humanity.

That pattern is reflected in the calendar the entire world depends on to measure time. There is no cosmic reason, no philosophical reason, no mathematical reason, and no scientific reason for seven-day weeks. There is only one reason: God. He established that order in Genesis.

Every week we go through a cycle that God established as a perpetual reminder that He created the world in six days. The seventh day is a memorial to His completed creation.

To reject a literal, six-day interpretation is to confound that memorial. Furthermore, it is a denial of the completeness of God's creation. How? If everything evolved from nothing, or if creation was spread over eons of time, then there was no seventh day. So, according to evolution, creation is not only incomplete, it's going on right now! John explains . . .

Now that you've heard John's case�if you don't agree�how do you explain six days?

<http://youtu.be/C1pEQm676x4>

It's all about your starting point, isn't it? There's a pile of evidence out there, and depending on how you approach it, it'll send you in one of two directions. Find out what happens when you assume the truth of the biblical record and apply it to the natural world. There are plenty of indications of a young earth...

http://youtu.be/z9qc0wL9R0o

CTD, IMO after reading some Old Earth Creationists posts, I can only come to the conclusion that (they) are looking at this fallen- decayed earth, rather than going by Biblical proven evidence. Do you have any thoughts in the summation? Or anyone else?

-More Young People on Fire for Creation Apologetics

ShareThisPublished on July 6, 2011 in Feedback and Thoughts and Things.
We are seeing an increasing number of testimonies from young people who have become on fire for creation apologetics. The Lord is using AiG and the Creation Museum (and in three years, the Ark Encounter also) to raise up generations of young people who are bold in their faith and uncompromising on their stand on God�s Word. Recently we received the following email:

The email below is written by a young man, Caleb � who recently turned 14. We have Creation Club meetings in Sacramento which he attended. As he lives about 50 miles away, he decided to start his own Creation Club, and this is his email to people who have expressed an interest in coming to his meetings in his home. He has about 19 people including adults and young people come to every meeting. He makes the presentation himself using PowerPoint and shows portions of Creation DVDs.

He is a very mature 14 year-old (he is home-schooled) and makes a very good presentation. In fact, he makes a better apologetic for Creation and its importance to the Gospel than a majority of pastors today. Caleb has since been invited to have his Creation Club meetings at a local church, Gold Country Baptist Church in Shingle Springs � This young man is truly interested in science as well as Bible truths. It would be great if you could encourage him in the work he is doing in the small community of Camino, CA.

I asked Caleb�s mother if she minded if I forwarded his email to other people and she gave her approval.

Here is the email Caleb sent out recently:

Dear friends,

Our Creation Club has a new name!

In today�s culture, the Bible�s foundation, Genesis, is constantly being attacked by anti-biblical ideas such as evolution and millions of years, and as church leaders compromise on these issues, the next generation will slowly walk away from the church as the seeds of compromise begin to sprout. All of us know that if you want to demolish a building, destroying its foundations will eventually lead to the collapse of the entire structure. Psalms 11:3 says that �If the foundations are destroyed what can the righteous do?� Sadly, we are seeing just that in modern Christianity as the church becomes less and less effective in their ministry. Our only hope is to restore the foundations, by showing that the Bible can be trusted from the very first verse and that history and science confirm the biblical account of Creation.

Our goal is to strengthen the faith of the church (You!) so we can return to being the effective tool we once were and to defend the Bible from these secular and anti-biblical attacks on Christianity.

That is why we have chosen the name Foundations Creation Club for our Creation ministry, so we can restore the Foundations of Christianity in our culture

Caleb then went on to advertise the meeting they held recently:

The next meeting of the Foundations Creation Club is happening on Friday, June 24th at 6:45 PM at the LePore home. Topic: Genesis; Does it Matter? We will learn about what the Bible teaches about the Creation week, the Fall, the age of the earth and why a literal interpretation is foundational to the rest of the Gospel and the effects of compromise. We will also watch a portion of the video �Millions of Years: Where Did the Idea Come From?� with Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis. See you there! Sincerely, Caleb.

It is thrilling to know that AiG presenters are �speaking,� even when they are not�the Lord uses their many videos in various places to reach even more people.

Caleb was the name of a great man of God who was prepared, along with Joshua, to trust God�s Word�even when most of the Israelites would not (see Numbers 32:12).

Be encouraged, Caleb! We need many more Calebs in this world.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken Ham / AiG

-DID JESUS SAY HE CREATED EARTH IN 6 DAYS?
--Answers in Genesis
-By: Ken Ham

A rather vehement �old-Earther� wrote recently and claimed: �a twenty-four [hour] understanding of the creation days was never stated explicitly by Jesus � .� Well, did Jesus anywhere clearly state that the Earth was created in six ordinary (approximately 24 hours each) days?
----
When confronted with such a question, most Christians would automatically go to the New Testament to read the recorded words of Jesus to see if such a statement occurs.

Now, when we search the New Testament Scriptures, we certainly find many interesting statements Jesus made that relate to this issue. For instance:

�But from the beginning of the creation �God made them male and female.�� (Mark 10:6). This makes it clear that Jesus taught the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed �from the beginning��not billions of years after the universe and Earth came into existence.

�Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you�Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?� (John 5:45-47). In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: �For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.� This, of course, is the basis of our seven-day week�six days work and one day rest. Obviously, this passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest.

In fact, in Luke 13:14, in his response to Jesus healing a person on the Sabbath, the ruler of the synagogue, who knew the law of Moses, obviously referred to this passage when he said, �There are six days on which men ought to work; therefore come and be healed on them, and not on the Sabbath day.� The Sabbath day here was considered an ordinary day, and the six days of work were considered ordinary days. This teaching is based on the law of Moses as recorded in Exodus 20, where we find the Ten Commandments�the six-day Creation week being a basis for the Fourth Commandment.

One could consider many more passages that certainly imply that Jesus taught that He created in six days, but are there any explicit passages?

I believe there are. However, one has to approach this issue in a slightly different manner. Why just go to the New Testament to try to find out if Jesus stated He created in six days?

Why not the Old Testament? After all, Jesus is the second person of the Godhead, and has always existed.

First, Colossians makes it clear that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was the one who created all things: �For by Him all things were created that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist� (Colossians 1:16-17).

We are also told elsewhere in Scripture how Jesus created: �By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth � For He spoke, and it was done� (Psalm 33:6,9).

As well as this, we know that Jesus is in fact called �the Word�: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.� (John 1:1-3).

So Jesus, who is the Word, created by speaking everything into existence.

Now, consider Exodus 20:1: And God spoke all these words, saying�.� Because Jesus is the Word, this must be a reference to the preincarnate Christ speaking to Moses. As we know, there are a number of appearances of Christ (�theophanies�) in the Old Testament.

John 1:18 states: �No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.� There is no doubt, with rare exception, that the preincarnate Christ did the speaking to Adam, Noah, the patriarchs, Moses etc.

Now, when the Creator God spoke as recorded in Exodus 20:1, what did He (Jesus) say? As we read on, we find this statement: �For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day � .�

Yes, Jesus did explicitly say He created in six days. Not only this, but the one who spoke the words �six days� also wrote them down for Moses: �Then the LORD delivered to me two divts of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly� (Deuteronomy 9:10).

Jesus said clearly: He created in six days! And He even did something He didn�t do with most of Scripture�He wrote it down Himself. How more authoritative can you get than that?

-- WHY RECENT CREATION MATTERS -
-By: Henry M. Morris, Ph.D

No aspect of creationism is under greater attack by evolutionists than the biblical doctrine of recent creation. The evolutionist, knowing the weakness of the scientific case for evolution, almost always directs his own argument not against creation per se, but against recent creation and its corollary, Flood geology.

-Continue reading the EVIDENCE for

Historical Reasons
Theological Reasons
Biblical Reasons
Scientific Reasons

The world will never take the biblical doctrine of the divine control and imminent consummation of all things very seriously until we ourselves take the biblical doctrine of the recent creation of all things seriously. Neither in space nor in time is our great God of creation and consummation "far from every one of us." (Acts 17:27)
--ICR/HMM
--CHECK IT OUT!
Here is an article from the Institute for Creation Research:
Why Recent Creation Matters (http://www.icr.org/article/6779/)
---

-Indications of a Young Earth
-By: John MacArthur

Indications of a Young Earth

<http://www.gty.org/Blog/B100702>

-An Overview of Day-Age's Errors
-By: Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.

Many Bible scholars today are buying into the day-age theory of origins. They seem to believe that their biblical views must conform to their mental image of how the world functions today and must be confirmed by members of the non-Christian world, whose minds are darkened (Ephesians 4:17-19).

The basis of the day-age interpretation of long ages rests on a flawed understanding of the use of the word yom in Genesis 1 and 2. Here, I will discuss briefly the theory's five main errors.

-A Day Is a Day
The claim that yom is a long but finite time period is based on the assertion that yom means "age" in Genesis 2:4. However, in the Hebrew Old Testament yom normally means either a 24-hour day, or the daylight portion of a 24-hour day ("day" as distinct from "night"). It may occasionally be used for an indefinite time (e.g., "days of the judges"), but never as a definite long period of time with a specific beginning and ending.

It is not used even in this indefinite sense except when the context clearly indicates that the literal meaning is not intended. When ordinals or the phrase "evening and morning" are connected with yom, it always means a solar day. The context of the six days of creation account in Genesis 1 precludes any meaning of indefinite time.

-God Rested
Day-agers say that since "morning and evening" are not listed for the seventh day, the sabbath must still be continuing. If it has continued for thousands--maybe millions--of years, it can't be a solar day. However, Scripture does not say, "He is resting on the seventh day," but, rather, "He rested on the seventh day" (Genesis 2:2).
Though His work of creation was finished, He very soon undertook the great work of redemption (John 4:34; 5:17; etc.). That work was finished (John 17:4) when the Son of God on the cross shouted the mighty cry of victory: "It is finished!" The six days of creation and the seventh day of rest were a unique set of solar days at the beginning of earth history.

-A Thousand-Year Day
Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 state that a day is like a thousand years to God. This is used by some to suggest that yom in Genesis 1 may be thousands, millions, or even billions of years long. This phrase actually depicts God's view of time, which He created on the first day of creation, along with mass and space. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." A better translation of this verse would be, "The transcendent, omnipotent Godhead created (from nothing) mass, space, and time."
The very name for God is I AM THAT I AM (Exodus 3:14). God exists simultaneously in the past, present, and future. He is outside of time. The purpose of this phrase in Psalm 90 and 2 Peter is not as a definition of yom, but as a characterization of God.

-Normal Processes Did Not Apply
Some argue that the maturing of plants would take much longer than a day, therefore the third day couldn't have been 24 hours. This argument shows an extreme lack of appreciation for what God did during creation. He created everything from nothing by His word. Why would it not be possible for God to create mature plants, animals, and man on the various days of creation?

God was not bound by normal processes during the creation events. In fact, creation was a miracle of the first magnitude. God spoke and the universe came into existence. God spoke and mature plants and animals were formed. God spoke and mankind was created. This argument is not worthy of dispute.

-Your God is Too Small
The claim that the events that took place on the sixth day of creation could not have occurred within a 24-hour solar day are refuted by arguments similar to those given above for the fourth error. Day-agers' view of God is too small.

* Dr. Vardiman is Chair of the Department of Astro/Geophysics.

Cite this article: Vardiman, L. 2009. An Overview of Day-Age's Errors. Acts & Facts. 38 (3): 8.

-Biology and the Age of the Earth
-By: Frank Sherwin, M.A.

Evolution means change, but when we look to the living world, we see no significant change (macroevolution). Consider the troublesome creatures that Darwin labeled "living fossils." These are organisms that were supposedly extinct for many millions of years, only to appear in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries alive and kicking.

Creation biologists view the age of the earth in terms of only thousands of years. Living fossils, ancient "plant matter," and dinosaur protein are not a problem if the earth is young. Evolutionists on the other hand, must posit impossibly long periods of no evolutionary change when an "extinct" creature appears alive, and then make excuses why the creature never changed.

Let's check it out from ICR...
Here is an article from the Institute for Creation Research:
Biology and the Age of the Earth (http://www.icr.org/article/124/)
---

-The Creation of Plants
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." (Genesis 1:11)

One of the favorite biblical arguments used these days by Christian advocates of an old earth comes from a forced interpretation of this verse. While the verse seems to teach "sudden" creation, old-earth advocates interpret the verse to necessitate an indefinite time period, at least long enough for seeds to grow up into mature, seed-bearing plants. Plants differ widely and are thought to have evolved all throughout earth history. The third day, then, must be understood as long enough to witness the appearance of all "kinds" of plants and is equated with a vast stretch of geologic time. However, there are many biblical problems with this view--a few of which follow.

Scripture teaches that "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Exodus 20:11; see also Genesis 2:1-4; etc.), and no meaning other than a solar day is biblically defensible. The "herbs" and "trees" mentioned can only mean small or woody plants which supposedly arrived late on the evolutionary scale, for the same words are used to identify food plants on Day Six.

Furthermore, the verb "bring forth" (Genesis 1:11) is also used when God made animals, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature" (v. 24), on the sixth day. It cannot be referring to the growth of a seed out of the ground, but rather must imply the sudden creation of both plants and animals in abundance.

Such compromises are impossible biblically and are quite unnecessary. There are no true facts of science which are incompatible with the young-earth teaching of Scripture. We can be sure of its teachings.

--ICR/JDM

---Evolutionist Hoaxes

-Archaeological Forgeries
There is no fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. Despite the fact that no complete "transitional form" fossil has ever been found, the theory of evolution is taught more than ever in classrooms around the world. We keep finding more and more huge burial sites of dinosaurs, which are supposedly 65 million years old, yet we cannot find a single skeleton of a half man, half ape, pre-human being. Such fossils should stand a much better chance of being preserved, since they would only be maybe tens of thousands of years old, not millions as with the dinosaurs (in the evolutionist's timeline). Now why do you suppose this is? Maybe simply because evolution never happened? If evolution were true, we would find at least thousands of skeletons of the "transitional" skeletons shown in the evolutionist drawing below. Now if I were a believer in evolution, I would need to seriously question my faith in the absence of any such skeletons.

But since there aren't any such skeletons, one of the interesting methods evolutionists employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the fossils they cannot find.

Evolutionists present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and often the flimsiest of 'finds'. Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as a fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be those of a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax.

Piltdown Man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.
----------
Folks, don't let Darwinists make a monkey out of you.
Check out the website!
<http://6000years.org/frame.php?page=hoaxes>

Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth
By: Andrew Snelling

Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. But it decays so quickly�with a half-life of only 5,730 years�that none is expected to remain in fossils after only a few hundred thousand years. Yet carbon-14 has been detected in �ancient� fossils�supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old�ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon dating.1

If radiocarbon lasts only a few hundred thousand years, why is it found in all the earth�s diamonds dated at billions of years old?Even if every atom in the whole earth were carbon-14, they would decay so quickly that no carbon-14 would be left on earth after only 1 million years. Contrary to expectations, between 1984 and 1998 alone, the scientific literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record, supposedly spanning more than 500 million years. All contained radiocarbon.2 Further, analyses of fossilized wood and coal samples, supposedly spanning 32�350 million years in age, yielded ages between 20,000 and 50,000 years using carbon-14 dating.3 Diamonds supposedly 1�3 billion years old similarly yielded carbon-14 ages of only 55,000 years.4

A sea creature, called an ammonite, was discovered near Redding, California, accompanied by fossilized wood. Both fossils are claimed by strata dating to be 112�120 million years old but yielded radiocarbon ages of only thousands of years.
Even that is too old when you realize that these ages assume that the earth�s magnetic field has always been constant. But it was stronger in the past, protecting the atmosphere from solar radiation and reducing the radiocarbon production. As a result, past creatures had much less radiocarbon in their bodies, and their deaths occurred much more recently than reported!

So the radiocarbon ages of all fossils and coal should be reduced to less than 5,000 years, matching the timing of their burial during the Flood. The age of diamonds should be reduced to the approximate time of biblical creation�about 6,000 years ago.5
Rescuing Devices
Old-earth advocates repeat the same two hackneyed defenses, even though they were resoundingly demolished years ago. The first cry is, �It�s all contamination.� Yet for thirty years AMS radiocarbon laboratories have subjected all samples, before they carbon-14 date them, to repeated brutal treatments with strong acids and bleaches to rid them of all contamination.6 And when the instruments are tested with blank samples, they yield zero radiocarbon, so there can�t be any contamination or instrument problems.

The second cry is, �New radiocarbon was formed directly in the fossils when nearby decaying uranium bombarded traces of nitrogen in the buried fossils.� Carbon-14 does form from such decay of nitrogen, but actual calculations demonstrate conclusively this process does not produce the levels of radiocarbon that world-class laboratories have found in fossils, coal, and diamonds.7

--Is There Any Evidence For the Bible's View of a Young Earth?

-Answer: There is a profusion of evidence for the Bible�s view of a young earth. However, the old-earth perspective has held a monopoly in the public schools, in the major academic centers, and in the popular media for generations. It is no wonder then that most scientists share the old-earth perspective. It�s all they were taught growing up in school. It�s all they learned at the universities where they got their degrees. It�s what most of their colleagues profess. But there are dissenters among the scientific community, and their numbers are growing. Why? Because more and more scientists are confronting a growing body of evidence which challenges the old-earth paradigm.

This is not to say that everyone who examines these evidences will reject the old-earth perspective. Some who have pondered these evidences regard them as anomalous, yet-to-be-explained phenomena. Some believe they don�t stand up under close scrutiny. Some view them as deliberate misrepresentations of the facts by religious zealots.

There is no doubt that religious zealots have a tendency to distort facts when it suits their purposes. old-earth zealots have the same tendency when their careers and reputations are on the line. It�s human nature.
It is also true that some of the young-earth evidences which have been proposed over the years have not withstood close scrutiny. But many others have, and the fact remains that a growing number of professionally trained scientists�experts in their fields�are accepting a young-earth perspective as being at least scientifically plausible, if not compelling. Here are a few of the relevant evidences for consideration:
(continue reading this article below)-- YES! Evidence For a Young Earth!
<http://www.gotquestions.org/young-earth-evidence.html>
-------

--HOW YOUNG IS THE YOUNG EARTH?

---The Light and the Sun

�The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun.� (Psalm 74:16)

--One of the traditional �discrepancies� attributed by the skeptics to the Genesis account of creation is the fact that there was �light� (Hebrew or) on the first day of the creation week, whereas God did not create the �lights� (Hebrew ma-or) to rule the day and the night until the fourth day.

However, it is interesting that modern evolutionary cosmologists find no problem in having light before the sun. According to their speculative reconstruction of cosmic history, light energy was produced in the imaginary �Big Bang� 15 billion years ago, whereas the sun �evolved� only five billion years ago. Thus, even in their attempts to destroy the divine revelation of Genesis, they inadvertently find it necessary to return to its concepts.

Light energy somehow had to be �prepared� before the sun and other stars could ever be set up to serve as future generators of light energy. The fact that light is an entity independent of the sun and other heavenly bodies is one of the remarkable scientific insights of the Bible. As the basic form of energy (even intrinsic in the very nature of matter, as expressed in the famous Einstein equation), it is significant that the first recorded word spoken by the Creator was: �Let there be light� (Genesis 1:3).

In this chapter, the psalmist is entreating the Lord of light, the Creator of all things, to deliver His people from those who are seeking to destroy all genuine faith in the true God of Heaven. �The tumult of those that rise up against thee increaseth continually� (Psalm 74:23). Nevertheless, �God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth� (v. 12). The mighty God of creation, who established and controls all the basic energies of the cosmos and their manifestation on the earth, is fully able to defeat His enemies and establish His people. We can be sure of that.
--ICR/HMM

----Biblical Age of the Earth
---Creation Today/ Eric Hovind


I often receive emails asking about where in the Bible it states that the Earth is 6,000 years old. This answer results from a synthesis of a number of passages of Scripture.
--Genealogies of Genesis

--Our starting point would be the so-called chrono-genealogies of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. These genealogies, by their nature, do not contain any gaps. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Creation Ministries International, has written a detailed article on why the grammar and sound exegesis cannot allow for gaps in these two special genealogies.1 These genealogies allow us to find the date when Abraham left Haran, in Genesis 12:4. This date must have been 2,083 AM, where AM stands for Anno Mundi, the Year of the World � that is, the years after creation.

In Genesis 12:10, we read that Abraham�s descendants were to be in Egypt for 430 years. In 1 Kings 6:1, we find that Solomon built the Temple 479 years after the Exodus. Solomon died, and the kingdom was divided 37 years later (1 Kings 11:42). And then Jerusalem was destroyed 390 years after this, according to Ezekiel 4:4-6. When these numbers are added, we find that the destruction of Jerusalem was in 3419 AM. However, we have an extra-biblical date for this event � 584 BC. When 3419 is added to 584, we find that the year of the creation was about 4003 BC.
Nearly Precise

There is a very small margin for error. Each addition could represent an error of almost a year, because we do not know if, for example, Abraham left Haran on his 75th birthday, or when he was 75 years and 11 months old. We simply know that he was aged 75. So the date of creation could be pushed back to about 4,200 BC, but not really much further.

Those who assume that Young Earth Creationism implies that the Earth is 10,000 years old or younger are not using the Bible for their dating methods. The term Young Earth Creationism should really only be used for those who take the biblical position of approximately 6,000 years.

--Creation Today Minintries/ Eric Hovind~~(article written: 1/18/2012)
<http://creationtoday.org/biblical-age-of-the-earth/>

--Does the Bible Teach a Young Earth?
--CREATION TODAY~~

--Season 3/ Episode 16/ Eric Hovind & Paul Taylor
Today's Guest from ICR/ Frank Sherwin (11/7/13) ~~
Proof! God did not use Evolution to create the Earth!

<http://creationtoday.org/does-the-bible-teach-a-young-earth-s03e16/>

--WHAT IS THE MOST COMPELLING EVIDENCE FOR CREATION?
--(Young Earth Creationist/ Creation Today Show~~)

--(Season 2 Episode 16) (9/27/2012)
The evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old. Find out the Scientific Proof! It is all in the Holy Bible! The Source of Knowledge is the Word of God. Listen In!

<http://creationtoday.org/what-is-the-most-compelling-evidence-for-creation/>

----- -IS THE EARTH OLD? / CREATION TODAY~~

-(Hope this stays. I may have to come back and get another address. Let's try.....)


--With Eric Hovind and Marianne/ With Dr. Marcus Ross; Geology Professor~--(April 21, 2016)
(Click in the Middle of Season 5 to begin program)

<http://creationtoday.org/is-the-earth-old-season-5-episode-12/>
-----------

---THE MEANING OF "DAY"

--�And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.� (Genesis 1:5)--

--Many people today, professing to believe the Bible, have compromised with the evolutionary philosophy that dominates our society by accepting its framework of geological ages. This system interprets the rocks and fossils in terms of a supposed 4.6 billion-year history of the earth and life culminating in the evolution of early humans perhaps a million years ago. In order to justify this compromise, they usually say that the �days� of creation really correspond to the geological ages, arguing that the Hebrew word for �day� (yom) does not have to mean a literal solar day.

Oh, yes, it does�at least in Genesis 1! God, knowing that the pagan philosophers of antiquity would soon try to distort His record of creation into long ages of pantheistic evolution (as in the Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, and other such ancient cosmogonies), was careful to define His terms! �God called the light Day,� and that was the first day with its evening and morning. All subsequent days have followed the same pattern�a period of darkness (night), then a period of light (day).

This ought to settle the question for anyone who really believes the Bible. One may decide to believe the evolutionary geologists if he wishes instead of God, but he should at least let God speak for Himself. God says the days of creation were literal days, not ages. �In six days the LORD made heaven and earth� (Exodus 31:17).

--ICR/HMM

---IS YOUNG EARTH CREATION CRAZY?
-----BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S. * |

---A creation-believing friend of mine attended a dinner with various scientists. One of them who favored intelligent design said that any scientist who believed in a young earth was “crazy.” Then, remembering one in his audience, he turned to my friend and said, “No offense.” The reply came, “None taken!” This brief banter illustrates popular scorn for belief in a 6,000-year-old world. Can recent creation sound remotely rational in a climate so soaked in millions-of-years thinking?

The 6,000-year estimate comes from counting the number of years the Bible gives between various events from creation to Christ. This view of history is called recent creation. In contrast, the world’s way of thinking denies creation from the get-go. It needs millions of years, called deep time, to imagine creatures evolving from goo to you.

Many trails lead toward recent creation. Take the limits of science, for example. Some scientists think that science can firmly answer questions about the past. But it can’t. Science directly tests only that which is observable and repeatable. History is neither. The best science can do is weed out unlikely scenarios.

For example, scientists can measure isotope ratios in a rock, but those numbers must be cranked through a formula that includes unknown, unmeasurable variables to output a time estimate. Secularists make sure those variables receive deep-time-friendly values. They assume the rock’s starting state and that no outside process tinkered with the ratio since the rock hardened long ago. Then in a crazy twist, they often invoke special starting states of rocks or outside tinkering to explain out-of-place isotope-based age estimates.1

Since science fails to pinpoint historical events, how can we know when past events happened? Simple—we consult those who were there. We read what they wrote.2 And it turns out the Bible is the ultimate history book. Not only did eyewitnesses write or help write it, but God Himself carried the prophets and apostles along as they or their associates penned the Word of God.3 Recent creation isn’t crazy. It uses the most reliable record around. Trusting in science to answer all our questions about the past is the crazy option.

Lousy logic in secular approaches to ancient history offers another trail that leads to recent creation. Deep-time defenders resort to circular arguments instead of observation. They say things like “Science has proved the Bible is wrong, so the world must be billions of years old.” Ask them what they mean by “science” and they often equate science with billions of years. Thus, they reason in a circle. It’s like saying “The world is billions of years old, therefore the world must be billions of years old.” Science cannot verify such a claim since science deals strictly with the observable here and now. Only by first refusing to include the Bible’s history do they then declare the Bible unfit to convey history. Now that’s crazy.

If one digs deeper into science and history, the evidence points to the young earth described in Genesis.

-- --Besides all this, natural time clocks from many disciplines help confirm biblical creation. ICR.org has dozens of articles that describe everything from an abundance of blue stars,4 helium in minerals,5 and soft tissues in fossils,6 to a scarcity of creature mutations.7 Even these science-based observations cannot pinpoint history, but they do weed out deep-time options. Misplaced faith in science, a lack of logic in secular arguments, natural time clocks, and the very Word of the Creator all lead to recent creation.

**References

Woodmorappe, J. 1999. The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research.
Thus, historians find no certain dates for events for which eyewitnesses left no documentation like court records or coins.
2 Peter 1:21.
Lisle, J. 2012. Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation. Acts & Facts. 41 (9): 16.
Cupps, V. R. 2019. Helium Retention in Zircons Demonstrates a Young Earth. Acts & Facts. 48 (1): 10-13.
Thomas, B. 2014. Original-Tissue Fossils: Creation’s Silent Advocates. Acts & Facts. 43 (8): 5-9.
Jeanson, N. T. 2014. New Genetic-Clock Research Challenges Millions of Years. Acts & Facts. 43 (4): 5-8.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his M.S. in biotechnology from Stephen F. Austin State University.

Cite this article: Brian Thomas, M.S. 2019. Is Young Earth Creation Crazy?. Acts & Facts. 48 (2).