Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Six thousand years? At that point I had not heard the concept, before.
The belief that mankind has been on the planet for about 6,000 years is also something supported by evidence. In "The Collapse of Evolution" author Scott Huse, PhD sums up proof that the Earth cannot be billions of years old because it would exhibit:
-A much higher concentration of salt in the oceans than what exists today,
-much more atmospheric helium, the product of the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium; current levels would indicate ten thousand years of decay, assuming a starting point of zero,
-no mountains, because even the Himalaya and Rocky Mountains would erode to sea level in just ten million years,
-a lot more sediment deposited in the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi River, since what's in the delta now has been calculated to have taken about four thousand years to deposit,
-no more petroleum or natural gas beneath the earth's cap rock because the extremely high pressures containing both would have blown through the rock in ten thousand years max.
As for mankind being on the Earth for about six thousand years, you have to do the math for that. Calculating Biblical accounts and all of the begets, the Bible comes up with about 6,000 years. Mathematicians, basing a growth of about 2.12 to 2.25 children per family, taking into consideration downturns in population growth such as famine and plague, place the beginning of growth of a population of about six and a half billion people to about 4,500 years ago. Biblically, Noah is about 5,000 years ago.
Evolutionists can't get their numbers straight. I've heard estimates in the tens of thousands of years to millions of years when it comes to Science's estimation of how long the human species has been walking the Earth. Most Bible-believing Christians have determined, based on figuring out all of the "begets" and so forth in the Bible, that mankind has been on this planet for about six thousand years...an article that was originally published in a Christian publication over twenty years ago, a theological scholar came to a conclusion using population trends to figure it out...Statistically, a couple must have 2.1 children to keep a population at the same level...Let us suppose for a moment that the Biblical account of the Genesis Flood in which just eight people survived is true. Let us further suppose that each family from this point in history had 2.4 children on average. This very modest number will take into account all the deaths through infant mortality, plagues and war...How long would it take to reach today’s world population?
Surprisingly, the answer is just less than five thousand years. This figure fits nicely into known historical records.
Now suppose we take the evolutionary view that mankind has been on this planet for two million years and we begin with two people – or eight, it will make little difference – and they also had the statistical 2.4 children per family.
We will finish up with a number so impossibly large that the universe itself would not hold them!
Aware of this problem, the textbooks explain it away by speaking of “population stability throughout this time.”
Since then, I have a special section in my library for books about science, on both sides of the aisle.
The vast thickness of sedimentary rocks around the world are commonly used as evidence for vast age...The 'deep time' (billions of years) indoctrination comes with the statement 'often reaching great thickness over long periods of time.' However, this goes beyond the evidence. Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods. [The same conclusion Ken Ham makes in his "A Flood of Evidence" book] ...Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. If so, then the rock layers must have formed over vast ages...the evidence for catastrophic formation is so overwhelming that there is a growing body of neocatastrophists...a cataclysmic globe-covering (and fossil forming) flood would have eroded huge quantities of sediment, and deposited them elsewhere. Many organisms would have been buried very quickly and fossilized...Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington state produced 25 feet (7.6 meters) of finely layered sediment in less than a day! And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit 3 to 4 feet (about 1 meter) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field. Sedimentation experiments by the creationist Guy Berthault, sometimes working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers can form by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles...how does the 'slow and gradual' explanation fare?...scavengers and rotting normally remove all traces within weeks. Dead jellyfish normally melt away in days. Yet Teaching about Evolution has a photo of a fossil jellyfish...It clearly couldn't have been buried slowly, but must have been buried quickly by sediments carried by water. This water would also have contained dissolved minerals, which would have caused the sediments to cement together, and so harden quickly...there is a vertical tree trunk that penetrates several rock layers...if the upper sedimentary layers really took millions or even thousands of years to form, then the top of the tree trunk would have rotted away."
As Ken Ham explains in his book "The Lie Evolution", the belief in the Theory of Evolution is a religion, and they are willing to twist the evidence and make stuff up as they go along to try to fix their lie because they desperately want it to be true because it cannot be married with the Bible. And that's the point. To destroy Faith in God, and in turn kill God.
To call evolution, and the unproven made-up lies that surrounds it, science is disingenuous at best. Creation, it turns out, is more based on science than the religion of evolution.
As for our scientific evidence supporting the Young Earth concept I began this whole article with? The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell puts it nicely.
- Ultraviolet light has only built up a thin layer of moon dust.
- Short half-life radioactive non-extinct isotopes have been found in moon rocks.
- The moon is receding from the Earth at a speed which requires a very young Earth.
- Human records also only go back 4,300 years, or so.
- If humanity is as intelligent as we are told, should not early man have had some kind of written record, too?
- Scientists say that the material from the sun made the planets and moons. But, the ratio of elements in the sun is far different than that found in the planets and moon.
- Uranus and Venus rotate backwards compared to the other planets.
- One third of the moons have backward motions.
- Triton, one of Neptune's inner moons, is nearly twice the mass of our moon, revolves backward, has a nearly circular orbit, and is only 220,000 miles from Neptune. Today's artificial satellites revolving around Earth need constant adjustments to keep them in orbit, but our moon and Triton circling around Neptune doesn't? And they've been at it for billions of years?
- There are such striking differences between the various planets and moons that they could not have originated from the same source as suggested by secular scientists.
- The Earth's magnetic field is decaying. It can't be more than 6,000 years old or the magnetism prior to that would have disallowed the formation of life on the planet, and a million years ago the magnetism would have liquified the Earth.
- The average depth of topsoil throughout the Earth is about eight inches. Allowing for losses due to erosion it has been calculated that it takes between 300 and a thousand years to build up one inch. Based on those calculations and the thickness of our topsoil, the Earth is only a few thousand years old, not millions or billions.
- Population Growth is so rapid that the current population was likely reached in a few thousand years.