The evidence for a young world

The numbers in bold (often millions of years) indicate the maximum possible age determined for each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics indicate the ages required by the theory of evolution for each example. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required developmental ages, while the biblical age (gives 6000 a 10000 years) always fits well within the maximum possible ages. So the following is evidence in favor of the biblical time scale and against the evolutionary time scale.

There is much more evidence in favor of a young world, but for brevity and simplicity I have chosen these examples alone. Some of these examples can be reconciled with an old universe only by making unlikely and unprovable assumptions. Others can only be reconciled with a young universe. The list begins with distant astronomical phenomena and gradually reaches terrestrial facts, concluding with everyday events.

1. Galaxies spin too quickly.

The stars that make up our galaxy, the milky way, they orbit the galactic center at different speeds –those closer to the center go faster than those further away. The observed rotation speeds are so high that, if our galaxy had more than a few hundred million years, it would now be a formless record, instead of a spiral as it is at present.
Yet according to evolutionism our galaxy would have at least 10 billions of years.

Evolutionists have been aware of this problem for about now 50 years. They tried to explain it in every way with different theories, of which each failed after a short period of popularity. This same 'envelopment dilemma' applies to other galaxies as well.

In recent decades the preferred solution to the problem has been a very complicated theory called 'density waves'. However, this theory has conceptual problems, must be adjusted arbitrarily, and has recently been seriously challenged by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of a highly detailed structure in the central hub of the M-51 galaxy.

2. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets should be the same age as the entire solar system, that is, approximately 5 billions of years. and yet, every time a comet approaches the sun, it loses so much material, which could not survive more than 100.000 years. Comets typically last 10.000 years.

Evolutionists explain this disagreement by assuming that (a) comets originate in a spherical area never observed, called the 'Oort cloud', beyond the orbit of Pluto, or (b) interactions (unlikely) gravitational with stars that pass infrequently, they push comets into the solar system, or (c) other unlikely interactions between comets and planets slow down comets arriving from afar, so much so as to make it possible to observe hundreds of them. Until now, none of these hypotheses have been validated, nor through observations, nor with realistic calculations.

Recently there has been talk of the 'Kuiper Belt',' a hypothetical disc-shaped comet source, on the plane of the solar system, just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some icy body existed in that location, it would not solve the evolutionists' problem, because, according to their theory, the Kuiper belt would wear out quickly, if there wasn't an Oort cloud to supply it.

3. A paucity of mud on the seabed.

Every year, water and wind erode approx 25 billions of tons of soil and rocks from the continents, depositing them in the ocean. These materials accumulate as loose sediment (that is, mud) on the firm basalt rock (formed of lava) on the seabed. The average depth of all the mud in the entire ocean, continental dishes included, is less than 400 meters.

The primary way mud is pushed off the seafloor is via tectonic subadduction of continental plates. That is, the seabed slides slowly (a few centimeters per year) under the continents, bringing with it sediments. According to the secular scientific literature, such a process would only expel 1 billion tons of mud a year. As far as we know, the others 24 billions of tons would accumulate. A tale rata, erosion would have deposited the amount of sediment currently present in less than 12 millions of years.

and yet, according to evolutionary theory, erosion and sub-adduction of continental plates have continued to take place steadily during the latter 3 billions of years. If this were true, the ocean floors should have mud sediments tens of kilometers deep. An alternative explanation (creationist) is that erosion caused by water flowing from the continents after Noah's flood deposited 'the amount of mud currently present within a short period, circa 5000 Years ago.

4. The amount of sodium in the ocean is not enough.

Every year, rivers and other sources discharge more than 450 millions of tons of sodium in the ocean. Only the 27% of this sodium escapes from the ocean every year. As far as we know, the remainder accumulates in the ocean. If there had been no sodium in the sea to begin with, would have accumulated to the amount currently present in less than 42 million years according to current input and output rates which would be much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, that is 3 billions of years. The usual answer to this discrepancy is that in the past sodium intake must have been less than today, and the largest emission. But, even if calculations are made using generous figures in accordance with evolutionary needs, you reach the maximum age of alone 62 millions of years. Calculations made for other substances dissolved in sea water lead to much younger ages of the ocean.

5. The earth's magnetic field is deteriorating too quickly.

The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field has been steadily decreasing by a factor of 2.7 in the last ones 1000 years. Evolutionary theories that try to explain this rapid decline, and how is it possible that the earth has maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, they are very complex and inadequate.

There is a much better creationist theory. it is clear, it is based on accurate physical principles, and explains many facts about the magnetic field, like his creation, its rapid reversals during the flood in Genesis, decreases and increases in intensity on the surface until the time of Christ, and then a steady decrease thereafter. This theory is supported by paleomagnetic data, historians, and current. The main result is that the total energy of the field (it's not about superficial intensity) it has always declined at least as fast as it does now. A tale rata, the field could not be older than 10.000 years.

6. Many layers are folded too much.

In many mountainous areas there are layers hundreds of meters thick, which are folded and folded by fork. The conventional geological scale says that these formations were deeply buried and then hardened for hundreds of millions of years before they folded.. Yet they bent without cracking, and with such narrow radii that the formation must necessarily still have been fresh and not solidified when the folding began. This suggests that folding occurred less than thousands of years after the deposition of sediments.

7. The injected sandstone shortens geological 'ages'.

There is strong geological evidence that the Cambrian 'Sawatch' sandstone, (which is supposed to have been formed 500 millions of years ago) of the Ute Pass fault, west of Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA, was not yet solidified when it was extruded to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, in theory, 70 millions of years ago. it is very unlikely that the rock had not hardened during the presumed 430 millions of years it was underground. Instead, it is probable that the two geological events occurred less than a few hundred years apart, thus greatly shortening the geological time scale.

8. Fossilized radioactivity shortens geological 'ages' to a few years.

Radiohalos are rings formed around small pieces of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossilized evidence of radioactive decay. Flattened radio halos of Polonium-210 indicate that the Jurassic formations, triassiche, and Eocene of the Colorado Plateau in the United States, were deposited within a few months from each other, and not hundreds of millions of years, as required by the conventional geological time scale. Radio halos orphaned by Polonium-218, possessing no trace of the parent elements, they make you think of an instantaneous creation, the a drastic changes in radioactive decay rates.

9. Because helium is found out of place?

All families of naturally occurring radioactive elements produce helium as they decay. If it took billions of years for deterioration to happen, as evolutionists assert, there should be much more helium in the atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into consideration, today's atmosphere only contains 0,05% of helium, which should have accumulated in 5 billions of years. This means that the atmosphere is much younger than the presumed evolutionary age.

A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in hot rocks deep in the Earth did not have enough time to escape. Although the rocks are assumed to be more than a billion years old, their great retention of helium suggests an age of suns thousands of years.

10. The lack of skeletons from the Stone Age.

Evolutionary anthropologists say that the Stone Age lasted at least 100.000 years, during which the global population of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons remained more or less constant–between 1 e 10 millions. During that time they buried their dead along with artifacts. According to this scenario, they should have buried at least 4 billions deceased. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, many gods 4 billions of skeletons should still exist (much more the artefacts) because buried bones should last longer than 100.000 years. Yet only a few thousand have been found, which suggests that the Stone Age lasted much shorter than evolutionists thought, that is a few hundred years in many places.

11. Agriculture is too recent.

The usual evolutionary picture demonstrates humans existing as hunters and gatherers for 100.000 years during the Stone Age, before they discovered agriculture less than 10.000 Years ago. Yet archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age humans were as intelligent as us. it is very unlikely that none of the 4 billion people mentioned in the point 10 had discovered that plants grow from seeds. it is more likely that men were without agriculture alone less than a few hundred years after the Great Flood , assuming that there was a time when there was no agriculture.

12. The story is too short.

According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100.000 years before he began to record history in writing, circa 4000 a 5000 Years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, he made beautiful paintings in the caves, and took note of the phases of the moon. Because then he would have waited thousands of centuries before using the same talents to record history ? The biblical scale of time measurement is more likely.

of D. Russell Humphreys, PhD