4 - The Dating Methods and the Real Age Of the Earth 

In the previous chapters of the book, many fossils invalidating the theory of evolution were divulged and the ones used by evolutionists for deceptive purposes were mentioned. In these related chapters, detailed comments were available on man, ape, reptile, fish and bird fossils. The most interesting scenarios of evolutionists were about the age of these fossils. 

Evolutionists stated that Archaeopteryx appeared 150 million years ago, Lucy 3 million years ago and the first reptiles 250 million years ago. However, in the examination made regarding these fossils, reality about their ages were declared clearly showing how biased and deceitful the interpretations of evolutionists could be. 

As a matter of fact, all these figures given by evolutionists about the age of fossils are not reliable at all. The methods used in determining the age of fossils are very speculative. Moreover, as will be studied in the following pages, other methods which are not willingly or intentionally accepted by the evolutionists, point out that these fossils are much younger. 
Actually the question is about the age of the earth, not only the fossils. Evolutionists argue that earth is 4,5 billion years old today. This figure is adapted by the media, scientific literature and other related sources. Many people believe in the assertion stated above, saying that world is billions of years old and accept it as a concrete fact proven with evidence. 

Yet, there exists no concrete evidence to prove it. The supposed "scientific" figures given for the age of fossils are very doubtful on reality. 

Then, what is the importance of earth’s age, its being young or old? What difference does it make whether Earth is 4,5 billion years old or a much younger planet? 

Western world has been loyal to the belief that mankind have been present on earth since about  BC 5000-6000, according to the Old Testament. However, under the evolutionary conception, the contemplations on the age of Earth began to change. George de Buffon, one of the pioneers of evolutionary theory, alleged for the first time that the age of Earth is much older, around 80 thousand years. The geologists, James Hutton and Charles Lyell, put forward higher figures. As the theory of evolution progressed, the figures of estimations on the age of Earth grew higher. Today the evolutionists accept the age of Earth to be 4,5 billion years and the appearance of the first creature to be 3.5 billion years ago. 

What may be the reason of evolutionists’ insistency on this matter? Why did this theory try to increase the age of earth from the very first step? 

The reason is that, evolutionary processes need great amount of time for realisation. The claim that all creatures transformed to each other by chance events and from a single origin, is certainly meaningless besides the picture of a very young earth of only a few thousand years. However, if it is proven that earth exists for a few billion years, the necessary time period for the evolutionary processes would be attained according to the evolutionists. 

The fact underlying the claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, is derived still from this evolutionary necessity. With the same reasoning, the age of universe is also accepted to be relatively old depending upon the age of earth. Stephen W. Hawking, one of the most famous figures among modern physicians, does not hesitate to confess the real intention of evolutionist thought. Hawking replies the question of "why did Big Bang occur nearly ten billion years ago", with such an answer: "Nearly that much time is necessary for the evolution of intelligent creatures." 

Well then, is there really such term necessary for evolution? Is the earth as old as evolutionists claim? 

In the following pages, we are going to look for the answer to this question. But the first thing to do, is to question the reliability of the methods used by evolutionists to prove the age of earth and fossils of living organisms. Then, we are going to have a look at other methods used in dating which are not accepted or rather neglected by evolutionists just because they suggest smaller dates. 

Radiometric Tests

Currently there are two kinds of tests used for determining the age of Earth. The first depends on observing the natural happenings in earth. If it is observed that some geological event happens in a certain amount of time in nature, then it can be assumed depending on this data that same type of event had occurred in the same amount of time in the past. Adhering to this principle, it is possible to estimate the age of Earth. For instance, let us assume that the ratio of salt concentration in the oceans increases 100 tons in a month. Depending on this rate, a dating method can be put in action: The amount of salt currently found in oceans is estimated and then this figure is divided by the monthly increase determined before. The figure obtained, is going to indicate the number of months until now, from the beginning of existence of oceans (it is assumed that the oceans contained no salt in the beginning). 

Radiometric tests, which were invented at the beginning of this century, became more popular than these tests depending upon observation. The technique involved radiometric tests rely on the principle that instable atoms in radioactive materials, turn into more stable atoms in certain time intervals. The fact that this transformation occurs with specified  amounts and also within a definite time period, resulted in the idea that this data could be used in dating of fossils or the age of earth. 

Uranium test is one of the previously used ones which no longer preferable. The principle in this test is the transforming of uranium into lead. Uranium turns into thorium atom in time, giving out radiation. Thorium that is a radioactive element, transforms into protactinium after certain amount of time. After thirteen supplementary transformations, the uranium at the end, transforms into lead which is a stable element. 

The time period required by radioactive elements to transform their half mass into another element, is called as the half-life of this element. The half-life of uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years. This means, 100 grams of uranium, which we have today, will become 50 grams of uranium-238 and 50 grams of lead-206, 4.5 billion years later. And after another 4,5 billion years later, there will be a quarter of the amount of uranium which we had in the beginning. This reaction will continue until there is no uranium. 

The radiometric tests used to calculate the age of rocks depend upon this principle of half-life: there is some amount of radioactive element in the volcanic rocks on Earth. The radioactive substances in these rocks naturally degrade in time and transform into stable forms. Because of this reason, measuring the amount of radioactive and stable materials, it is possible to figure out how much radioactive material turned into its stable state in time. Therefore, the age of rocks is twice the amount of radioactive material's half-life. 

The age of Earth is also figured with a similar method. However the rocks used in estimating the age of earth are either the meteors or Moon soil, assumed to be created at the same time with earth. The samples of these are assumed as the oldest rocks found and that they specify the age of the earth definitely. According to these data, the age of earth is 4.6 billion years. 
There are number of radiometric test kinds depending on the principle, 'radiometric materials degrading with time'. Elements with various half-lives are used to make historical estimations for different kinds of rocks. Other than the of uranium-lead series, techniques such as rubidium-strontium and potassium-argon are also used. There are also newer methods applied like fission-watch, thermoluminescence, neodymium-samarium. Most of them are the variations of methods used previously in dating. 

Many people think that these dating methods indicate the point science has reached and rely on the criteria. In fact, there are very serious and noteworthy criticisms directed against these tests used for dating. 

These tests rely upon several assumptions, although there is no convincing reason to accept them. First of all, in order to believe these tests; it should certainly be known that there were no stable atoms in the rock at the very beginning. For instance, a reliable uranium test can only be made when there is no lead in that rock. If the rock possessed lead previously, its age would be estimated as much higher. And it is not possible to find out if the rock had lead in the very beginning or not. 

The second and the more important point is, determining beforehand that the piece of rock to be measured was in a closed system. This rock should be protected from the effects of external events. The best example to these kinds of effects can be found in potassium-argon dating. This dating method measures the amount of potassium transformed into argon with time. Thus, we think that the age of rock can be derived from the ratio of potassium-argon composition it has. However, there is an important point: The air we breather includes serious amount of argon gas. This gas, when free, penetrates the rocks and therefore increases the amount of argon in it. So the age of rock will be estimated as much higher than it really is. 

Underground water resources constitute a more important problem. They absorb many minerals and radioactive materials while running through the depths underground. After then, they conduct these minerals to the rocks which may be used in dating. This also causes important and non-negligible problems in the dating of rocks. 

In order to truly estimate the age of a sample, the following three facts should certainly exist: 
1.  The amount of radioactive material the rock contains from the very beginning. 
2.  The amount of stable atoms the rock contains from the very beginning. 
3.  Whether any external gases dissolved through the rock. 

It is actually impossible to know the exact facts about the above conditions. 

Some studies done by scientists also suggest that tests used in dating are not as reliable as thought. The survey made on an island which appeared after an underwater volcanic explosion near Iceland during 1970s, is a valuable one which may be seen as an example. As time passed, over the "Surtsey Island" a living environment appeared. 
A researcher in 1975, wants to apply dating tests to this island with the technique of potassium-argon method; the age of the island appears to be one billion years! In fact, everyone knows that this island exists for a few years. The argon gas penetrated the rocks while the formation of lava, and had reached a great amount which caused the age of the sample to appear hundred millions of times more. 

Many more examples can be given: underwater lava streams known to be 20 years old were found to be as old as 12-21 billion years with radiometric tests. The age of lava, after the eruption in Hawaii during 1800, was found to be 1-2.4 billion years old with potassium-argon tests and 140-670 million years old through the helium dating method. The age of Salt Lake Crater in Oahu in USA is estimated to be 92-147 million years, 140-680 million years, 930-1580 million years, 1230-1960 million years, 1290-2050 million years, and 1360-1900 million years old as a result of various radiometric tests, which reflect only  inconsistency. Some trees in Auckland, in New Zealand are present in a lava layer, which was estimated to be 145-465 thousand years old. However the age of the same trees according to Carbon-14 tests, is only a hundred years. 

In many similar conditions, it is known that radiometric tests give out mistaken figures by thousands, even by millions and they offer highly conflicting results and techniques within themselves. Another example may be given for the samples collected from Moon by NASA. The radiometric tests say these rocks age between 700 million years and 28 billion years. It is evident that these dating tests are unreliable giving such enormous time periods for the rocks that should have the same age. 

Carbon-14 Tests

Carbon-14 test is actually a kind of a radiometric test. However, there is an important characteristic discriminating this from others. The other radiometric tests can only be used for dating volcanic rocks, although carbon-14 test can also be used for estimating the age of living creatures. Because the only radioactive element found in the body of living creatures is carbon-14. 

The earth is continuously exposed to rains of cosmic rays coming from space. These rays collide with nitrogen-14 available in large amounts in the atmosphere and transform it to the radioactive element, carbon-14. A newly produced substance, radioactive carbon-14 combines with oxygen in the atmosphere and makes C-140 , which is another radioactive compound. As it is known, the plants use CO  (carbon dioxide), H O (water) and sunlight for nutrition. Some of the carbon dioxide molecules absorbed by the plant are the molecules constituted from radioactive carbon, carbon-14. The plant gathers the radioactive substance in itself. 

Some living organisms feed on plants. And some living creatures feed on others, which feed on plants. Following this nutrition chain, radioactive carbon inhaled by plants from the air is passed over to other plants. Therefore every creature on earth inhales the same amount of carbon-14 as in atmosphere. 

When a plant or an animal dies, it cannot get carbon-14 any more because it does not feed. Because carbon-14 is a radioactive substance, it has half-life and begins to reduce with time as it decreases in its mass. Thus, it is thought that, measuring the amount of carbon-14 in each creature's body would be an estimation for the age of the earth. 

The half-life of carbon-14 is nearly 5570 years, which means in every 5570 years, half of the amount of carbon-14 in the body of a dead creature is decomposed For instance, if there were 10 grams of carbon-14 in a creature's body 5570 years ago, today this will be 5 grams. Because carbon-14 has a short half-life period, it cannot be used in determining the ages of samples thought to be too old as in other radiometric tests. It is assumed that carbon-14 test gives valid results in evaluating samples between 10 thousand and 60 thousand years old. 

As we have already mentioned, carbon-14 test has a different place among other radiometric tests, since it is used in determining the ages of living creatures. Because of this, carbon-14 test is currently the most used one among the other dating techniques. However, there are also serious suspects on reliability of carbon-14 test, as there is for other radiometric tests. 

The most important one of these facts is that, it is highly possible that the sample for the dating, will be interfered with an external gas. This interaction with gasses is mostly through carbonated or bicarbonate water. If this kind of natural water consisting carbon-14 gets in touch with the sample, the carbon-14 element it contains will eventually transfer to the sample. In this circumstances, the age of the sample will be younger than it actually is. 

The reverse can also happen. Under certain conditions, carbon-14 amount present in the sample can be exhaled to external environment in the state of carbonate and bicarbonate. In this condition, the date will be calculated to show a greater value than it actually is. 

As a matter of fact, there are many concrete findings indicating that carbon-14 test is not reliable. Samples from living creatures are tested and sometimes their ages are found to be thousands of years old. And samples taken from recently dead creatures appear to be much older than they actually are. 
It is known that carbon-14 test made on samples with known ages usually give false outcomes. For instance, according to carbon-14 test, the skin of a recently dead seal was found to be 1300 years old. The age of a living oyster was 2300 years. The same deer horn tested appears to be 5340, 9310 and 10.320 years old. The bark of a tree also gives dates like 1168 and 2200 years when measured at the same time. Jarmo City in North Iraq where people have lived for 500 years, was tested to be 6000 years old with the carbon-14 test methods. 

Actually, all of these examples display the fact that carbon-14 tests cannot also be accepted as reliable just like other radiometric tests. 

Index Fossils

We've mentioned that the only radiometric test used to determine the age of living creatures is carbon-14. In addition to this, we've also emphasised that carbon-14 could only be used for samples not older than 60 thousand years. However, the fossils studied by evolutionist literature and which we studied from the beginning of this book, aged sometimes - even millions of years. So, how was it possible to figure out the ages of these fossils? 

The answer to this question may appear interesting to many people who face this problem for the first time. Since, the definite figures given by evolutionists give the impression as if there is really a serious dating method. However, the "indexing" method which is another one used for dating of the mentioned fossils, is unexpectedly incredible. 

Since these fossils can't be exposed to radiometric tests like carbon-14, the layer it's buried in is dated instead of the fossil. Firstly, the age of a geological layer is found out by radiometric tests and then, the fossil found in this layer is dated accordingly. 

In fact there is a important problem at this point. Dating tests can only be applied to volcanic rocks. These are the rocks, which have been formed, as lava from an erupting volcano gets colder in time and metamorphoses. However these rocks contain hardly any fossils because of the way they are formed. 

Furthermore, nearly all fossils exist in sedimentary or accumulated rocks. The sedimentary layer accumulated through the deformation of a surface or any other cause, covers the surface of a dead creature. The soft organs of the dead body begin decomposing in a very short time. Only the skeleton remains. And the skeleton becomes harder and stone-like, absorbing the calcium and other substances around. Afterwards, there only remains the stone-like skeleton. Usually the sedimentary layers accumulating over the stone-like skeleton, made of rock salt, thickens in time. As this layer becomes thicker, the pressure increases and sediment layers transform into a hard rock. Following this, these fossils can be preserved for a long period of time. 

But radiometric-dating tests can't be applied to these rocks. Briefly, there is an absolute paradox: volcanic rocks are the only ones possible for estimation of its age, however they do not contain any fossils because of their composition. In fact, the age of rocks, which contain fossils, cannot be figured out by any method… 

In order to overcome this problem, a very interesting method is used. Volcanic layers, although rarely, sometimes contain fossils in between them. Rarely ash or some other cool remaining material, formed while the volcano erupts, covers the surface of living creatures and protect their skeletons. It is possible to date this ash layer. The so-dated ash layer is eventually at the same age with the fossil. The ash, dated by the radiometric tests, also determines the age of the fossil. 

The age estimated for the fossil is very important, because after then it will be used in dating the other fossils found in the same layer. 

For instance the first Coelacanth fish fossil was found in an eruption layer calculated to be 300 million years old. (The creatures underwater can also be affected by the volcanic eruptions.) Depending upon the age of the layer, the age of Coelacanth fish was also determined to be 300 million years. (An age of 300 million years was suitable for Coelacanth because, this fish was assumed to be a primitive transitional form). If a manís fossil was found in this layer, the evolutionists would think they made a mistake, since it was impossible to find a human fossil in such an old layer according to their presuppositions. 

After this great finding, the fossils found within the same layers with Coelacanth fish, was also attributed to be 300 million years old without hesitation. Coelacanth fish became an "index fish" from then on. Thus, it was used to determine the age of sedimentary rocks  which it was impossible to date with radiometric tests. If a Coelacanth fish were found in a layer, immediately the age of that layer was assumed to be the same with this fish. This index fossil was also commonly used in dating other fossils. 

But, as we have already mentioned in the third chapter, the living samples of the fish Coelacanth was found which was estimated to be 300 million years old before and used as an index fossil for a long time. Then the members of the same species was caught consecutively several times beginning from 1938. Thus, it became evident that this creature was not a transitional form, which was supposed to have lived 300 million years ago and then gone extinct. Indeed, it is still a living species. Following this, all estimations derived using Coelacanth as an index, were invalidated. 

This case proves us that index fossil method is weak and unsound. The evolutionists calculate the age of rocks through the radiometric tests, which we pointed out as unreliable, and then use this rock as index. When evolutionists come across the fossil of the same creature in a different part of Earth, the same layer with this new fossil is also accepted to be the same age. 

The most important supposition underlying these speculative calculations, is the assumption of evolution of species. Since, the creature's fossil accepted to be an index is assumed to have lived in a period of history and then evolved into other species. However, if this claim of evolution is not accepted, there would be no meaning of these estimations. The reason for this is that, the same member of the same species which was accepted as an index fossil estimated to be millions of years old, is found to be alive in our day without any change. (As in the Coelacanth example). Consequently, there is no reasonable point in assuming the age of index fossils as reliable consistent data, and then attributing the same age to all other fossils within the same layers. 

In addition, it is evidently clear that the radiometric tests used to determine the age of index fossils, is not trustworthy at all. 

Index fossils are used in dividing the Earth layers into various categories depending upon geological layers. For instance, the layer containing mostly the invertebrates is defined to be from the "Cambrian Period". All of the fossils found in this layer, are also are named as Cambrian Period creatures. After this so-called period, vertebrates and consequently mammals emerged, according to the evolutionist point of view. Thus, these assumptions form the evidence of evolutionary development in fossil records. It is presupposed that there is a sequence from invertebrate to vertebrate, and primitive to advanced. 

However, this is not a proper evidence to confirm evolution, but only an argument scheduled after the acceptation of evolution. 

A small example will definitely clarify this situation: Anyone diving undersea with air-tubes would come across with many creatures living at the same time in the so-called Cambrian Period as specified by evolutionists. It will be seen that invertebrates and organisms not belonging to the Crustacean species inhabitate on the same sea floor. Then, the fossils found to belong to the Cambrian Period, exist with their living members today at the same time. Whereas, the evolutionists have been using these fossils of the alive creatures as index fossils, then attributing them billions of years in age.  

"Troublesome" Dating Methods 

In the beginning of this chapter, the dating methods established through observation of natural events were mentioned: observing that certain geological events in nature happen in certain time periods, which can then be accepted to happen in the same period today. Depending upon this principle, it was possible to make estimation on the age of earth. 

The most interesting point is that, nearly all of the dating methods through observation of natural events give out very early dates concerning the age of the earth. These figures, although there are a number of different ones, are very small without leaving any chance to comparison with the age of 4.5 billion years which is accepted willingly by the evolutionists. The most important results of the observational dating techniques and the findings are as follows: 

1. The Age of the Comets: When a comet gets closer to the sun, the attraction force of the sun begins to break off small particles from this star. In fact, the “tail” of the comet is formed of these particles. Because of this deformation, the astronomers have figured that the age of young comets may be 1500-10.000 years old. Nevertheless, today there are numerous comets. If the universe is billions of years old as claimed, all of these comets should have died long time ago. 

In order to solve this problem the evolutionists debate that there is an “Oort Cloud”, producing comets in space. As a matter of fact, this is a totally imaginary claim with no reasonable basis. The existence of such a cloud has never been observed. Here, we see the “circular logic” appealed by the evolutionists frequently: The two arguments put forward independently, are used to prove each other. According to the circular logic here, “the universe is old, and because of this, something should have been making short-living comets; and since a source is making short-living comets, the universe should be at the age of billions of years.” 

2. The Precipitates in Sea Beds: Another finding indicating that the age of Earth is much younger than suggested by evolutionists, is the amount of precipitation accumulated on sea beds. We are facing a much younger world compared the amount of precipitation added to seas each year, above the present ones. 

The undersea researches indicate that the average precipitate layer thickness formed undersea is 700 meters. The area of oceans and sea surfaces on earth is 360.9 million kilometres square. Consequently, this shows that, the amount of precipitates under all seas is nearly 325 cubic million kilometres. The average weight of the substance in these precipitates is calculated to be 2.3 grams per cubic centimetres. The result driven from these figures is that; the total amount of precipitation underwater should be around 748 million times billion tones. 

Well then, in how much time would such a great amount be accumulated undersea? 

In order to reply this question, there is need to have a look at how much precipitate material is transported from land to sea each year. It is calculated that all rivers carry 19.9 billion tones of precipitates per year. The amount of precipitates left by ice chunks and bodies on lands to the sea is nearly 2.2 billions tons. Also, it is assumed that 1.46 million tones of precipitates are carried from undersea volcanoes to the seas and oceans. And it is calculated that 0.06 billion tones of precipitates are carried with the winds. The sum of these figures unfold that, 27.12 billion tones of precipitates are dissolved in oceans each year.ii 

In order to calculate how much time has passed for the formation of present amount of precipitates, the total amount of 748 million times billion tones is divided by the amount of annual precipitation rate of 27.12 billion tones. The result achieved is, 11 million years. This makes an important contrast with the evolutionist claim that earth is atmost 4.5 billion years old. 

Moreover, it should be noticed that this figure of 11 million years is the maximum possible age of the earth. Because it is very reasonable to think that the amount of precipitation was very much higher in the past, so more precipitates dissolved into oceans in these past periods. Consequently, it is possible to say that the estimations on ocean precipitates show that the age of earth is  almost as 11 million years. 

3. The Rate of Salt Concentration in Oceans: There is a continuous material transfer from lands to oceans. Various kinds of metals, minerals and salts existing in the rocks will dissolve into oceans in time. If it is assumed that these substances were absent in oceans right after formation of earth, we can calculate how much time could have passed for these materials to reach the amounts by now through corrosion and accumulation. Tests concerning various minerals in oceans indicate that the time period necessary for these minerals to reach the current level, varies between 100-300 million years.  And this again invalidates the claim of evolutionists that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. 

4. The Magnetic Field of Earth: The magnetic field of earth was first measured in 1835. The measurements after this date indicate that the magnetic field reduces regularly. Consequently by calculating the annual amount of decrease in the magnetic field, it is possible to figure out a value of how much the magnetic field of the earth could be in old periods. The results achieved following this method by going past through history, indicates that the age of earth cannot be very old, because in order to preserve the atmospheric structure of earth and its place in the solar system, the magnetic field should be limited to a certain amount. 

The calculation made on this principle indicated that the age of earth should not be over than 10 thousand years. Since, an older age for earth’s magnetic field would almost be equal to the age of a magnetic star’s. It is not possible that earth owns a magnetic field as powerful as a star implementing thermonuclear operations to preserve its mentioned magnetic field. 

The evolutionists arguing against the theory claim that there is an electricity source (“dynamo”) which prevents the magnetic field of reducing regularly, because of the effect of this dynamo unbalancing the rate. Nevertheless, the so-called dynamo is totally an imaginary concept and there is no single evidence demonstrating the existence of such a process. Firstly, the evolutionists dogmatically accept that the earth is old and then they suggest imaginary claims in order to verify this belief. 

5. The Population of Earth: Today the population of world annually increases by 21%. Even if we accept that in the past the rate of death was too high and the increment rate was 0.5%, then there would be only two people in the world 4500 years ago. In other respect, if the first people had lived 1 million years ago as the evolutionists claimed, today 102100 (2100 zeros besides 10) would be living with the supposed rate of 0.5 % annual birth rate. 

Moreover, this claim means, billions of people have lived in one million years. The fact that human fossils are the most rarely found ones, shows that this evolutionist claim is non-sense. 

6. Volcanoes: The investigation made on the amount of “young” waters and lavas erupted by the volcanoes on earth, demonstrate that the age of earth is much younger than the evolutionists suggest. 

The 20% percent of the liquid materials burst by a volcano, is constituted of water caught in the depths of the earth. This water is called “young” (juvenile) water, because it has never arrived on the earth’s surface before. This is understood from its chemical structure. 

Each year, nearly a dozen of volcanoes erupt on earth. And the amount of young water in lava is figured out to be nearly one cubic miles, whereas the total amount of water in all of the oceans, seas and lakes is 340 million cubic miles. The natural outcome of these figures reflect the result that 340 million years ago, there should have been no oceans or seas on earth.  However according to the evolutionist conception, oceans should have been formed on earth 1-2 billion years ago. 

The rate of magma erupted by volcanoes also refutes the evolutionist claims. It is estimated that 0.8 km3 magma comes to surface per year. According to this rate, in 4.5 billion years, there should have been so much lava present on the earth surface that it would exceed the total mass of all continents. Not to mention, all this lava should have cooled.  Nevertheless, there is no possibility for such a great amount of magma to have accumulated on earth. 

7. The Lava of Io: Io, which is one of the satellites of Jupiter, is very small in dimension. However, in compliance with the observations made, Io still has active volcanoes on it which erupts and bursts lava in huge amounts. This demonstrates that, this celestial object could not be billions of years old, since in this amount of time the volcanic activities on Io’s surface should have come to an end long time ago. 

8. The History of Civilizations: All written history regarding to mankind and all known archaeological findings are not older than few thousand years. Even it is possible to say that there is no information regarding a period before BC 4000 years. Whereas, the evolutionists suggest that modern men have been on earth for hundreds of thousand years. In these circumstances, the question arises; why have modern man lived without living any trace for hundreds of thousand years and then suddenly appeared again in BC 4000. 

All these natural calculations and observation methods used to estimate the history of world suggest that the age of earth is a much smaller figure than it assumed by the evolutionists. The tests used by evolutionists are not like the calculations and observations depending on natural happenings, but they are methods developed by evolutionists themselves, which contain the criteria again determined by evolutionists. Consequently, these circumstances result in the conclusion that the evolutionists use the mentioned dating methods (radiometric tests and index fossils) which they have developed, actually in exact accordance with their expectations. 

For a person believing in the creationist idea, the age of earth is not so important; no matter how old the universe or the earth is, they are still created. However, the evolutionist theory has to offer 10 billion years for the age of universe and 4.5 billon years for the age of earth. And they also have to develop methods for verifying their conclusions. Just as Stephen Hawking confessed, “Nearly that much time is necessary for the evolution of intelligent creatures.” 

SOURCE: http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_introduction.php (Note: I do not endorse the Muslim religion, but the information published here is very truthful concerning the evils of evolution. —David J. Stewart)

Previous | Contents | Next