So, if we can conclude that the earth is, in fact, 10,000 years old or younger, what does that mean?
Logically, we can deduce that the entire theory of evolution is a lie.
The theory of evolution calls for millions of years of life-forms reproducing and dying. Naturally, these creatures would need a planet to live on during those millions of years. Since we have deduced that there was no earth millions of years ago, there could not have been any creatures millions of years ago.
"But what about those fossils?" a fellow student once asked me. Does the existence of fossils provide evidence for evolution?
Well, what is a fossil? Fossils are the remains of an organism that are preserved inside rock layers that were suddenly laid down by water. Fossils do not form over millions of years. The remains of any organism will decay entirely in only a few thousand years. In order for a fossil to be formed, a phenomenon must occur that flash-freezes and contains a creature with a huge amount of pressure instantly.
The only event in history that could have caused fossils to form would be the world-wide Flood. Now, if you are like my 8th grade biology teacher, and your response to this is "yes, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes..." then you need to read that statement again. I did not say floods, but rather The World-Wide Flood. Only an event of this magnitude could possibly create a fossil. It is the only thing that could create so sudden a temperature change. It is the only thing that could kill billions of life-forms and cover them in rock layers via a huge amount of water. I will explain more about the flood in a later post.
"What about carbon-dating?" Carbon Dating is inaccurate. This is not a secret. It assumes that the sample is in a closed environment, and that nothing has changed the atmosphere or the sample during all the time it has been decomposing. Rocks have been carbon dated to millions of years, with a tree stump inside them dated to only a few thousand years. Most carbon-dated numbers you will see will be "selected dates," and those are less than half of the results that are found. The other half are rejected because they don't fit the "evolutionary theory."
Still think life has existed for more than 10,000 years? Lets look at human population. At a 0.5% population growth, which is only 1/4 of the constant growth throughout history, the human race would reach its current population in only 4,000 years. Notice how that number is not million of years. Wars, disease, and disasters are already accounted for in the 2% population growth.
Interesting note, the World-Wide Flood is dated 4000 years ago. During that event, all but 8 humans were killed, essentially restarting the population growth. The math works, not to mention that there are surviving records of family lines going back past the flood that agree with this account. Hmmm.
Comments? Questions? Leave a comment, or the cyber ghost will haunt you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Carbon dating isn't used on rocks. The carbon-14 isotype which is used to perform this type of test in drawn in by plants, and the plant is subsequently eaten by animals. However, rocks do not have a method of taking in carbon-14. Furthermore, carbon-14 only has a half-life of around 5,000 years, and cannot be used to test anything over around 50,000 years old. It is impossible for carbon dating to conclude something as millions of years old. If you want to learn more about the details of how rediometric dating is performed, a section in one of my books explains it quite well.
ReplyDeleteSo what you're saying is that you can't use Carbon-14 testing to date things to be millions of years old? I agree with this.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the clarification about Carbon-14 not being used on rocks. Other gasses have been claimed to be used by half-life calculation, but again there are obvious flaws in such methods.