Creation: Good Old Young Universe Part VIII

Posted by Gregg on Feb 21, 2010 in apologetics, Christian Faith, Creation, homeschooling |


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

The last seven Sunday posts in a row have concentrated on evidences that indicate that the earth is certainly not billions of years old, possibly not even millions of years old, and maybe even not more than a few thousand years old based on scientific evidence and logic.  This has been kind of a lark as mental exercises go because even if the earth was billions of years old, Darwinism is still flatly impossible.

Today, I will conclude the series on the age of planet earth documenting evidence from living things and demonstrating some mathematical evidences.

The Odds of Darwinian Evolution

The late Dr. Carl Sagan Ph. D., a highly vocal secular humanist and advocate of random evolution, calculated the odds of human life “evolving” on the earth as 1 chance in 10 followed by 2 billion zeros.  Nearly a century ago, Dr. Emilé Borel formulated the irrefutable law of mathematical impossibility stating that the chances of any event occurring where the odds are greater than 1 in 1 followed by 50 zeros (1: 1050) will never take place.  “We can state with certainty that it will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place.”

William Demski Ph. D. puts those odds at 1 in 10150.  Even so, neither of them come close to Sagan’s 1 in 102,000,000,000 chance.  Given the further restriction of only a scant few hundred million years in which these nearly infinite changes must occur, and impossibility is multiplied exponentially by further impossibility.  There may well be a “materialistic” explanation for how life, the universe, and everything came to be.  But the fact is that Darwinism is absolutely not that explanation.  It is, at best, a laughable placeholder while secular humanists scramble for a more plausible and less completely impossible explanation.

Mutation Load

It is worth noting that in the early 1960s, Dr. H.T. Band PhD discovered that natural selection was not eliminating the “genetic load.” That is, “evolution” is not eliminating the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms. Thus mutational defects are accumulating, even though some are only on recessive genes. Calculations, based on genetic load, indicate that all forms of life could not have continued more than just a few thousands of years and still remain as free from mutational defects as they presently are.

The Oldest Living Organism

The oldest living organism on the planet is a tree. Specifically, it is a Bristlecone Pine known as “Methuselah” located at an elevation of 10,400 feet in the White Mountains of California. Earth’s oldest living inhabitant “Methuselah” at 4,767 years old, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree.

Creation: Methuselah-Bristlecone Pine oldest tree on earth

"Methuselah" World's Oldest Tree

Hold on! Shout Darwinists at the top of their fallacious lungs. What about the stand of Huon pine trees that has been called the world’s ‘oldest known living organism’? Newspaper reports claimed that what looks like hundreds of trees densely covering 2.5 acres is all part of the ONE TREE, since all these ‘trees’ appear to have identical DNA. Over the years, it is believed, ‘snow has forced its branches to the ground, where they have taken root’. The Sydney Morning Herald, January 28, 1995, page 1

Creation: Huan pine only 4,000 years old

Huan pine only 4,000 years old

Hate to disappoint. Turns out, the source of the reported ‘age’ isn’t even an estimate. It is, what scientists working on the site called a ‘guesstimate’ based purely on sedimentary sampling not from the trees themselves but from a lake bed below the mountain which contains Huon pine pollen. This is clearly based on far more fallible assumptions and uncertainties than tree-ring dating. Even the apparent absence of DNA differences is not 100 per cent certain, though probable.

Naturally, traditional tree-ring dating on any timber found growing at the Huon pine site so far reveals an age of no more than 4,000 years. This is well within the ages — in fact hundreds of years younger — than the oldest living bristlecone pines based on tree-rings and they are still the world’s oldest living organisms.

But wait! Darwinists screech. What about the 9550 year old spruce scientist claim to have found in the Dalarna province of Sweden?

Creation: Spruce pine in Sweden, only 600 years old

Spruce pine--only 600 yrs old

Hate to disappoint. Turns out this age is based on Darwinists making the claim that the trees all have “identical DNA” and radiocarbon dating the living roots of the trees. I must point out that radiocarbon dating has displayed up to a 93% margin of error dating parts of the SAME SAMPLE and is notoriously erroneous when dating living samples. A living snail was dated at 30,000 years old. A freshly killed seal was dated at over 21,000 years old.

Naturally, traditional tree-ring dating on any of the timber found growing at the Dalarna site so far reveals an age of no more than about 6 hundred years old, thousands of years less than the Bristlecone Pine.

Admittedly, there are still some uncertainties with tree-ring dating, which is also by no means absolute. For example, trees can — and often do — form more than one ring per year. This may give a seven year old tree eleven rings, for example. Even so, the fact is that the maximum tree-ring ages for any living trees fall well within a 4,780 year range. Apart from the Biblical global flood, there seems no reason why if certain trees are capable of living for 4,700 or more years, some should not have lived for many, many, MANY more years.

Question: If the earth is billions of years old, and life on earth is millions or hundreds of millions of years old, why are there no trees older than about 4,700 years old? Why do we not have 8 or 10 thousand year old trees at least? Why not a tree with an age of even 6,000 years worth of actual ring growth?

Creation: Sequoia Gigantea no more than 4,000 years old

Sequoia Gigantea -- less than 4,000 yrs old

The giant sequoias of California, Sequoia gigantea, have no known enemies except man. It is only very in history that man, armed with machine saws, had the ability to easily destroy them. Insects do not seem to bother them, nor even forest fires. Sequoia gigantea never have any dead trees (“snags”) among them, and these giant redwoods in their groves in the Sierra Nevada Mountains appear to be the original trees that have always existed in their timber stands. Unless man cuts them down, there is no evidence that they ever die. Today we have just one, single generation of the Sequoia gigantea. Both the parent trees and their offspring are still alive. They live on, century after century. Yet the sequoias are never older than about 4,000 years at most.

Question: If the earth is billions of years old, and life on earth is millions of years old, why is no Sequoia gigantea ever older than about 4,000 years?

In the case of the giant sequoias, there is no reason why they could not have lived for many thousands of years beyond their present life span. In fact, 2,000 years from now, assuming the sequoia are left to their own devices, they will grow to be 6000 years old. The fact is that there is no record of any tree — or any other living thing — on planet earth that is older than any reasonable date given for the Biblical global flood described in the book of Genesis.


Creation: Early Sumerian Tablet circa 2700 B.C.The oldest writing is pictographic Sumerian inscribed on tablets in the Near East. The oldest of these tablets have been dated at about 3500 B.C. and were found in the Sumerian temple of manna.

The earliest Western-type script was the proto-Sinaitic, which appeared in the Sinai peninsula about 1550 B.C. This was the forerunner of our Indo-Aryan script, from which descended our present alphabet.


It is highly significant that no truly verified archaeological datings predate the period of about 3000 B.C. When larger dates are cited, they come from radiocarbon dating, from methods other than written human records, or from the disputed and highly suspect Egyptian king-list.

Human Languages

Mankind is so intelligent that languages were soon put into written records, which were left lying about on the surface of the earth. Believers can rely upon authoritative scripture and know that differences in dialect and language suddenly developed shortly after the Biblical global flood, at which time men separated and traveled off in groups whose members could understand one another (Genesis 11:1-9).

Interestingly, records of ancient languages never go back beyond circa 3000 B.C. Philological and linguistic studies reveal that a majority of them are part of large “language families”; and most of these appear to radiate outward from the area of Babylonia. For example, the Japhetic peoples, listed in Genesis 10, traveled to Europe and India, where they became the so-called Aryan peoples. These all use what we call the Indo-European Language Family today. Recent linguistic studies reveal that these languages originated at a common center in southeastern Europe on the Baltic. This would be very close to the Ararat range in modern Turkey.

Fun with Math

In 1862, *Thompson said the earth was 20 million years old. Thirty-five years later, in 1897, he doubled it to 40 million. Two years later, *J. Joly said it was 90 million. *Rayleigh, in 1921, said the earth has been here for 1 billion years. Eleven years later, *W.O. Hotchkiss moved the figure up to 1.6 billion (1,600,000,000). *A Holmes in 1947 declared it to be 3.35 billion (3,350,000,000); and, in 1956, he raised it to 4.5 billion (4,500,000,000). Up until 2008, the age of the earth stood at about 5 billion years when the Hubble Variable Constant had to be lowered for other Darwinist nonsense math to work out. The age of the earth fell to 4.2 billion years where it will stand until Big Bang is replaced and the Hubble Variable Constant can be varied again.

Creation: Equation for Calculating Population GrowthDr. A.E.J. Engel, Professor of the California Institute of Technology, comments that the age for the earth accepted by most geologists rose from a value of about 50 million years in 1900 to about 5 billion years by 1960. He suggests facetiously that ‘if we just relax and wait another decade, the earth may not be 4.5 to 5 aeons [1 aeon = 1 billion years], as now suggested, but some 6 to 8 or even 10 aeons in age.”

These Darwinian dates for the age of the earth have changed at a measurable rate, doubling on average every fifteen years. None of these dates are supportable with what we used to call facts or evidence if you realize that the geologic column does not actually exist and discard it as a baseless assumption of circular reasoning.

Creation: Population Growth Curve from CreationPopulation Statistics

Our present population explosion is especially the result of improved sanitary conditions at childbirth and thereafter. In earlier centuries, many more children died before the age of three.

It is thought that the period between 1650 and 1850 would be a typical time span to analyze population growth prior to our present century, with its many technological advantages.

One estimate, based on population changes between 1650 and 1850, provides us with the fact that at about the year 3300 B.C. there was only one family of human beings.

The rate of world population growth has varied greatly throughout history as a result of such things as pestilences, famines, wars, and catastrophes like floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, and fires. Even with all this in mind, estimates generally focus on 300 million as the population of the earth at the time of Christ. Based on small sized families, from the time of the Flood (circa 2300 to 2700 B.C.) to the time of Christ, the population by that time would have been about 300 million people. The many census’ conducted by Rome statistically confirm this number.

If, in contrast, the human race had been on earth for one million years, as the evolutionists declare, even with a very low growth rate of 0.01 (1/100) percent annually, the resulting population by the time of Christ would be 2 times 1043 which is the numeral 2 followed by 43 zeros times 10. A thousand solar systems, with nine planets like ours could barely hold that many people standing close enough to each other to hold hands.

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.

In the last 8 posts, including this one, I have documented a surprising number of solid evidences for a young earth. I discussed (1) only a thin layer of moon dust; (2) short half-life radioactive non-extinct isotopes found in moon rocks; (3) the moon is receding from earth at a speed which requires a very young earth;—and on and on through all eight weeks.

Each and every point presents a “limiting factor” that the fairy tale told by Darwinists must explain or refute before their quaint 200 year old notion can be said to hold even a drop of water.  They do not and cannot refute even one single point I have documented in a logical, organized, scientific manner without either begging the question or hurling epithets and ad homenim attacks.

Next week, I will dive into the quagmire of ridiculousness that is abiogenesis — life from non-life.

Until then, God Bless you and yours.


Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Related Posts with ThumbnailsPin It

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Copyright © 2009-2017 Hallee the Homemaker All rights reserved.
Desk Mess Tripled v1.0 theme from

Copyright © 2009 - 2017 Hallee the Homemaker All Rights Reserved.