v:shapes="_x0000_i1025">
We would like to
thank AP for allowing us to post this tract on our site. Please visit their site for more material.
THE AGE OF THE EARTH
Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION
In any discussion of
origins, one area that will have to be examined eventually is the matter of the
age of the Earth. As one writer suggested:
Undoubtedly the most popular
argument advanced against the credibility of the Mosaic narrative in Genesis is
the apparent conflict between the biblical record and the claims of modern
geology. The Bible clearly suggests that the earth was created but a few
thousand years ago, while some scientists contend that it has been in existence
for some four and one-half to five billion years. The solution to this problem
has usually been either to simply dismiss Genesis as an uninformed account of
what ancient men believed regarding the origin of things, or else, by
exegetical hocus-pocus Genesis is forced into harmony with the assumptions of
evolutionary geologists. Neither of these methods gives satisfaction to the
sincere inquirer of truth (Jackson, 1974, p. 28).
The chronology of Earth
history is an extremely relevant question. The age of the Earth does matter.
The evolutionist asserts
that the Earth is billions of years old. He has no choice, of course, because
without vast eons of time, evolution is impossible. R.L. Wysong, in his
excellent work, The Creation-Evolution
Controversy, stated:
It is no secret that
evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between
the evolutionist saying “time did it” and the creationist saying “God did it.”
Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended
in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution. Man, the
planets, the universe, the galaxies and matter are labeled as vanishingly old
by geological and radioactive dating methods. Time is not spoken of in terms of
mere decades or centuries, but as millions, sextillions, quintillions, “multiquadrupledoopleillions” and what have you. The
evolutionist says time is all that is needed to accomplish the spontaneous
generation of life; the evolutionary physicists, geologists, and
paleontologists assure him that he has plenty to work with (1976, p. 137).
George Wald, Nobel laureate
of
To make an organism demands the
right substance in the right proportions and in the right arrangement. We do
not think that anything more is needed—but that is problem enough. One has only
to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous
generation of living organisms is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe,
of spontaneous generation. In such a problem as the spontaneous generation of
life, we have no way of assessing probabilities beforehand, or even of deciding
what we mean by trial. The origin of a living organism is undoubtedly a
step-wise phenomenon, each step with its own probability and its own conditions
of trial. Of one thing we can be sure, however: whatever constitutes a trial,
more such trials occur the longer the interval of time.
The important point is that since
the origin of life belongs in the category of “at-least-once” phenomena, time
is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps it
involves, given enough time, it will
almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, with its
capability for growth and reproduction, once may be enough. Time is the hero of the plot. The time
with which we have to deal here is of the order of 2 billion years. What we
regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here.
Given so much time, the impossible
becomes possible, the possible become probable, and the probable becomes
virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs miracles (1954, pp. 45-53, emp. added).
Since in the evolutionary
scenario “time itself performs miracles,” it is essential that methods be used
which “prove” that vast eons of time are available. Such methods, however, are
plagued with serious problems, as the following information reveals.
ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTIONS AND EVOLUTIONARY DATING
METHODS
First, there are no
scientific methods that can prove—in any absolute sense—the age of the Earth.
The reason, of course, is that all scientific dating methods are based on
certain built-in assumptions. This must be the case, for no one was there “in
the beginning” to “start the clock” on the age of the Earth. Furthermore,
certain criteria are necessary before one can obtain an accurate timer. In
their text, Science and Creation,
Boardman, Koontz, and Morris discussed those criteria:
(1) The timer must be readable in
units of time. It must have an understandable scale. (2) The timer must be
sufficiently accurate and sensitive to measure the time interval in question,
whether it be thousands of years or a fraction of a
second. (3) We must know when the
timer was started; for example, was it last Thursday at
These are the minimum
criteria for an accurate timer. The so-called “scientific chronometers” of the
evolutionist do not meet these basic standards. No one knows, for example, when
the timer was started, or the scale setting when it was started, or that it ran
at a uniform rate, etc. Assumptions on these matters may, or may not, be
correct. Dating methods are only as accurate as the assumptions upon which they
are based. If incorrect assumptions undergird a particular
method, incorrect data will be the end result.
Second, scientists have not
“proved” the Earth to be billion of years old, their disclaimers to the
contrary notwithstanding. Radiometric dating methods are touted as establishing
“absolute” ages of 4.5-5.0 billion years for the Earth. Yet evolutionists
frequently fail to point out the assumptions behind these methods. For example,
in order for these procedures to work, evolutionists must assume: (a) uniformitarianism is true (i.e., rates
at which processes are now being observed to occur remained constant through
geological time); (b) the Earth’s environment
is a closed system (i.e., no outside forces could be allowed to alter
processes, or the rates at which they occur); and (c) the initial conditions of the system’s components are known with
certainty (i.e., it is known that the radioactive elements being measured
must be the result of decay over time, and could not have been present at the
rock’s formation). However, we know today that: (a) process rates do change; substantive
uniformitarianism is false; (b) the system is not closed; conditions on the Earth may interfere with, or alter,
the system; and (c) radioactive elements
may appear during initial rock formation, and are not always the end result
of radioactive decay over geological time. The three major assumptions upon
which evolutionary dating methods have been based are now known to be
incorrect. Science has not “proved” the age of the Earth. Henry Morris
observed:
...for a system to be dependable
in measuring geologic time, for example, it must satisfy at least two basic
criteria: (1) its process rate must be constant and unchangeable; (2) it must
be a “closed system,” not capable of being affected by influences extraneous to
the system.
Now we come up against a very
significant fact of nature. There is actually no natural process which has an
unchangeable process rate and there is actually no such thing in nature as a
truly isolated system! Consequently there is no geochronometer which is really
able to prove anything about the duration of geologic time. To be specific, it
is absolutely impossible to prove
that the earth is older than the few thousand years of the Biblical chronology
(1970, p. 69, emp. in orig.).
Third, there are many
scientific methods that establish a relatively young age for the Earth. [For a
partial listing of these methods, see Morris and Parker, 1987, pp. 288-293.]
Why are these methods not published in children’s textbooks, even though they
are as reliable (and in many cases more so) as the radiometric dating methods?
The answer is obvious—if these methods were accepted, a young Earth would
result, and students would realize immediately that evolution could not be
true.
How old, then, is the
Earth? Since science cannot provide a reliable answer, another source of
information is needed. Fortunately, the Creator of this marvelous planet has
provided one. The information we require is found in the Bible—the “operations
manual” for planet Earth. Through the guiding light of divine revelation, a
relative age for the Earth can be determined. Here is what is involved.
HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?
It needs to be stated, of
course, that there is no passage (or group of passages) in the Bible that
state(s) precisely the age of the
Earth. That does not mean, however, that a relative
approximation of the Earth’s age cannot be ascertained. It merely means that
one must use the pertinent biblical data to establish the relative age of the Earth. The question as to the age of the Earth
might be answered in several ways. For example, one might state correctly that
the Earth is five days older than man.
Exodus
According to the data
involved in the biblical genealogies, which extend from Jesus to Adam (Luke
3:23ff.), the Earth can be shown to be only few thousand years old—not billions
of years as evolutionists, and those sympathetic with them, allege. One must recognize,
of course, that the genealogies were not intended to establish an exact age for the Earth; rather they
were designed to give a substantially complete record of the Messianic line.
While we readily admit this fact, it is important to note also that there is no
way to insert 4.5-5.0 billion years into those same genealogies. Some have
attempted just such a compromise by suggesting there are huge “gaps” in the
genealogies that render them useless in matters of chronology, and that allow
them to be expanded to accommodate the evolutionary timetable (see Clayton,
1980, pp. 3-7). I have addressed this inaccurate claim, as have numerous other
writers (see: Thompson, 1999; Thompson, 2000, pp. 247-253; Jackson and
Thompson, 1992, pp. 99-110; Morris, 1974, pp. 247ff.). The biblical record
simply will not accommodate evolutionary time.
THE CONCEPT OF APPARENT AGE
Finally, the concept of
“apparent age” must be considered. How old was Adam two seconds after God
created him? He was two seconds old, of course. That was his literal age, but what was his apparent
age—i.e., how old did he appear to
be? It is obvious from a straightforward reading of Genesis 1-2 that Adam was
old enough to reproduce, for that is the command God gave him (Genesis 1:28).
Similarly, how old did Eve appear to
be? She had just been created, and thus, in reality, was less than one day old. Yet she, too, was old enough to reproduce.
The same, in principle, would apply to the whole creation; though newly
created, it had the appearance of age. [NOTE: This concept does not, as some
have charged, involve God in deception. It does not imply that as a part of the
“apparent age” phenomena God put fossils into the Earth to “trick” man or “test
his faith.” Fossils are, for the most part, the result of the global Flood.
Surely, the Lord cannot be accused of trickery or deception when He told us exactly what He did.]
The doctrine of “apparent
age” is inherent in the first chapters of Genesis. If God created plants,
animals and man in a mature state (i.e., with the “appearance of age”), does it
make sense that He would create an “immature” Earth for their habitation?
Indeed not. God is a God of order, not of confusion (I Corinthians
CONCLUSION
There is no need for us to
yield to the intimidation of evolutionary pseudoscience. Instead, let us accept
the truth of what God said He did. The words of the English poet, William
Cowper, are appropriate.
Some drill and bore
The solid Earth, and
from the strata there
Extract a register by
which we learn
That He Who made it, and
revealed its date
To Moses, was mistaken
in its age.
REFERENCES
Boardman, W.W., R.F. Koontz,
and H.M. Morris (1973), Science and
Creation (
Clayton, John N. (1980), “Is
the Age of the Earth Related to a ‘Literal Interpretation’ of Genesis 1?,” Does God Exist?,
7[1]:3-7, January.
Jackson,
Jackson, Wayne and Bert
Thompson (1992), In the Shadow of
Morris, Henry M. (1970), Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (
Morris, Henry M., ed. (1974), Scientific Creationism (
Morris,
Henry M. and Gary E. Parker (1987), What
Is Creation Science? (
Thompson, Bert (1999), The Bible and the Age of the Earth (
Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation
Compromises (
Wald,
George (1954), “The Origin of Life,” Scientific
American, pp. 45-53, August.
Wysong, R.L. (1976), The Creation-Evolution Controversy (