Natural Clocks That Hint at a Young Earth
At the end of the last post I mentioned that, According to Dr. Jobe Martin, scientists are aware of at least 70 natural processes that have measurable rates of change. These can be used to estimate the age of formations on earth or phenomena in the solar system. The vast majority of these natural clocks point in the direction of the earth being far younger than the 4.5 billion years usually mentioned in science texts. We will discuss just a few of these to give a taste of the argument.
The moon moves away from the earth at a rate of 2 inches per year. Assuming that rate to be constant, it would have been touching the earth less than 2 billion years ago. That is ridiculous, of course, since it would not have been able to leave the earth if it were that close. It must have begun at a reasonable distance from the earth. If that were the case, in 5 billion years it would be far enough away to no longer be visible to the naked eye.
The existence of star clusters travelling at “supersonic speeds” argues against an old universe. Just as the moon recesses from the earth, stars travelling in a cluster will tend to move away from each other despite gravitational attraction.
There are many comets that come close to the sun in a relatively short number of years. Every time they do so, a portion of their mass is burned off by the sun. If the solar system were much older than 10,000 years old these short-term comets should have had all of their volatile material burned away. Naturally, scientists theorize that these comets are newly launched into the solar system by various means, such as gravitational disruption by a planetoid in a theorized Oort cloud surrounding the solar system. Once the Oort cloud is actually seen by scientists, I may begin believing the theory. Nobody has actually seen a comet begin its journey, so a source of new comets remains conjecture. Note that a source of new comets only becomes necessary if you assume an old solar system.
Closer to home, Earth’s magnetic field is losing its strength at what seems to be a constant rate. At that rate, it should have been too strong to support life even 10,000 years ago.
Helium gas is found in deep, hot rocks and in small quantities in our atmosphere. If those rocks were even a billion years old, the rocks would have gassed out all of their helium. The atmosphere would also have lost all of its helium within a few thousand years.
Jupiter and Saturn provide two different reasons to believe the solar system is young. They both radiate twice the energy that they receive from the sun. Venus also radiates too much heat. Calculations seem to have eliminated other possible sources of heat, such as nuclear or gravitational. Conclusion: they are young planets that haven’t had time to cool off yet.
Jupiter and Saturn also, along with their neighbors Uranus and Neptune, have discernible rings orbiting around them. The rings are under constant bombardment from meteoroids. They can’t be any older than 10,000 years old or they would have been pulverized and dispersed.
The Mount St. Helens eruption of 1980 has taught us that stratified deposits can form in very short periods of time rather than the thousands of thousands of years. Deposits of up to 600 feet have formed in 11 years while scientists were watching. These layers do not take hundreds of thousands of years to form.
Another interesting phenomenon is the creation of the beginning of a petrified forest in Spirit Lake after the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Scuba divers have found entire trees, displaced from surrounding forests, with roots pointing down into the lake bottom as though they grew there naturally. Many of the trees already have several feet of sediment burying their roots and trunks. They stand upright at different levels along the lake bottom. It would be easy for scientists three thousand years from now to believe them to be successive petrified forests because of their location in the strata. This goes to show that the process of burying and petrifying a forest is not a slow one, but rather is easily explained by a rapid catastrophic event such as an eruption or a flood.
The Spirit Lake trees demonstrate how “polystrata fossils” form. That is, upright trees whose fossilized trunks go through several layers of rock strata. Such a field has been found in Nova Scotia. It runs 2000 feet deep and has upright trees at several layers in the strata. All of them were probably laid down at the same time during a cataclysm. A geologist unaware of Spirit Lake would assume that he or she is seeing several successive layers of forest preserved in successive geological periods, when it was probably one forest buried at different levels during the same event.
On August 18, 1986 U.S. News and World Report reported that an M.I.T. researcher had discovered that hot underwater vents in the Gulf of California were turning dead plankton in the sediment into petroleum – “a process that normally takes at least 10 million years squeezed into an instant.” Now that we have seen the process in action, how do we know that the process “normally” takes 10 million years?
Inaccuracies and Outright Fabrications That Remain In Science Textbooks
The Peppered Moth is no longer believed to be an example of natural selection and evolution-in-progress. The story was that lighter moths resting on ash-coloured tree trunks were invisible to birds, so that birds ate more dark moths than light ones. They do not believe so any longer, even though the textbooks have not removed the story or the pictures. Both light and dark coloured versions existed before and after the Industrial Revolution. Not only that, there is no evidence that it ever lived on or even rested on tree trunks as pictured in countless textbooks. The picture seen in textbooks is of dead moths that were glued to the tree trunk for the pictures.
Remember the phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny?” All of us were shown drawings of embryos of different creatures that look similar to various stages of human embryo development. Those drawings were penned by Ernst Haeckel, who was disciplined by his peers in the 1880’s for “adding and omitting features and fudging the scale to “exaggerate similarities among species.” These drawings remain in many textbooks and are not usually labeled as the fraud they are, though sometimes expressions such as “creative license” or “did not represent scale” are used.
As an aside, Martin notes that the embryonic organ labelled “yolk sac” in even modern textbooks is known to have nothing to do with primitive egg-laying creatures or yolk from eggs. Its well-known function is to produce blood for the embryo until its bones have a chance to develop enough to take over that function.
Remember the idea of “vestigial organs?” These organs, such as tonsils or the appendix were supposedly remnants of organs that were used in more primitive species that no longer have a function. It turns out that every one of the ones identified as vestigial has a vital function in the body after all. We just didn’t know what it was a generation ago. Textbooks don’t seem to have caught up. It would seem that science texts contain a great deal of vestigial science.
Orthodontist Jack Cuozzo notes in his book Buried Alive (Master Books, 1998) that we have been presented a distorted picture of the Neanderthal Man’s facial profile. Using the same radiographic techniques orthodontists use to properly align our bite, he noticed that the Neanderthal’s jaw has been dislocated from its proper place and thrust forward as much as an inch in every picture and model we have of him. When properly aligned, the facial profile of Neanderthal’s chin looks very much like modern man.
Remember the “building blocks of life” experiment? Scientists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey postulated that a hydrogen-rich or “reducing” atmosphere existed on earth, so they put the chemicals they believed were in the atmosphere at the time into a chamber in their lab. Adding heat and simulated lightning, they produced some basic amino acids. They were never able to produce even a simple protein, and certainly nothing remotely resembling a cell, but it seemed to be step in the right direction. That is, until geologists began questioning that atmospheric composition at the stipulated time. Current consensus among geologists and geochemists is that the atmosphere consisted mainly of volcanic gasses. Put those volcanic gasses in the Miller and Urey apparatus and not even amino acids are produced. Does this revision appear in the textbooks? No. They continue to include the original experiment and ignore the new data. Of course, the original experiment did not prove that life comes from non-living matter anyway, any more than did Pasteur’s experiment. But nobody mentions this inconvenient fact when they want evolution to be true.
The inclusion of old, discredited science in newer textbooks could be just an oversight by writers and editors who are falling behind the science. Or, it could be a way of conditioning young people to believe in an origin story that justifies disbelief in a God who created the universe by using oversimplified explanations of archaeological phenomena. Once students are conditioned to think in evolutionary terms contrary evidence learned later will simply be reinterpreted to suggest that a different mechanism or lineage must be involved.
Most other religions and philosophies condition their young in a similar way.
One might argue that religion got to me before science did, and that is why I choose not to believe in evolution. I grew up in the 1960’s and 1970’s in a large church that had no argument with evolutionary theory. I had no particular reason to go against the trend until I began to wonder why some people did not, and then actually investigated their objections. When I looked into it I began to come up with some of my own philosophical objections that I mentioned in the previous part. As I began to understand the complex chemical interactions within the cell it became more clear to me that it could not have arisen by chance combinations of chemicals. Too many things have to combine at just the right moment to have even the most basic cell, let alone one that reproduces itself. Scientists can wax as eloquently as they like about the theory of life coming from non-life but I am not buying it.
The next post will discuss two philosophical arguments against and for evolution.