The Days of Genesis One (4)

By Daniel King

Scientific Evidence the Genesis Account Is Accurate

Godless evolution requires an old earth and an old solar system. Theistic evolution argues that the assumptions of old earth scientists have merit. Those who believe that the days of Genesis one are actually ages of time, or are punctuated by ages of time, make the identical assumptions. Without billions of years, virtually all informed evolutionists will admit that their theory is dead. As R.L. Wysong has commented, “Both evolutionists and creationists believe evolution is an impossibility if the universe is only a few thousand years old. There is probably no statement that could be made on the topic of origins which would meet with so much agreement from both sides. Setting aside the question of whether vast time is competent to propel evolution, we must query if vast time is indeed available” (The Creation-Evolution Controversy 144). Dr. Bert Thompson has further remarked, “This matter is of importance not only to evolutionists, but to theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and other ‘old-Earth creationists.’ While a young earth presents no problem whatsoever for a creationist, it is the death knell to each and every variety of the evolutionary scenario” (“Popular Compromises of Creation —The Gap Theory,” Reason & Revelation, Vol. 14, No. 7 [1994] 49). 

By hiding the “origins question” behind the veil of vast periods of time, the unsolvable problems of the theory of evolution become difficult for scientists to appreciate and laymen even to imagine. Our media and text books have implied for over a century that this almost unimaginable age is correct, but practically never do they or the professors examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Some even imply that there is no evidence that the earth is younger than billions of years. 

Therefore, most people instinctively believe that things are old, and it is disturbing (at least initially) to hear evidence that our origins might be relatively recent. Walter T. Brown, Jr., Ph.D. authored an article on the “Evidence That Implies a Young Earth and Solar System” published by the Institute for Creation Research in March of 1981. Brown wrote: “Actually most dating techniques show that the earth and solar system are young — usually less than 10,000 years old.” Listed below are just a few of these evidences as they are provided in Brown’s insightful essay (his citations are also provided) along with a few others which we have culled from other sources. Our belief in creation as described in the Genesis account is not dependent upon any one of these proofs, nor upon the sum of them. It is wholly dependent upon what the Word of God has revealed in the Bible.

1. Atomic clocks, which have measured the earth’s spin rate to the nearest billionth of a second, have consistently found that the earth is slowing down at the rate of almost one second a year (cf. Arthur Fisher, “The Riddle of the Leap Second,” Popular Science, Vol. 202, March 1973, 110‑113, 164‑166; Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory, Earth Motions and Their Effect on Air Force Systems, November 1975, 6; Jack Fincher, “And Now, Atomic Clocks,” Readers’ Digest, Vol. III, November 1977, 34). If the earth were billions of years old, its initial spin rate would have been fantastically rapid — so rapid that major distortions in the shape of the earth would have occurred.

2. Direct measurements of the earth’s magnetic field or dipole, since Karl Gauss first evaluated it in 1835, show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. Physicists like Sir Horace Lamb and Dr. Thomas Barnes have examined the depletion of the earth’s magnetic field and shown that, given its rate of depletion, the earth cannot be older than about 10,000 years. If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that the earth’s structure could not have survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be older than 10,000 years (Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field [San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1973]).

3. More than twenty‑seven billion tons of sediments, primarily from our rivers, are entering the oceans each year. Obviously, this rate of sediment transport has not been constant and has probably been decreasing as the looser top soil has been removed. But assuming that the rate of sedimentation has been constant, the sediments which are now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only about 30 million years. The Geological Society of America Bulletin (Jan. 73), estimates the average sediment thickness over the entire ocean at approximately 2,950 feet. When that is multiplied by the area of the world’s oceans and the density of the sediment, we are told that the mass of ocean sediments is about 820 million billion tons. How long would it take to deposit that much sediment on the ocean floor if there was none to begin with? What limit does the ocean put on its own age? Robert Garrels and Fred Mackenzie wrote Evolution of Sedimentary Rocks in which they listed and quantified sources and rates at which sediment is added to the ocean each year. The total addition of sediment to the world’s oceans was found to be 27.5 billion tons per year. Most geologists accepting the general theory of evolution will admit that this total is approximately correct and is to be taken as a constant rate throughout that supposed evolution. However, when we divide the total mass of ocean sediment by that rate, we find the outer limit of the age of the earth’s oceans to be 30 million years! (Stuart E. Nevins, “Evolution; The Ocean Says No!,” ICR Impact Series, No. 8 [San Diego: Institute for Creation Research]).

4. It has been estimated that seventy volcanoes the size of Mexico’s Paricutin producing 0.001 cubic miles of water per year for 4.5 billion years of earth’s history could account for the 315 cubic miles of water in the oceans today. There are now approximately 600 active volcanoes and about 10,000 dormant ones. Six hundred volcanoes comparable to Paricutin could account for the present oceans in approximately 0.5 billion years. However, the evidence shows that volcanic activity was much greater in the past than at present, so if that rate could be determined this number would decline substantially (William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution 80-84). 

5. It has been estimated that four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricutin and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts. The Colombian plateau of northwestern United States (covering 200,000 square miles) was produced by a gigantic lava flow several thousands of feet deep. The Canadian shield and other extensive lava flows indicate that volcanic activity has indeed followed an accelerated tempo in the past. Since there are at present about 600 active volcanoes and probably were substantially more in the past, the time involved would be considerably less (Ibid, 80-84). 

6. The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on the production of helium — (the most abundant isotope of helium) from the decay of uranium and thorium. There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from the atmosphere. If the present rate of accumulation had been constant throughout four billion years of the earth’s history, there should be thirty times as much helium in our present atmosphere as is presently there. The atmosphere therefore appears to be young (Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models [London: Max Parrish, 1966], 10‑14).

7. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, lead, silicon, mercury, uranium, and nickel are entering the oceans is very rapid when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans. Uranium salts, for example, presently appear to be accumulating in the oceans at about 100 times the rate of their loss. It is estimated that sixty billion grams of uranium are added to the oceans annually. Under uniformitarian rules, the total concentration of uranium salts of the oceans (estimated at less than 1E+17 grams) could be accumulated in less than one million years. Therefore, the oceans must be younger than a million years.

8.There are several factors which add salt to the oceans on an on-going  basis. Rivers pick up salt from surrounding mineral deposits as they flow into the sea, thereby carrying salt into the sea. Hot springs on the floor of the ocean are another source of salt, as is dust from volcanoes. Also, ground water seeps into the sea, and this often has a very high mineral content — including salts. Of course, there are other factors that cause the ocean to lose some of its salt. However, it has been shown that the salt is added much faster than it is taken out. In fact, it is possible to calculate the rate at which the level of salt is increasing. By using the standard assumptions used by evolutionists, geologist Steve Austin and physicist Russell Humphreys calculated that the oceans must be less than 62 million years old. Keep in mind that this figure represents the maximum age, and that any age less than 62 million years is consistent with the evidence. Moreover, if the assumptions are changed, the maximum age decreases. For example, the evolutionists assume that the ocean had no salt whatsoever when it was first formed. However, if we allow for some level of salt at the time of creation, then factor in the rate at which the salt level increases, the maximum age of the sea declines sharply. In addition, since Austin and Humphreys did their work, a newer study has shown that the rate at which salt is being added to the ocean is actually faster than previously thought. It has been shown that much more salt enters the ocean through the ground water each year than expected. Thus the maximum possible age of the ocean is significantly less than Austin and Humphreys’ figure.

9. Evolutionists believe that the continents have existed for at least one billion years. However, the continents are being eroded at a rate that would level them in a relatively short 14 million years (Nevins, ii‑iii).

10. The occurrence of abnormally high gas and oil pressures within relatively permeable rock implies that these fluids were formed or encased less than 10,000 years ago. If these hydrocarbons had been trapped more than 10,000 years ago, there would have been leakage which would have dropped the pressure to a level far below what it is today (Cook, 341).

11. There have been no authenticated reports of the discovery of meteorites in sedimentary material (Peter A. Steveson, “Meteoritic Evidence of a Young Earth,” Creation Research Quarterly, Vol. 12, June 1975, 23‑25). If the sediments, which have an average depth of one and one-half miles, were laid down over hundreds of millions of years, many of these steadily falling meteorites should have been discovered. Therefore, the sediments appear to have been deposited rapidly; furthermore, since there have been no reports of meteorites beneath the sediments, they appear to have been deposited recently. This provides evidence for both recent creation and flood geology.

12. The rate at which meteoritic dust is accumulating on the earth is such that after five billion years, the equivalent of 182 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, there should be an exceedingly large amount of nickel in the crustal rocks of the earth. No such concentration has been found — on land or in the oceans. Consequently, the earth appears to be young (Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism [San Diego: Creation‑Life Publishers, 1974], 151‑153; Steveson, 23‑25; Hans Peterson, “Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust,” Scientific American, Vol. 202, February 1960, 132).

13. If the moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated extensive layers of space dust — possibly a mile in thickness. Before instruments were placed on the moon, NASA was very concerned that our astronauts would sink into a sea of dust. This did not happen; there is very little space dust on the moon. Conclusion: the moon is young.

14. The sun acts as a giant vacuum cleaner which sweeps up about 100,000 tons of micrometeorites per day. If the solar system were significantly older than 10,000 years, no micrometeorites should remain since there is no significant source of replenishment. A large disk shaped cloud of these particles is orbiting the sun. Conclusion: the solar system is less than 10,000 years old (Paul M. Steidi, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979], 60‑61).

15. Since 1836, more than one hundred different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a rate of about .1% each century or about five feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses infer that this rapid shrinkage has been going on for at least the past 400 years (“Analyses of Historical Data Suggest Sun Is Shrinking,” Physics Today, September 1979, 17‑19). Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much (David W. Dunham, et. al., “Observations of a Probable Change in the Solar Radius Between 1715 and 1979,” Science, Vol. 210, December 12, 1980, 1243‑1245; and Irwin I. Shapiro, “Is the Sun Shrinking?”, Science, Vol. 208, April 4,1980, 51‑53). Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed a million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were essentially as they are now, having completed their evolution that began a thousand million years ago.

16. Short period comets “boil off” some of their mass each time they pass the sun. Nothing should remain of these comets after about 10,000 years. There are no known sources for replenishing comets. If comets came into existence at the same time as the solar system, the solar system must be less than 10,000 years old (see Thomas D. Nicholson, “Comets, Studied for Many Years, Remain an Enigma to Scientists,” Natural History, March 1966, 44‑47; Harold Armstrong, “Comets and a Young Solar System,” Speak to the Earth, ed. George F. Howe [New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1975], 327‑330; and Steidi, 58‑59).

17. Jupiter and Saturn are each radiating more than twice the energy they receive from the sun (H.H. Aumann and C.M. Gillespie, Jr., “The Internal Powers and Effective Temperature of Jupiter and Saturn,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 157, July 1969, 169‑172; “Close Encounter with Saturn,” Time, November 10, 1980, 78). Calculations show that it is very unlikely that this energy comes from radioactive decay or gravitational contraction. The only other conceivable explanation is that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off (cf. Steldi, 51‑52, 55).

18. Radiometric dating methods for rocks are said to be the most dependable of all methods in use today. Yet they are acknowledged to be completely inadequate: “If we assume that (1) a rock contained no Pb206 when it was formed, (2) all Pb206 now in the rock was produced by radioactive decay of U238, (3) the rate of decay has been constant, (4) there has been no differential leaching by water of either element, and (5) no U238 has been transported into the rock from another source, then we might expect our estimate of age to be fairly accurate. Each assumption is a potential variable, the magnitude of which can seldom be ascertained. In cases where the daughter product is a gas, as in the decay of potassium (K40) to the gas argon (Ar 40) it is essential that none of the gas escapes from the rock over long periods of time. It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock’” (Stansfield, 80-84).

19. According to the standard geological time scale, the Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene epochs represent hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Fossils in Colorado, however, indicate that they are actually not so far apart. This has been determined by examining radiohalos, which are rings of color that form around microscopic traces of radioactive minerals. The Polonium-210 radiohalos in the Colorado fossils indicate that the Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations were deposited within months of each other! Thus, rather than representing hundreds of millions of years of evolution, the deposits in Colorado are suggestive of a single cataclysmic event (i.e. the Genesis Flood).

20. The term “polystrate” was coined to describe a fossil which is encased within more than one (poly) layer of rock (strata) thus “polystrate” or “many layers.” Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock consists (with few exceptions) of sediments which accumulated in a watery environment and are now hardened into sedimentary rock. Rock units are separated by obvious bedding planes, but frequently even small-scale banding is visible, interpreted as yearly indicators, much like tree rings in a tree. Counting these yearly bands of dividing rock thickness by today’s meager  accumulation rates, is said to give support to the millions-of-years concept of geological ages. The question is, were past sedimentation rates equivalent to today’s rates, (or perhaps higher to account for minor catastrophes) or were they accomplished by processes whose rates, scales, and intensities are not occurring, or perhaps not even possible today? Polystrate fossils may help to address this question. Polystrate fossils are the exception to the rule, but are known to all geologists. Frequently trees are found protruding out of coal seams into the strata above, and perhaps extending into a second coal seam, several feet above the first. Reed-like stems are also found, sometimes transgressing numerous layers. Occasionally hundreds of individual fossils appear whose body width exceeds the width of the banded layers in which they are encased. Obviously the layers cannot be the result of slow accumulations, for a dead fish, for example, will not remain in an articulated condition for several years while sediment accumulates around it. It must be quickly buried in order to be preserved at all. Some of the big polystrate trees transgress multiple strata otherwise thought to have required tens of thousands of years. Apparently, the entire section required less time than it takes a tree to rot and fall over, else these trees would have done just that.

Evolutionists answer this enigma by arguing that it has now been demonstrated that rapidly-moving, sediment-laden fluids can result in an abundance of laminations and/or layers. They have been formed in lab experiments, by hurricanes, and were even formed by catastrophic mud flows associated with the eruption of Mount St. Helens. This may explain some of these phenomena (John D. Morris, “What Are Polystrate Fossils?” Vital Articles on Science/Creation [September 1995] ICR). However, their profusion may more easily be explained by a world-wide catastrophe, such as a universal flood like the one described in Genesis 6-9. The great abundance of such fossils throughout the world is not easily rationalized otherwise. 

21. Evolutionists say humans have inhabited this planet hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. Creationists, on the other hand, point to the Bible’s record of a few thousand years since the creation. Which of these ages is more realistic, according to known records of population and its rate of growth? Population statistics during recorded history all fall into the fairly consistent range of about 1/4 to 3 percent per year. One growing population is specifically mentioned in the Bible. When Jacob’s family moved to Egypt it had 70 members; when the Israelites left Egypt 430 years later (in about 1450 B.C.) they had grown to between one and two million people, which greatly concerned their Egyptian slave masters. If we calculate their growth rate, we find it to have been between 2.25% and 2.41% per year. This is within the range of modern population studies, and is thus completely reasonable. On the other hand, if we consider any sort of evolutionary growth over a period of a few million years, we arrive at ridiculously low growth rates. For example, if an original pair of “pre-humans” had begun a million years ago, and increased to five billion humans today, the growth rate would have been an average of only 0.00217% per year. At that rate, the time required for the group to double its size would be 32,000 years! At such low growth rates, these “people” would quickly have become extinct, considering that a life span was probably less than a hundred years or so. In the early millennia, an accidental death of a single adult of child-bearing age would have been devastating. As Dr. W. D. Stansfield has admitted, “If humanity is really about 2.5 million years old (as claimed by Dr. Louis Leakey), creationists calculate from conservative population estimates (2.4 children per family, average generation and life span of forty-three years) that the world population would have grown from a single family to 10 to the 2700th power of people over one million years. The present world population is about 2xl0 to the 9th power, an infinitesimal part of the 10 to the 2700th power” (Science of Evolution 80-84).
Population factors, therefore, seem to make the evolutionist’s position almost impossible, whereas growth rates according to the creationist’s time scale are well within the limits of actual numbers observable throughout recorded history. This same problem troubles those religious evolutionists and “old earth creationists” who believe Adam may have been created hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago. Population growth studies are against them.

All dating techniques, to include the few that imply an old earth and an old universe, lean heavily on the assumption that a process observed today has always proceeded at a known rate. In many cases this assumption may be grossly inaccurate. But in the case of the many dating “clocks” that offer evidence for a young earth, a much better understanding usually exists for the mechanism that drives the clock. Furthermore, the extrapolation process is over a much shorter time and is therefore more likely to be correct. It is also important to observe that when the various methods are all brought into consideration, those methods which seem to attest a young earth ought to take precedence. How are they to be explained, unless the earth actually is relatively young?


Taken as a whole, the force of these various scientific facts is very powerful to the objective mind. It is difficult to imagine the reason why some advocates of the various brands of theistic evolution are so eager to ignore or even dismiss these compelling evidences for a recent creation. Their commitment to the evolutionary development of the inanimate world, or the animate world, or both, appears to be unequivocal. They are willing to surrender the obvious sense of the words of the Genesis narrative. They discover gaps and ruinations where there are none. They read billions of years between the lines of simple texts. They redefine words and events in the light of their pet theory. In reality, not a single passage of Scripture can be marshaled to their defense. What the Bible says about the creation is very obviously against their view. They show themselves uncompromising on the issue no matter what Genesis 1-2, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, Psalm 33:6-9, Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:4, or any other passage of Scripture may say. Yet these Scriptures and others like them contain the biblical doctrine of creation. They, on the other hand, take their doctrine of creation from another source. Affirming that God has manifested his revelation in two ways, in Nature and in Scripture, they subordinate the teaching of Scripture to a contemporary scientific theory, believing it to be the voice of God in Nature speaking. In reality it is neither Nature nor God who is speaking. They are merely repeating 2521 Oak Forest Dr., Antioch, Tennessee 37013

Truth Magazine Vol. XLIV: 13  p16  July 6, 2000