Creation: Good Old Young Universe Part VII

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by writing posts on the subject of his primary ministry. This is a topic that is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. The topic, Creationism vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications. He chooses to conclude each post with a message intended to hearten and bolster believers. However, for believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account or secular guesses about the origins of human life on earth.

A Brief Recap

Happy St. Valentine’s Day. I am thrilled that I can spend today writing about a subject that I love, Creation. In previous posts, I have shown by quantifiable and qualifiable means that Darwinian evolution is flatly impossible based on just plain insufficient time. For the last several Sunday’s I have explored and documented various scientific evidences that the earth is probably considerably younger than billions of years, and much younger than even millions of years old.

In recent years, there is some debate among scientists as to whether Darwinism should even merit the status of being called something so grand as a “theory” since, with the advent of new sceintific discoveries in microbiology, it no longer even meets those minimum qualifications. Just as poor Pluto is no longer called something so grand as a “planet” it is possible that our children or grand-children will accurately refer to Darwinism as the “myth” that it is and it will rank among such discarded and laughable beliefs as a flat earth and geocentrism. If you haven’t read the preceding posts, I encourage you to click on the CREATION category on the sidebar and read them all in order.

Today, I will document logical evidence for a young earth based on a series of logical questions. The premise of these questions is going to be based on facts, not assumptions. I realize that if you are a Darwinist then logic is meaningless to you and facts are irrelevant. Therefore, this post is written more for those who are capable of logical thought and accepting facts, and for that I apologize.

The Oldest Culture and Written Language (China)

Welcome to the Year of the Tiger. This past week, on February 10, in the year of our Lord 2010 A.D, China celebrated the first day of their New Year 4708. China is the oldest continuous human civilization.

Question: Assuming that the earth is billions of years old, and that mankind is hundreds of thousands of years old, why is there no continuous human civilization older than about the time of the recorded Biblical global flood? Isn’t it logical and reasonable to assume that some civilization somewhere on the earth would be 8 or 10 thousand years old at least in the span of hundreds of thousands of years?

China has a rich history and their written language, called kanji, spans dozens of dialects and thousands of years. There are written records kept in kanji dating back to two thousand years before the birth of Christ. It is the oldest surviving continuous human written language on planet earth. To the right is an example of a word in kanjiform and its foundational kanji characters.

Question: Why is the written word for “boat” in the oldest continuous human civilization in the oldest continuous human written language descriptive of the Biblical Ark that survived the global flood about 4700 years ago? And why are there no surviving written languages that are older than the anti-diluvian world in use today? Isn’t it reasonable and logical to assume that if mankind is hundreds of thousands of years old, there would be a written language that is 8 or 10 thousand years old at least?

The Oldest Desert

The Sahara desert is the oldest (and largest) desert on planet earth. It is growing every year by a process known as desertification. The rate at which it is growing (desertification is taking place) has been recorded with varying degrees of accuracy for more than 400 years. Based on this data, it is known that the oldest and largest desert on planet earth is only about 4500 to 4700 years old (depending largely upon the accuracy of the early records) at most.

Question: Assuming that the earth is billions of years old, and that mankind hundreds of thousands of years old, why is there no desert on the entire planet that is older than 4700 years? Shouldn’t there be a desert that is 10,000 or 20,000 years old at the very least?

The Oldest Reef

As discussed last week, the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia is the largest and oldest oceanic reef formation on planet earth. Coral is a living thing. A coral reef forms as coral life forms discard their “shell” over the course of their lifetimes. A 20 year study of the reef — an exhaustive study commissioned by the government to determine what kind of damage maritime and military operations might be doing to the reef itself — was commissioned after the second world war.

The study empirically concluded the rate of growth of the reef over a two decade period. Based on that data, it is the precise conclusion that the reef is no older than 4,500 years old at most.

Question: Assuming that the earth is billions of years old, and that life on earth is millions of years old, why is there no reef on the entire planet that is older than 4,800 years? Shouldn’t there be a reef that is 10,000 or 20,000 years old at the very least?

The Oldest City

Damascus, known as Madinat Al-Yasmin, or the City of Jasmin, is the capital and largest city in Syria. It is also the only city on this planet with the distinction of being the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. Without guessing or assuming or relying upon faulty radiocarbon dating methods, we know without dispute that Damascus has been continuously occupied since at least 2200 BC.

Apocryphal evidence (which is an assumption) suggests an earlier occupation even than that, by about 300-400 years, which would mean that Damascus was established sometime around 4,500 to 4,800 years ago.

Question: Assuming that the earth is billions of years old, and that life on earth is millions of years old, and that mankind has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, why is there no continuously inhabited city on the entire planet that has been occupied for longer than about 4,700 years? Based on the Darwinian assumptions, isn’t it logical and entirely reasonable to assume there should be a city that was established 6 or 8 or even 10 thousand years ago that has been continuously inhabited ever since?

Solar Eclipses

Throughout ancient historical writings, from time to time scholars come across comments about astronomical events, especially total or almost total solar eclipses. Because of the infrequency of solar eclipses at any given location and because astronomers can date every eclipse going back thousands of years, a mention of a solar eclipse in an ancient tablet or manuscript is an extremely important find.

A solar eclipse is strong evidence for the dating of an event, when ancient records can properly corroborate it. It is understandable why ancient man would record solar eclipses since, as such rare events, they involve the blotting out of the sun for a short time in the area of umbra (the completely dark, inner part of the shadow cast on the earth when the moon covers the sun). An extended solar eclipse accompanied by earthquakes is recorded at the time of Christ’s crucifixion in every affected region.

Yet, prior to 2250 B.C., there is NOT ONE record of a solar eclipse ever having been witnessed by human beings on planet earth. In fact, the earliest record is from China in the year 2250 B.C.

Question: If mankind has been living and working on planet earth for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, why is the earliest recorded solar eclipse from as recently as 2250 B.C.? Why not the eclipse that would have occurred 16 months earlier? Or 600 years earlier? Or 10,000 years earlier?

Historical Records

There is some dispute over the accuracy of Egyptian and Sumerian record keeping, with the dispute centering over a period of about 800 years. For the purpose of logic and argument, I will give the Darwinists their extra 800 years. It makes absolutely no difference.

The fact is that all the writings, language, and cultures of ancient mankind apparently started off fully developed but are not found to have begun until about 2000-3000 B.C., depending on who wins the 800 year argument, and these historical records, when found, always reveal the existence of already highly developed civilizations.

Question: If mankind has been living and working on planet earth for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, why do we find records of man only dating back to about 2000-3000 B.C.?

The Truth

The truth is that no person either living or dead has ever come up with a plausible explanation for how the universe came to be, how the galaxies and stars and planets follow their orderly paths, how the moon and the earth are so perfectly placed, how life on our planet even exists — without all of it having been created. There is no sound theory in existence that leaves out the Creator.

Fact based science demonstrates and logical thought supports that Darwinism is, as scientific theory goes, an empty suit, a dry well, a laughable fallacy. The Biblical account of creation as described in the book of Genesis 1 to 11 is supported both by science and logic. It is incumbent upon us to always seek the truth, whether a believer in the Biblical account or not.

God Bless you and yours.

Gregg

Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Pin It