THE QUESTION OF EARTH'S AGE

By Dr. Robert Gange

THE QUESTION OF EARTH'S AGE
---------------------------
By Dr. Robert Gange
 

EARTH'S AGE - Who wants to know?
--------------------------------
Evolutionists believe that life evolved by natural selection over long
time periods. They believe earth is billions of years old. Otherwise
evolution doesn't work-- even for them.

Scientists want to know for academic reasons. The dates enable them to
sequence events through prehistoric times. Otherwise present data is
difficult to interpret.

Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that life was created by God.
Opinions as to how, when and over what time period differ. Many who
believe God Created are motivated to believe earth is young in order
to discredit the billions of years deemed necessary for evolution.

Lawyers have raised legal issues in the courts, claiming that Creation
should be taught alongside evolution in the public schools. Since
evolution needs an old earth to work, creationist lawyers have offered
evidence to show the earth is young as a means to discredit evolution.
 

YOUNG EARTH BELIEVERS - What do they say?
-----------------------------------------
Virtually all scientists agree that our universe is old-- of the order
of billions of years. However some believers question, and even
challenge this conclusion. Many young earth believers are convinced
that the creation of our world occurred only thousands of years ago.
They believe that science is wrong, that its conclusions rest on
faulty assumptions, and that for the most part its agenda is to
perpetuate an evolutionary world view. The reality of the situation,
however, is quite different. With very few exceptions, young earth
believers neither actively participate in the scientific process, nor
contribute to its achievements. Moreover and with very few exceptions,
the natural processes that are put forth and alleged to prove that
Creation occurred just thousands of years ago do not come from working
scientists. They emerge from a small group of professional lecturers.
 

SCIENTISTS - What have they concluded?
--------------------------------------
Most scientists agree that our universe is billions of years old.
When young earth defenders challenge this, they do not prevail in
debates with researchers who are experts in scientific dating methods
(however the opposite is true in debates on evolution). In addition,
even if an evolutionary global agenda exists as some claim, there
isn't a scientist in the world who, if he believed he had credible
data proving that the earth was only thousands of years old, would not
stand up and shout, "Give me the Noble prize! Look at what I've
discovered!". But none do so. Not because they don't want the Noble
prize, but because there is truly no credible data proving that our
planet is only thousands of years old. To the contrary, abundant data
shows that earth's age is many tens or hundreds of millions of years.
Many believe that earth is billions of years old. Whereas abundant
evidence does exist that indicates our universe is billions of years old,
only one category of evidence offers data that shows our earth is
billions of years old.
 

YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE - Is it any good?
--------------------------------------
Calculations on atmospheric helium loss, depth of lunar dust, the
decay of earth's magnetic field and so on have been put forth to
"prove" that the earth is only thousands of years old. These and other
so-called "proofs" that the earth is only thousands of years old have
all been discredited (see Appendix A). Moreover, virtually all of the
76 or so processes that are alleged to prove the earth is young are
based upon the presumption of uniformitarianism (the absence of past
compromising, catastrophic events). They are also based on other
assumptions whose validity is unknown, and whose acceptance needs
substantive attending evidence that is almost always absent. Some of
these assumptions, along with the questions that these young earth
processes raise are discussed in Appendix B. However, numerous other
processes exist that cross-correlate to show the earth is considerably
older than thousands of years-- of the order many millions of years.
Examples of cross-correlated data are presented in Appendix C.

For example, consider the amount of carbon estimated to be in our
earth's crust. It appears that we have about ten thousand billion tons
of coal, and two hundred thousand billion tons of petroleum. Now as
far as we know, these two substances can only come from fossilized
life forms. Therefore, unless coal and petroleum have non-biological
origins, earth must be *much* older than six to ten thousand years.
 

YOUNG EARTH DATA - Is anything valid?
-------------------------------------
The closest anyone has ever come to presenting credible evidence
consistent with a young earth was Bob Gentry's work in the early
eighties. He summarized three kinds of processes:

* Polonium 218 radio halos in granite rocks;

* High ratios between uranium 238 and lead 206 in coalified wood;

* Very low lead diffusion from zircon crystals in deep granite cores.

But these findings can be explained without recourse to a young earth.
Guided by Genesis 7:11, Walter Brown Jr. (The Fountains of the Great
Deep) independently arrived at conclusions identical to mine: Earth
ruptured, Continents recoiled, Surfaces flooded, and Crust buckled.
But now let's go one step further. Let's consider the radio halos.

RADIO HALOS - What do they show?
--------------------------------
Uranium 238 is radioactive and undergoes 14 transitions in its decay
toward lead (6 alpha and 8 beta). The 7th transition is polonium 218
(which lasts only 3 minutes), and the 8th is lead 214. Gentry's point
is that radio halos of this very brief 7th transition of polonium 218
are found in deep granite rock, implying rapid creation of the rock
and, by inference, a near instantaneous Creation of earth. However,
other interpretations are not only possible-- but likely.

If the Noaic Flood came from water above our atmosphere reserved for
that purpose in Genesis 1:6-7, then a simple calculation shows it would
have reached earth's surface at initial temperatures colder than 150
degrees below zero, creating enormous thermal gradients across earth's
crust, and explaining why "all the fountains of the great deep burst
forth" when "the windows of heaven were opened". It would not be
unreasonable to find crystallized rocks in various locations below
earth's frigid surface, available to catch a radio halo imprint in the
3 minute window of polonium 218's life as it up-welled past the crystal
and toward earth's surface from the molten interior below.

In other words, given a near continuous up-welling of radioactive
material from earth's interior, and large thermal gradients across
earth's crust, there had to have been a region across this gradient
where polonium 218 rings were captured as the magma solidified. If so,
then Gentry's rings do indeed show rapid rock creation, but *not*
rapid creation of our planet. Moreover, and in light of the vast amount
of other evidence that shows earth's age to be tens or hundreds of
millions of years, then to understand these rings as characterizing
transition times identified with the occurence of the Flood rather than
the planet is far more reasonable.
 

PLANET EARTH - How old?
-----------------------
There is abundant evidence showing that the age of our planet lies in
a range between many tens to hundreds of millions of years. However,
the claim (by evolutionists and others) that our planet is billions of
years old is at best questionable, and at worst without credible and
empirical foundation. Consider the following facts:

* Abundant data have been published in many thousands of scientific
papers describing physical processes that indicate the earth is
many tens or hundreds of millions (not billions) of years old;

* The data from these processes cross-correlate with each other in
a self-consistent way, and this lends credibility to the results.
Several examples of cross-correlated data are given in Appendix C.

* Working scientists around the globe are virtually unanimous in
their belief that the published data shows that the earth is old,
but not billions of years old. The "billion years" estimate rests
upon the logical misuse of otherwise reliable measurements (see
below). Geologic and other evidence teaches tens or hundreds of
millions of years for earth's age-- not billions.

If geologic data gives earth's age as tens or hundreds of millions of
years, how is it that respected, accomplished scientists conclude that
earth is billions of years old? The answer is, it depends on what data
you examine. But for radio clocks and sedimentation rates, virtually
all geologic processes give tens or hundreds of millions of years for
earth's age. But sedimentation rates are unique. In the twentieth
Century these rates show earth's age as billions of years. Yet these
*same rate measurements* give millions of years in the nineteenth
Century. Why? It seems the reason is that all sedimentation rates were
recalibrated during the period from about 1900 and to 1935, to agree
(by definition) with the age measurements made using radioactivity
(discovered by Becquerel in 1897). If true, it means radioactivity is
the *only* form of data indicating billions of years for earth's age.
 

EARTH'S AGE - Is it many millions or billions?
----------------------------------------------
Since time measurements using radio clocks agree with those obtained
using four other independent time measurements, it suggests that radio
clocks are a reliable way to measure age. But how can these clocks be
so out of step with the vast array of all other processes that show
earth's age to be tens or hundreds of millions of years? The answer is
*not* that radio clocks are unreliable, but instead that they do not
measure earth's age. Whereas processes on and in earth's surface are a
measure of activity in its final stages as a planet, nucleochronometers
merely measure the age of a handful of radioactive materials in earth's
crust. But earth is not a sprinkling of materials in its crust. It is
a vastly complex and miraculous life-support system.
 

EARTH - Is it soil or a life-support system?
--------------------------------------------
Consider an automobile. Are we to say that a car manufactured last
week is, say, three thousand years old simply because the iron in its
fender might be found to be that old? In other words, is an auto just
its fender? Yet this is the very logic that has been used to estimate
earth's age. Materials in earth's crust dated in the billions of years
have been used to conclude that the complex, life-support system we
call earth is billions of years old. The fact is, virtually all other
processes used to date our planet show that it is tens or hundreds of
millions of years old-- *not* billions. The strongest argument that
earth is billions of years old, is that if it were not, then evolution
would be untrue. The reader is invited to download a number of papers
on the topic of evolution that are available on this website.
 

SURFACE PROCESSES - How old are they?
-------------------------------------
It is interesting that about 25 percent of the processes put forth by
young earth believers to prove a "young earth" yield ages between 10
and 500 million years. It is also noteworthy that each of the 47 radio
nuclides with half-lives between 1000 and 50 million years are gone,
whereas all 17 radio nuclides with half-lives greater than 50 million
years are still ticking on earth's surface. This indicates that some
materials within earth's surface are at least 50 million years old.
 

DATING METHODS - What are they?
-------------------------------
The methods commonly used to measure earth's age are listed in
Appendix D. A fair and reasonable conclusion from credible data that
has been gathered over the past two centuries using these methods is
that estimates of earth's age range from many tens to hundreds of
millions of years-- but, and as is discussed below, *not* billions of
years. However, this is *not* because radioactivity is unreliable. The
age of the radioactive materials found in the earth's crust do indeed
appear to lie in the range of 4 to 5 billion years. The issue is not
the age of these materials, but the logic that is used to link this
age to that of our planet. A more complete discussion is given below.
 

RADIO CLOCKS - Are they reliable?
---------------------------------
Young earth believers criticize radioactive dating as being unreliable.
They allege it is based on faulty assumptions. One popular target is
Potassium - Argon dating. However, the dates found using this method
agree with the dates found using other methods. For example, abundant
data from radio nucleotides shows that our universe (not the earth) is
many billions of years old. But four other independent processes
likewise yield the same magnitude of age. These are Doppler Redshift,
Star Light, White Dwarf Cooling, and Globular Clusters. Since five
independent processes all yield the same magnitude of age for our
universe, it is reasonable to believe that it is, in fact, that old.

This means that if the radioactive assumptions are wrong, they are not
so wrong as to cause billions of years to be lowered to thousands. In
addition there are other considerations that have been empirically
established regarding the nature of time that are too complex for
consideration here. The reader is referred to: "The Time of Creation"
for more discussion (now available for download from this website).

The meaning of these five stellar processes is outlined in Appendix E.
Radio clocks are discussed in Appendix F. Some have alleged that the
speed of light has slowed from earlier values that were once much
higher. The topic of "Tired Light" (as it is called), along with the
way that the measured values have been misapplied (and even misstated)
to nurture this erroneous claim are discussed in detail in Appendix G.
Appendix H briefly discusses young earth allegations that that age
measurements from triangulation of star light across stellar distances
are wrong, and Appendix I addresses young earth mischief alleging that
light travels in our universe along curves rather than straight lines.
Moreover, and when all else fails, some young earth believers allege
that God created everything with the "appearance" of age. Appendix J
discusses this idea, along with the reasons why it should be rejected.
Appendix K offers a *very* small sample of references in which age
measurements are presented. These are taken from just one professional
journal: Science, published by the American Association For The
Advancement of Science (a leg of the National Academies of Science).
 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
----------------------
What all this suggests is that earth's age is neither thousands nor
billions, but tens or hundreds of millions of years. Both young earth
believers and evolutionists will most likely reject this conclusion.
However truth is usually a balance between pairs of competing opposites,
and this conclusion may have more merit than either side is prepared
to acknowledge. But either way, one
thing seems clear: The evidence, at least as currently understood,
demands not thousands or billions-- but tens or hundreds of millions
of years for earth's true age. Whereas materials found in the oldest
continental *crust* are used to infer that the earth formed about 4
billion years ago, the facts are that the oldest oceanic lithosphere
is measured to have formed 200 million years ago. This unique oceanic
lithosphere is but one of literally hundreds of interwoven factors
that serve to make our planet a virtual Garden of Eden in an otherwise
dismal and barren abyss-- factors that serve to define planet earth
for what it truly is: a highly organized, complex life-support system.
 

APPENDICES
----------
APPENDIX A .................. Examples of Discredited Young Earth Claims
APPENDIX B .................. Process Assumptions
APPENDIX C .................. Examples of Correlated Measurements
APPENDIX D .................. Methods Used To Measure Earth's Age
APPENDIX E .................. Stellar Processes
APPENDIX F .................. Radio Clocks
APPENDIX G .................. Tired Light
APPENDIX H .................. Star Light Triangulation
APPENDIX I .................. Euclidean Lines versus Riemannian Curves
APPENDIX J .................. Appearance of Age
APPENDIX K .................. A Small Sample of Age Measurements
 
 

APPENDIX A

Examples of Discredited Young Earth Claims
------------------------------------------

Moon Dust
---------
In and around 1960 a swedish geologist named Petterrson calculated that
meteoric dust falls on the earth (and by inference the moon) at a rate
of about 14.3 million tons per year. Since this dust is only one-tenth
of a centimeter in diameter, it descends slowly, and collects on the
moon's surface (on earth it disappears into the oceans). If the moon was
over 4 billions years old, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin should have
found at least 50 feet of dust when they landed on the moon in July,
1969. Instead, they found less than 8 inches, giving an age for the
moon of about ten thousand years.

Young earth believers rejoiced at the result, and it was widely
publicized and referenced for several years thereafter-- despite the
fact that just six months after the moon walk, Reid Keays et. al.
(Science 167:490) published data showing Petterrson's influx
measurements were 140 too high. Ten months later, Ganapathy et.al.
(Science 170:533) published similar results. This increased the moon's
age to about 1.5 million years.

In October, 1993 Love and Brownlee published revised cosmic dust
accretion rates (Science 262:550) that showed only 44,000 tons falls
each year. This raised the moon's age to over three million years.
However the significant point is this: Since young earth believers had
accepted lunar dust as a valid process to measure the age of the moon,
then they should have embraced the correction, and accepted three
million years as the age of our moon. To my knowledge, nothing has
been published by young earth believers to correct the error.
 

Magnetic Field
--------------
Another popular belief young earth believers is that earth's magnetic
field limits earth's age to ten thousand years. This idea originated
in the early seventies with Tom Barnes (Decay of the Earth's Magnetic
Moment and the Geochronological Implications). In 1973 young earth
believers adopted both Barnes and his theory (Origin & Dating of the
Earth's Magnetic Field). Barnes created a mathematical model that he
claimed described the origin and behavior of earth's magnetic field.
In his model, the earth is a magnet with north and south poles whose
field falls "exponentially". This "exponential" decay means that in
past years, the field would have been *much* larger than it is today--
so much so that when we go back 20,000 years, the energy associated
with creating this field would melt the earth. From this Barnes felt
the earth could be no older than 10,000 years. But-- is this true?

The answer is no, and to understand why we need to look at a measuring
technique called carbon dating. Willard Libby announced this in 1952,
and it later earned him the Nobel prize. When bombarded by cosmic rays,
nitrogen atoms transform into radio-carbon (C14) atoms. These decay
into ordinary (C12) atoms with a half-life of about 5,570 years. Since
earth's magnetic field shields it from cosmic rays, larger fields mean
less cosmic rays, fewer radio-carbon atoms, and older ages from carbon
dating.

According to Barnes, earth's magnetic field was 4 times larger about 3
thousand years ago, lowering radio-carbon atoms by ten percent and
making the ages found by carbon dating several hundred years higher
than the true age. However when compared with the dates obtained from
overlapping tree ring sequences in hundreds of oaks in No. Ireland and
Germany, as well as bristlecone pines in the US Southwest, the carbon
dates were found to be several hundred years *lower*, showing that
earth's magnetic field was actually *lower* about 3000 BC, and proving
that the exponential decay model theorized by Barnes was wrong.

Moreover, the 34 observatory measurements used by Barnes to "prove" his
theory only go back to 1829, where from that time forward, earth's
magnetic field strength drops in value along a straight line. Barnes
believed this line was the "tail" of an exponential decay-- but he had
no data to prove it. Since these 34 observatory measurements show about
the same rate of field decay over the past 150 years as the fields
trapped in ocean and lake sediments, the latter "paleomagnetic" data
(as it is called) emerge as a reliable record of earth's past magnetic
field behavior. However, this paleomagnetic record of earth's magnetic
field goes back several thousand years, and
it shows that the field was *lower* 3000 BC, in agreement with results
obtained by comparing carbon dating with dendochronology (tree rings).

Actually, earth's magnetic field is like a roller coaster. It goes up
and down with time, and its value 20,000 years ago was not what Barnes
model alleged. In all fairness to Barnes, in the early seventies no
one understood how this field was generated, and Barnes theory seemed
a reasonable idea. However more recently computer models are mimicking
the geodynamo (Phys. Rev Lett. 84,4365). This is a closed system in
which a homogeneous medium of rotating conductive fluid creates
electric and magnetic fields without any external forcing or
ferromagnetism (Science 288:1301).
 
 

APPENDIX B

Process Assumptions
-------------------

Using natural processes to estimate earth's age requires assumptions.
Within the scientific community, these assumptions are often given
extensive consideration, and attending evidence is brought to bear
on their validity. However, such scrutiny is rarely seen among young
earth believers who employ these processes to allege that earth is
young i.e., of the order of thousands of years. Moreover, and unless
great care is given to this matter, the questions raised by these
assumptions can seriously compromise if not flaw the conclusions one
draws regarding earth's age. Three of the more important assumptions
are listed below, along with the processes with which they identify.

* Initial Conditions -
Were the things being measured present before the process began?

* Activity Rate -
What was the rate of the process each instant it was operative?

* System Closure -
Did anything enter or leave the system during the measurements?

All processes used to assess the age of the earth fall into one of
four categories. These are listed below, along with 3 examples of each:

Accumulation Decay
------------ -----
surface materials paleomagnetic fields
manganese nodules radioactive materials
deep molten magma earth's spin
 

Diffusion Erosion
--------- -------
oil in rocks limestone caves
helium loss zircon fission tracks
lead in zircon crystals fossil lattice defects

The assumptions identified with each of these processes, along with
the range of age found (expressed in millions of years) is as follows:
 

Process - Min Max Assumptions
------- --- --- -----------
Accumulation - .02 AAAA 500. A initial conditions/system closure

Erosion - AAA .02 AAAAi 2.0 Ai activity rate (all 4 processes)

Decay - AAAA 0.3 AAAA 300. A initial conditions

Diffusion - Aaa 0.1 AAAA 0.3 Aa system closure
 

However, great care must be exercised in the conclusions drawn from
these processes regarding earths age. Consider the following:

Accumulation
------------
Accumulation processes range from 20 thousand years, and out to 500
million years. In such instances, the larger number must be used in
discussions of age. For example, if we ask: "How old is Ann?", and our
only data is that Ann had two birthday parties-- one at age 3 and one
at age 14, then we know that Ann is at least 14 years old. Likewise
with accumulation processes. If the numbers are at all valid (this is
a separate question), then the earth is at least 500 million years old.

But are these numbers valid? One kind of accumulation process is how
salts collect in the oceans from rivers. Sixteen are typically listed.
The claim is that by measuring their accumulation, one can estimate the
length of time over which these salts accumulated and, therefore, the
age of things. But is this true? Consider what must be assumed. At the
very least, we must assume that each salt found in the oceans got
there only through influx i.e., that no other deposition process exists.

We must also assume that none of the salt found in the ocean was there
before the influx began. Otherwise the amount of salt that we measure
will be the sum of the salt that existed before influx began, and the
salt that accumulated due to influx from the rivers.

Perhaps the most important thing we must assume is that the rate of
influx has not changed over the time period being measured. This last
concern is the assumption of uniformitarianism i.e., the absence of
compromising, catastrophic events. Recent data shows this is untrue.

However, and beyond this, another assumption is necessary viz., that
the rate at which these salts accumulated in the oceans was the same
for each salt. But what if the particular influx rate of a given salt
depends on its physical properties? For example, if some physical
property, say of thorium, promotes its rapid transfer from rivers and
into oceans, whereas those of lithium cause its influx rate to be very
low, then the amount of lithium versus thorium found in the oceans is
not measuring age-- but an artifact of the physical properties of
these two salts. The likelihood of this being true grows when we
consider that lithium accumulation yields an age of about 20 million
years, whereas that for thorium is under 400 years.

Consider the approximate age estimates found from the following salts:

Ocean Salt Age
------------------------
Aluminum ...... 100
Tungsten ...... 1000
Nickel ........ 10000
Tin ........... 100000
Calcium ....... 1000000
Potassium ..... 10000000

When we examine the age estimates found from aluminum, tungsten,
nickel, tin, calcium and potassium salts, we find, respectively, that
they increase by factor of 10 with each salt. For example, aluminum
yields 100 years, tungsten 1000 years, nickel 10,000 years, and so on.
But this identical sequence that is alleged to measure age is, in
fact, and as seen below, a function of the atomic electronic
configuration of these ocean salts.

orbital shell age
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~
3rd p young
4th s "
5th d "
------------------------
2nd s old
3rd s "
------------------------
4th d mid

Likewise, consider the continental leaching of salts into the oceans.
Chlorine, Calcium and Sodium yield age estimates of 1, 12 and 32
million years, respectively. These numbers increase as the square root
of the ionization energy, suggesting that they are more a reflection
of the physical properties of the materials rather than earth's age.

Erosion
-------
In the past, erosion rates of limestone caves proved popular among
young earth believers as supporting an age for the earth of thousands
of years. Estimates of the amount of limestone on earth extend well
beyond a billion, billion tons, or about ten thousand cubic miles.
Limestone erosion rates suggest an age of ten or so thousand years.
However, this does not mean that the earth is this old. This is just
one of a number of processes which, when combined provide us insight
into earth's past. Terrestrial interruptions, surface realignments,
and geologic catastrophes are but just three kinds of events that can
alter these numbers. Moreover there is no evidence of any kind to
suggest conditions on an old earth did not change ten thousand years
ago in a way that spawned the growth of limestone caves.

Decay
-----
Young and old ages are also seen using the radio clock U238 / Pb206.
This dating method typically uses the ratio of Pb206 to Pb207. Lead
207 is a by-product of the radio decay, and taking the ratio causes
some experimental errors to divide out. A ratio of 4 indicates an age
greater than 3 billion years; ratios of 5.9 and 14.0 denote time
periods of 2.5 and 1.0 billion years, respectively. Moreover, it is
not at all unusual to find such ratios.

However at least one instance exists where the ratio is 21.5,
indicating the present time. Some young earth adherents have focussed
on this one anomalous result, while ignoring the many other instances
where very long time periods are indicated. Such anomalies are often
due to mitigating factors that are later identified as present at the
time of the measurement.

Diffusion
---------
Diffusion is but one of many processes used by researchers to date
earth's age in the many millions of years. Ironically, this is also
one of the very few valid processes that has been used to allege a
recent Creation. Gentry found *no* Pb diffusion out of zircon crystals
in deep granite cores at 313 degrees Celsius-- a temperature where one
percent diffusion is expected every 300,000 years. This implies that
the granite is younger than 300,000 years. But other interpretations
are also possible.

For example, if the zircon crystals appeared in granite that had
formed from molten rock after it cooled in a process identified with
the Noaic Flood (described earlier) when very large thermal gradients
existed across earth's crust hundreds of thousands of years ago, then
lead diffusion becomes a measure of the age of this event rather than
the granite. Note that the same process (diffusion) can yield both
young and old values for age, depending on where the process is
applied, and how the conditions operate to generate the data.
 
 

APPENDIX C

Examples of Correlated Measurements
-----------------------------------

Australian Tektites
-------------------
A million year age estimate of fission tracks in Australian tektites
(glassy beads) has been independently correlated with the potassium -
argon (K40 / A40) radio clock. Work with tektites elsewhere yield a
maximum age of 35 million years. Note, however, that these are not in
conflict. It is perfectly reasonable for something to have occurred on
earth 1 million years ago, and for something else to have occurred on
earth 35 million years ago. Moreover, if the measurements are valid, it
means earth is at least 35 million years old (not 1 million years old).
 

Milankovich Rhythms
-------------------
Goesta Wollin (Columbia U. Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) has
documented 0.5 million years of continuous correlation between the
magnetic field intensity, magnetic field inclination, oxygen isotope
(O18 / O16) ratios, and foraminifera shells. Milankovich rhythms arise
from the change in earth's tilt, wobble and orbit every 20,000, 42,000
and 100,000 years respectively. The correlation over one-half million
years is limited by the available data. However the geophysical
processes at work are likely to embrace many millions of years.
 

Ice Cores
---------
Measurements of oxygen isotope ratios (O18 / O16) near the bottom of
the oceans show large swings, reflecting changes in earth's climate
due to Milankovich rhythms. John Imbrie, head of the Spectral Mapping
Group at Brown University, examined over 75 peaks and valleys to show
that the age of at least five independent cores was 734,000 years.
Oceanic records also displayed magnetic variations due to earth's
magnetic field reversals that cross-checked when examined against
identical magnetic reversals in volcanic rock. It is noteworthy that
no two environments could be more different. Ocean sediments are
wet, high pressure and very cold, whereas volcanic rock is dry, low
pressure and very hot. Yet when separate and independent potassium -
argon (K40 / A40) radiometric dating measurements were applied to
each, they both yielded an age of 730,000 years. Moreover, this is in
good agreement with the 734,000 year age measured with oxygen isotopes.
 

Devonian Coral
--------------
The earth spins with a velocity near its equator of about 1000 miles
per hour. Measurements indicate that oceanic tidal friction reduces
this equatorial spin by several seconds every 100,000 years. If this
is true, then a "Paleozoic day" that existed 400 million years ago
should have been about 21 hours, and that a "Paleozoic year" would be
400 days long. As corals grow, they produce a "daily" layer each day,
and an "annual" layer each year. This means that if Devonian corals
really lived 380,000 years ago, then they would have 400 daily layers
for each annual layer. John Wells (Cornell U.) confirmed this count,
and Kelvin Pang (Jet Propulsion Lab, Pasadena, CA) independently showed
that earth's spin has slowed by 7 seconds over the past 680,000 years.
This indicates that the rate at which earth's spin decreases every
100,000 years is itself decreasing.
 

Zircon Crystals
---------------
Fission tracks of neutrons passing through zircon crystals distributed
throughout the KBS Tuff of northern Kenya yield age estimates of the
order of about one million years. This age aligns closely with the age
measurements made by independently dating the KBS Tuff using the
potassium - argon (K40 / A40) clock. This also shows one million years.
 

Varves Along Lake Bottoms
-------------------------
Paul McGrue (University of Wyoming) measured light and dark banding
patterns in varves at the Green River Formation near Wyoming. He found
that some 24 million alternating light and dark layers along the lake
bottom corresponded to vegetation that had died in the winter and
summer seasons, respectively, and that these layers therefore denoted
about 12 million years of time. But he also discovered that the fish
gills in these layers were light and dark, and that these gills
corresponded, respectively, to the fish having died in winter versus
summer seasons. Not all layers had gills, but in layers with gills,
both the gills and the vegetation had the same color. In addition, a
smaller but similar varve pattern was also discovered in Australia
with several million layers of vegetation and gills. The same color
correlation of vegetation and gills was also found in this varve.
However another pattern was discovered, and that superimposed itself
over the finer gill / vegetation pattern. This other pattern undulates
every 22 years, and corresponds to the 11 year sun spot cycle. Here
then is a life cycle on earth that has existed for 12 million years.
 

Our Universe
------------
The age of our universe has been measured at least 5 independent ways.
These five independent measuring methods yield a range of ages that
fall between 12 and 18 billion years. The methods are:

1. White Dwarf Cooling
2. Globular Clusters
3. Star Light
4. Doppler Redshift
5. Nucleochronometers

Although these methods do not yield (nor would we expect them to
yield) identical ages, nonetheless they *all* give age values that lie
in the billions of years. However it is important to note that these
numbers are for the age of our universe-- *not* the planet earth, and
that they indicate that our universe had a beginning. This topic is
more fully discussed in the paper: "Is Big Bang Biblical" (available
for download from this website). Many young earth believers reject the
Big Bang theory because evolutionists claim it explains the creation
of planet earth. However, it does no such thing. Planet earth is a
highly complex, life-support system whose construction, surroundings,
location, orientation and motion are nothing short of miraculous.

The claim by some evolutionists that earth resulted as a natural
outcome of Big Bang is intellectual mischief on a scale akin to Alice
in Wonderland. Years ago Sears Roebuck imploded a building in
Philadelphia. Who of us believes that this implosion created the
motorcycle that was found along the perimeter after the smoke cleared?
Clearly one has nothing to do with the other. However reductionists
would have us believe otherwise. Their philosophical babble asserts
that after the smoke cleared from the Big Bang, planet earth appeared
in full splendor as the aftermath of the cosmic event. Impoverished
views of this kind impregnate materialistic thought-- not because the
evidence supports them, but rather because worshipping reductionism
leaves no alternative except to genuflect to dust and its motion.
 
 

APPENDIX D

Methods Used To Measure Earth's Age
-----------------------------------

The physical processes that are used to measure earth's age include
the following dating methods:

* Amino Acid Racimization
* Cosmic Ray Reactions (C136)
* Crustal Rocks
* Deep Sea Manganese Nodule Growth
* Dendritic Crystals
* Diffusion Processes
* Electron Spin Resonance Spectroscopy
* Faunal Tufts
* Fission Track Dating
* Geochronology
* Heavy Elements (samarium fission)
* Magma (deep sea magnetometers)
* Magnetic Stratigraphy (mammal beds)
* Magnetopolography
* Mineral Columns
* Oxygen Isotopes (deep polar core O18/O16)
* Paleomagnetism (volcanic rock)
* Paleontology
* Plate Tectonics
* Radioactive Processes
* Skeletal Layers (e.g. devonian corals)
* Spawning Bands (e.g. clam fossils)
* Tektite Distributions
 
 

APPENDIX E

Stellar Processes
-----------------

* GLOBULAR CLUSTERS is a name given to collections of stars whose
brightness and surface temperature, when plotted, "cluster" along a
line called a "main sequence". Their point of departure from the line
is a measure of the age of the stars.

* WHITE DWARF COOLING measures age by applying thermodynamic laws to
the rates at which "white dwarf" stars are observed to cool. These
laws govern the rate at which radiation leaves these thermal bodies,
and therefore the time period over which they can cool.

* DOPPLER REDSHIFT is the change in color of the electromagnetic
radiation from stars and galaxies. These objects are "pinned" to the
expanding fabric of "space-time." The expansion creates a shift in
wavelength toward the red end of the spectrum that is used to measure
age.

* STAR LIGHT fills the heavens, and the speed of that light in vacuum is
accepted by physicists as a universal constant. Triangulation is used
to estimate distances which, in conjunction with the speed of light
are used to measure age. Some have tried to suggest that light moved
faster in the past. But at least 3 good reasons argue against this:
(1) Large experimental errors attended the earlier measurements, and
the effect disappeared as the errors vanished; (2) Age measurements
obtained by this method agree with the other age measurements, and:
(3) Light's invariant speed produced Special Relativity and, with it,
atomic bombs that explode. Moreover, the data alleged to show that the
speed of light has slowed from past higher values has been misstated.
The topic of "Tired Light" (as it's called) is discussed in Appendix G.

* RADIO ISOTOPES consist of naturally occurring radioactive elements
such as Uranium, Potassium and Thorium. Their decay rates can be
described mathematically and used to measure their age. Tens of
thousands of measurements made over nearly one-hundred years show
that the method works, and that is a reliable tool.
 
 

APPENDIX F

Radio Clocks
------------

The "half-life" of a radioactive element is the time over which the
element's radioactivity decreases to fifty percent of its original
value. We noted earlier that of the 47 radio nuclides with half-lives
of between one thousand and fifty million years, none remain. They are
all gone. Conversely, each of the 17 radio nuclides with half-lives
greater than fifty million years are still "ticking" i.e., they are
still radioactive. The significance of this lies in the "all" aspect
of the result. It is not that some, or even most of these 47 radio
nuclides are gone. They are *all* gone, whereas *all* of those with
half lives greater than fifty million years continue to exhibit
radioactivity. If earth's age was of the order of 10 thousand of years
as young earth believers contend, then the radioactivity of most of
the 47 radio nuclides with half-lives greater than 10 thousand years
would continue today. Yet it is all gone. However, these data can also
be used to compromise the belief that the earth is billions of years
old. To illustrate, consider the following brief sampling of some
long-lived radioactive clocks with half-lives in billions of years:

RADIOACTIVE CLOCK HALF-LIFE
----------------- ---------
Rb87 / Sr87 50.0
Th232 / Pb208 14.0
U238 / Pb206 4.5
K40 / A40 1.3
U235 / Pb207 0.7

Since a popular number among evolutionists for earth's age is 4.65
billion years, how is it that the K40 / A40 and U235 / Pb207 clocks
are still ticking? One reply is that these could have been recently
created within the universe, and then have impacted earth's surface.
But if so, why cannot this argument be extended to compromise all
of the radio clock arguments for a multi-billion year earth age?

For example, imagine storing steel in a warehouse for 3000 years, and
then manufacturing an automobile out of the steel last week. If
someone walks up to the auto and measures the age of the material
(steel) in its fender at 3000 years, can this be logically used to
conclude that the auto is 3000 years old? Yet this precisely what
occurs when we claim to measure earth's age using radio clocks.

In effect, the age of a vastly complex life support system (planet
earth) is said to be as old as a handful of radioactive materials in
its crust. If our universe is billions of years old, and if some of
the material in this universe was used to construct planet earth,
wouldn't we expect some of the material in earth's crust to be
billions of years old? But this is hardly rational warrant to presume
that planet earth is this old.

But some say that radio clocks are not the only way earth's age has
been dated in the billions of years. Sedimentation rates also give such
ages. Indeed they do-- but only in the twentieth Century, when recal-
ibration began to align them so as to agree, *by definition* with the
radio clock. This occurred soon after Becquerel's discovery of radio-
activity in 1897, and continued until about 1935. In point of fact, in
the 19th Century sedimentation rates yielded about 20 million years for
earth's age-- a time incompatible with the then widely held Darwinian
ideas. Thus the sedimentation rates needed "correction," so as to align
with the established knowledge of the day in accord with earth's "true"
age. Radioactive dating provided the alleged correction, and sedimenta-
tion rates were redefined to agree with the radio clock dates.
 
 

APPENDIX G

Tired Light
-----------

In 1982 Barry Setterfield published a two part article in Ex Nihilo
(1)1:52 entitled: "The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe".
In part 1 he concluded that the speed of light was 500 billion times
faster at the time of Creation (4004 BC), than it was in 1982. In part
2 he concluded (where c is the speed of light): "The theory of the
effects of a changing value of c have been fully verified on over a
dozen different functions. This indeed confirms the trend outlined in
part 1". Setterfield's conclusions were largely based on computer
calculations performed by a system's analyst (Trevor Norman) at
Flinders University of South Australia. One year later, Setterfield's
paper was republished as a technical monograph by the "Creation
Science Association" (Adelaide, S.A., Australia) because it implied
that the advent of our world was a recent Creation.

Four years later in August 1987, Norman and Setterfield published:
"The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time" (School of Mathematical
Sciences Technical Report, Flinders University) in which they noted
163 values of the speed of light, and 16 ways to measure them. Using a
linear overlay on the data, they concluded that the speed of light is
decreasing at a rate of 38 kilometers per year.

But if this is true, then the speed of light in 4004 BC would have
been 1.76 greater that its 1982 value-- not 500 billion as concluded
earlier by Setterfield. However the real problem with Norman and
Setterfield's conclusion is that it rests on faulty analysis. The
reason is that they gave all error bars equal weight.

Error bars reflect the uncertainty in the measurement, and data obtained
with small error bars should be allowed to impact the overall result
more than data obtained with large error bars-- especially when the
range of error bars exceeds 50 million, as occurs with Norman and
Setterfield's data. When this data is examined using weighted error
bars and a linear least-squares overlay, the rate of decay in the
speed of light becomes zero within the error range of the calculation.

Robert Dicke (Princeton University and past colleague of Albert Einstein
when he was alive) is one of the world's foremost authorities on the
speed of light (if not *the* most foremost authority). He is also a Nobel
laureate and one of the world's leading experimentalist. When I spoke
with him regarding Norman and Setterfield's work, he made the
following three observations:

1. Measurement tends to bias subsequent reporting, because if the
measured value is significantly out of line with existing
numbers, there is human reluctance to publish it. Thus
measurement tends to bias future reporting.

2. One is suspicious of an effect that is of the order of a few
sigma (as occurs in data used by Norman and Setterfield).

3. The important point is that as the errors decrease, the effect
of the decrease in the speed of light disappears i.e., this has
all the appearance of a learning curve.

In other words, in earlier times when measurements on light's speed
were made, the instrumentation was poor and large experimental errors
occurred. But as time passed, the errors got smaller, and the values
measured on the speed of light became more and more constant.

If light has slowed down, then the errors in the older measurements
that are alleged to prove such decay disallow the conclusion. Stated
differently, if light's speed is decreasing, there is no unequivocal
(definitive) evidence that shows it.

Note too that those who are identified as supporting the "tired light"
idea are in essence reporters-- *not* scientists working in the field,
and making the actual measurements on which they draw conclusions. Even
Norman and Setterfield never published their measurements on the speed
of light. They published scientific commentaries on the work of others.

One final point:

Three data points often cited by tired light enthusiasts to "prove"
that the speed of light has decreased are:

DATE INVESTIGATOR METHOD VALUE ERROR BAR
==== ============ =========== ======= ================
1657 Roemer low eclipse 307,600 +/- 5,400 km/sec
1875 Harvard low eclipse 299,921 +/- 13 km/sec
1983 NBS laser method 299,792 +/- 0.0003 km/sec

However what is often omitted is the following additional measurements
taken from the American Institute of Physics Handbook, Second Edition
which, when added to the above, paint a somewhat different picture:

DATE INVESTIGATOR METHOD VALUE ERROR BAR
==== ============ =========== ======= ================
1657 Roemer low eclipse 307,600 +/- 5,400 km/sec
1676 Roemer Astronomical 214,300 (none reported)
1725 Bradley Astronomical 295,000 +/- 5,000 km/sec
1849 Fizeau Toothed Wheel 315,300 +/- 500 km/sec
1862 Foucault Rotating Mirror 298,000 +/- 500 km/sec
1868 Maxwell Electromagnetic 284,300 (none reported)
1874 Cornu Toothed Wheel 300,030 +/- 200 km/sec
1875 Harvard low eclipse 299,921 +/- 13 km/sec
1891 Blondlot Electromagnetic 297,500 +/- 2,500 km/sec
1983 NBS laser method 299,792 +/- 0.0003 km/sec

Two things are clear: First, when properly considered, the data shows
the speed of light to be neither increasing nor decreasing. Secondly,
depending on which of these measurements is listed and/or omitted, the
speed of light can be made to decrease *or* increase with time. For
example, consider the following listing of data taken from above:

DATE INVESTIGATOR METHOD VALUE ERROR BAR
==== ============ =========== ======= ================
1676 Roemer Astronomical 214,300 (none reported)
1725 Bradley Astronomical 295,000 +/- 5,000 km/sec
1862 Foucault Rotating Mirror 298,000 +/- 500 km/sec
1891 Blondlot Electromagnetic 297,500 +/- 2,500 km/sec
1983 NBS laser method 299,792 +/- 0.0003 km/sec

Presented this way, the data shows the speed of light to be *increasing*
with time. In conclusion, three things bear repeating:

(1) Large experimental errors attended the earlier measurements,
and the effect disappeared as the errors vanished;

(2) Age measurements obtained through measurements of the speed of
(star) light agree with the other age measurements;

(3) The Special Theory of Relativity (Albert Einstein, 1905) has as
its foundational premise the postulate that the speed of light
is a universal unchanging constant, irrespective of the inertial
frame within which it is measured. This theory is the most
experimentally verified theory in human history. From it we
create atomic bombs that are observed to explode.
 
 

APPENDIX H

Star Light Triangulation
------------------------

Scientists have concluded that our universe is about 26 billion light-
years in diameter (out to the visible horizon), and that it contains
about 50 billion galaxies. Galaxies are collections of stars, and each
may contain an average of about three hundred thousand million stars.
If our universe is billions of light-years across, the distance that
separates stars is vast. A light-year is the distance light travels in
one year (about 5,880 billion miles). Since the light that we see from
stars located billions of light-years away from us requires billions
of years to reach us, it means that these stars are billions of years
old i.e., that Creation occurred a very long time ago.

However young earth believers suggest other alternatives. Among these
are allegations that:

(1) Light traveled faster in the past than it does now;

(2) Light takes a "shortcut" by traveling along a curve;

(3) God created everything with the "appearance of age";

(4) Stellar distances cannot be accurately measured.

The claim that light traveled faster in the past than it does now is
shown to be without merit in Appendix G, and the allegation that light
takes a shortcut by traveling along Riemannian curves is dismissed
in Appendix I. Reasons why the "appearance of age" idea is not biblically
viable are presented in Appendix J, and stellar distance measurements
are discussed below.

Stellar Distance Measurement
----------------------------
The allegation that stellar distances are not accurate implies that
they are not accurate enough to conclude times periods of billions of
years. This is simply untrue. To find distances researchers must
climb a `cosmological distance ladder' in which each `rung' is a
uniformly bright star or galaxy (called "standard candles"). Their
distance is found from how bright they appear in a telescope. Short
range candles are first calibrated using distances to nearby stars or
galaxies (the first rung). These in turn are then used to calibrate a
more distant second candle seen in a distant galaxy. Since each candle
depends on the one before, errors in one create errors in others.

Cepheid variable stars are reliable "first candles" because they pulse
at a constant rate that depends on their brightness. Now, with the
advent of the Hubble Space Telescope, past errors that occurred in
calibrating second and even third candles are greatly diminished due
to more accurate brightness measurements, and also from the ability to
leap to higher "rungs" made possible by the Space Telescope. Even so,
past estimates of distances yielded billion year ages that aligned
with those obtained from Doppler Redshift, White Dwarf Cooling, and
Globular Cluster measurements. Therefore not only has this allegation
been unfounded in the past, but it is even more so now.
 
 

APPENDIX I

Euclidean Lines versus Riemannian Curves
----------------------------------------

In 1980 young earth believers used the observations of 27 binary star
systems to allege that space was "Riemannian" rather than "Euclidean".
The first implies space is curved, while the second describes it as
flat. In flat space, light travels along straight lines, and requires
billions of years to span our universe. Conversely, curved space would
allow light to span a near infinite distance in under 16 years. The
implications of a Riemannian universe to young earth beliefs is
self-evident. However, the reason we have not heard more about this,
is that it is simply not true.

By way of background, scientists believe that the cosmic microwave
background filling our universe is the afterglow from the big bang,
and that it captures the moment when photons escaped from the hot
plasma 300,000 years after the Big Bang. The reader is referred to:
"Is Big Bang Biblical" available for download from this website).

Fluctuations in the microwave background permit scientists to map
these ripples, and to study the surface of our early universe when the
photons broke free. A vast amount of data has been collected over the
past several decades that shows our universe is flat-- and not curved.
The latest such map appeared April 27, 2000 in the journal Nature, and
gives scientists one of the most detailed views of the surface of the
primordial universe ever obtained.

The data used to create this map came from a five meter high apparatus
named "Boomerang" ("Balloon Observations of Millimetric Extragalactic
Radiation and Geophysics" from McMurdo Station, Antarctica). Boomerang
was mounted on a truck-sized antarctic balloon, and comprises a set of
sensitive microwave detectors that were carried around the South Pole
in late 1998. The data is in agreement with earlier studies (including
COBE), and it shows that our universe is flat, and not curved.
These results also suggest that young earth claims alleging our universe
is curved did not derive from a sober assessment of factual data, but
instead were published to satisfy a preconceived agenda.
 
 

APPENDIX J

Appearance of Age
-----------------

The thesis that God created the world with the appearance of age is
a dogma put forth by young earth adherents who claim that all time
measurements are untrustworthy. The idea here is that when God created
the world, a divine conspiracy occurred, causing all age indicators to
be created in the state that they would eventually drift into when they
were old. This means, for example, that trees would have been created
with the rings that would otherwise have later formed after the trees
had aged over many thousands of years (dendochronology).

It means that volcanic rock (paleomagnetism) and deep sea magma
(magnetometers) would need to be created with magnetic patterns and
field strengths precisely matching the cross-sections of earth's
magnetic field that would have been trapped within hot lava from
volcanos and frigid sediments along ocean bottoms-- in anticipation of
how the: (1) earth would eventually wobble and rotate, (2) paths lava
and sediments would take as they relocated, and: (3) earth's magnetic
field would change in magnitude, orientation and location-- all over
many millions of years of time.

It means that the decay rates and abundances of dozens of radioactive
materials in crustal rocks, meteorites and faunal tuffs (to name but
three) would all be the precise values at Creation that they would
eventually change into after aging millions and billions of years.

It means that ages measured by: (1) microprobe analysis on zircon
crystals, (2) oxygen isotopes in Greenland ice cores, (3) nodule
growth in deep sea manganese, (4) magnetostratigraphy in mammal beds,
(5) electron spin resonance spectroscopy used in fossil bone defects,
(6) geochronology in fossil layers, (7) annual layers in Devonian
corals, and (8) summer spawning bands in clam shells-- all of these
came into existence at Creation in precisely the amounts, markings,
spectrums, orientations, locations, ratios and alignments that would
be present after each had aged millions of years with their respective
internal and environmental exposures.

When asked why God would have done all this, one early clergyman is
quoted to have said, "The Creation is part of a divine conspiracy to
send to hell those without faith." Colorful as this may sound, there
are some who even today accept this thesis. In point of fact, there
are at least three things that are biblically wrong with it:

(1) The object of faith in Scripture is Christ, not time analysis;

(2) God is not a God of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33)

(3) God declares sensory faculties are trustworthy,
and holds men accountable through them (Romans 1:20)

This latter text reads,

"For since the creation of the world His
invisible attributes, His eternal power and
divine nature, have been clearly seen, being
understood through what has been made, so
that they are without excuse."

Since the Bible reveals that all men are going to be held accountable
by virtue of their understanding as conveyed to them by their senses
through what has been made, how could God have made things in a way
that denies us the understanding to which He holds us accountable?

But beyond this, the text clearly reveals that "what has been made"
constitutes something through which we can understand. How then could
it have been created with the appearance of something it is not?

But the problem is even worse than this, because the "appearance of
age" dogma extends beyond earth, and throughout the universe. It
postulates that every photon of light from every star in the universe
was created insitu. Consider for example light from the whirlpool
galaxy. The distance involved requires 35 million years for its light
to reach earth. Appearance of age answers this by saying that each
photon appeared instantaneously over the entire distance at the moment
of Creation i.e., they were created "insitu".

But if this is true, then it must also be true for a Supernova-- an
event in which a star undergoes a gigantean explosion following
gravitational implosion due to nuclear burnout. Supernova are believed
to create the heavy elements. But if photons are created insitu, it
means that when we witness a Supernova, we are witnessing an event
that never actually occurred.

More recently, a Supernova was monitored using both visual and radio
telescopes. In this instance not only would the visual and radio
events have not occurred, but the lower frequency radio photons which,
according to "appearance of age" did not leave the star, would have
nonetheless been precisely correlated with the higher frequency visual
photons that also did not leave the star. Thus although both kinds of
photons would not have left the star, we would still be deceived into
believing that not only did both events occur, but that they did so in
a way that we could only understand in terms of both the radio and
visual photons leaving the star.

Advocates of the "appearance of age" dogma charge that its lack of
acceptance by a believer means that s/he has an inadequate view of
God. But this is nonsense. When believers are asked, "Is it possible
that God created with the appearance of age?", the answer is, of course,
"Yes." However, the question is not what God *can* do, but what God
*did* do.

Few advocates of this position ever bother to examine some of its
biblical implications. For example,

* On Day 2 Land would have been created with fossils;

* On Day 3 Trees would have been created with rings;

* On Day 4 Star light would have been created throughout
space displaying events that never occurred;

* On Day 5 Coral & Clams would have been created with both
layers and bands;

* On Day 6 Adam and Eve would have been created with navels.

The problems raised by the events on Creation Days 3 - 5 have already
been considered. But creating land with the appearance of age carries
other issues that we have not considered. If everything was created
with the appearance of age, then it means that when land was brought
forth in Creation Day 2, it would have contained all of the fossils
used to measure ages. These include the skeletal remains of plants,
sea life and animals that are not created until Days 3, 5 and 6.

Some answer this by alleging "Flood Geology" i.e., that all land
fossils came from a universal (Noaic) Flood that covered entire world.
The answer raises three questions:

1. FLOOD GEOLOGY
-------------
If flood geology is true, why was it discarded 150 years ago?
Even today, virtually all geologists view the idea as being
untenable, and at odds with established geological data. For
example, virtually all geologists believe that sand dunes,
river deltas, beaches, coral reefs, and other such structures
(including the Grand Canyon) are incompatible with flood
geology, and that it is in conflict with other known data.

In addition, rapidly buried global deposits are better
explained other ways, and sedimentary deposits showing very
slow deposition are abundant. Furthermore, other sedimentary
deposits such as deltas, lake beds, coral reefs, glaciers,
beaches and fossil dessert sand dunes appear to have been
formed in an environment incompatible with a flood.

It is said that a universal flood would overtake slow movers
first, fast swimmers later, and climbers last. The fossil
record partly supports this sequence. The bottom has fish and
invertebrate, swift mammals lie above them, and humans are at
the top. But elsewhere the picture is quite different. Slow
moving tortoises occur above fresh water fish, and slow heavy
dinosaurs are higher than the fast small ones.

Neither the Bible nor the evidence give assurance that the
entire earth's surface was under water. But a flood local to
Babylonia and known centuries before in Mesopotamia *is*
revealed in the Nippur-Sumerian Tablet, the Atrahasis Epic,
and Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh Epic. These writings
describe a Creator-God warning a righteous man to build a
boat for escape from a deluge about to fall upon an evil
world. The writings likewise describe a local Flood.
 

2. FLOOD BIOLOGICALLY UNIVERSAL
----------------------------
The Bible describes a flood that is universal *biologically*,
not geologically:

"He blotted out every living thing that was upon
the face of the ground, man and animals and
creeping things and birds of the air; they were
blotted out from the earth" (Genesis 7:23)

A commonly misunderstood text with regard to the Flood is
Genesis 7:19-20 which reads:

"And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the
earth that all the high mountains under the whole
heaven were covered; the waters prevailed above
the mountains, covering them 15 cubits deep."
(Genesis 7:19-20)

The phrase "under the whole heaven" (also in Genesis 6:17)
is based on the Hebrew SAMAYIM used both here and in 1 Kings
18:45 to mean only the portion of the sky that is locally
visible. Likewise, the phrase "on dry land" comes from the
Hebrew word ERES (Genesis 6:17, 7:17, 7:23) and denotes local
geography, as in the phrase: "land of Shinar" (Genesis 10:10).

Genesis 6:13 describes the destruction of all flesh-- not all
land. This destruction of all flesh did not require putting
the entire planet under water.

Genesis 7:21 states that "all flesh died that moved upon the
earth". Moreover if, as Genesis 8:1 reveals, the "waters
subsided", where would the water have gone if the entire
earth was under water? Some note that this verse also says
"God made a wind blow over the earth", and believe that this
wind caused all of the flood water to evaporate. Although
unlikely, it may be possible. No one knows. However, it still
begs the question, because a geologically universal Flood is
not found in the Bible. The Flood is biologically universal.

Moreover, 2 Peter 2:5 reveals that "God destroyed the world
of the ungodly". However the Greek word used here is APOLLUMI
which means `fully destroyed'. If this destruction embraced
the entire earth, our entire planet would have been destroyed.

Not only is a geologically universal flood not found in
Scripture, but 2 Peter 3:6 appears to limit the destruction
caused by this flood to the inhabited portion of the earth.
The Greek KOSMOS used here is a synonym for "inhabited earth".

Note also that at the time of the Noaic Flood, there was only
one land mass (Genesis 1:9), and all life was confined to one
part of the earth and was later scattered after the Flood
(Genesis 11:9). Therefore Flood water did not need to cover
the entire planet to destroy all flesh, but only had to cover
the "inhabited earth".

Jesus Himself compares the Flood to a local event. Speaking
of the destruction of the ungodly by Flood waters, Luke 17:26
records Jesus saying: "As in the days of Noah". Luke 17:28,
however, records Jesus saying: "Likewise, as it was in the
days of Lot". The "likewise" means that Jesus is comparing
the destruction of Sodom with the destruction caused by the
Flood. Since Sodom's demise was geologically local, it
implies that the destruction by the Flood was also.

3. FOSSILS APPEAR BEFORE THEY ARE CREATED
--------------------------------------
As noted earlier, if our world was created with an appearance
of age, then dry land would have appeared on Creation Day 2
with all fossils that are used to measure age. Among other
things, this would require skeletal remains of plants, sea
life and animals that are not created until Days 3, 5 and 6.

While plant and animal fossils can, at least in principle, be
argued to have come from a geologically universal flood, what
of the marine fossils that would need to be created with the
appearance of age? How could sea life fossils have come from
the flood? Stated differently, "How does one drown a fish?"
Some have noted that fresh water fish can perish from changes
in salinity. There are at least two problems with this.

The first problem is that sea water fossils are found on the
top of mountains. Clearly this seems better explained through
the (now measured) global movement of platelets impacting one
another, and growing mountains over million year time periods
(plate tectonics), than it is from a change in salinity.

The second problem is that Scripture does not say nor teach
that fish died in the flood. Consider the following texts:

And the Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I
have created from the face of the land, from man
to animals to creeping things and to birds of the
sky;" (Genesis 6:7)

Then God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has
come before Me;" (Genesis 6:13)

"And behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of
water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in
which is the breath of life, from under heaven;
everything that is on the earth shall perish."
(Genesis 6:17)

Fish do not have the "breath of life". Biblically speaking,
this phrase is reserved for land and air life, but not fish.
Moreover, fish are not on the earth (land). They are in water.
But how does the Bible describe the life that died in the
Flood? Genesis 7:22 reads:

"Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the
breath of life died.

Furthermore, the Hebrew word for flesh BASAR is used in the
Bible to denote the flesh of man and animals (or birds), but
not fish. In addition, Noah didn't take any fish on the ark.
Genesis 6:19-20 describes the animals that entered the ark:

"And of every living thing of all flesh, you
shall bring two of every kind into the ark,
to keep them alive with you; they shall be
male and female. Of the birds after their
kind, and of the animals after their kind,
of every creeping thing of the ground after
its kind, two of every kind shall come to
you to keep them alive." (Genesis 6:19-20)

Genesis 7:8-9 amplifies this further:

"Of clean animals, and of animals that are not
clean, and of birds, and of everything that
creeps on the ground, two and two, male and
female, went into the ark with Noah, as God
had Commanded Noah" (Genesis 7:8-9)
 

Thus the "appearance of age" dogma demands fossilizing sea
life on Day 2 that God does not create until Day 5 and,
that Genesis teaches did not perish in the Flood.
 
 

APPENDIX K

A Sample of References of Age Measurements
------------------------------------------

A *very* small sample of papers referencing age measurements are
listed below. These are taken from just one professional publication,
the journal Science, published by the American Association For The
Advancement of Science (a leg of the National Academies of Science).
The ages listed are given in millions of years. Although processes on
earth range from thousands to billions of years, the latter reduces to
a handful of materials in earth's crust, and cannot be rationally
applied to the age of the earth. The reason is that our planet is a
complex, life support system whose components, organization and
composition are of much more recent age than the radioactive materials
in its crust-- an age more rationally defined by geologic processes,
than by radio clocks. The dashed line below indicates this demarcation.
 

TITLE / SOURCE DATE PAGE AGE
-------------- ---- ---- ---
THE LAST INTERGLACIAL
Greenland Ice Core Project 02-11-2000:987 0.13

ABRUPT CLIMATE EVENTS
Subpolar North Atlantic Sediments 02-27-1998:1335 0.50

CONTINUOUS 500,000 YEAR CLIMATE RECORD
Oxygen Isotopes 10-09-1992:255 0.50

A REVISIONIST TIMETABLE FOR THE ICE AGES
Oxygen Isotopes 10-09-1992:220 0.56

PRECISELY MEASURING THE PAST MILLION YEARS
Oxygen Isotope Ratios 09-09-1983:1041 0.73

BRUNHES-MATUYAMA GEOMAGNETIC FIELD REVERSAL
Argon 40 / Argon 39 04-17-1992:356 0.78

MECHANISMS OF CLIMATE WARMING AT END OF PALEOCENE
Oxygen & Carbon Isotopes 07-30-1999:724 55.50

HOW OLD IS THE FLOWER AND THE FLY
Insect-bearing Amber 04-03-1998:57 125.00

A DIAMOND TRILOGY:
Superplumes, Supercontinents, and Supernova 08-06-1999:851 450.00
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

SHRIMP DATING OF DIAGENETIC XENOTIME
Uranium-Lead Analysis 07-02-1999:78 750.00

SEDIMENTS REVEAL THEIR AGE
Lead Isotopes in Xenotime 07-02-1999:58 1200.00

GEOLOGISTS DISSECT EARTH'S THIN SKIN
Chemical and Isotopic Evidence 11-12-1993:992 4000.00

THE EARTH'S EARLY EVOLUTION
Geochemical Information 09-15-1995:1535 4000.00

A COUPLE OF UNCERTAIN AGE
Tungsten Isotope Survival 03-19-1999:1863 4470.00