If the earth is not millions of years old, then evolution logically cannot be possible.

This statement is logically valid and can be agreed upon by both creationists and evolutionists. The controversy is how old is the earth? The reason it matters is because the process of evolution involves mutations of DNA to make better life forms. Evolution requires this to have happened, but would happen very rarely because it is a random chance mistake. These DNA mutations are very infrequent and there must have been so many of them to change from molecules to man, that the universe must be billions of years old and the earth must be millions of years old for this to be possible. If the earth is not old enough there would simply not be enough time for all of these rare and infrequent changes to have happened. If the earth is not millions of years old evolution cannot be true. The discussion of the age of the earth is that simple. The earth must be millions of years old for evolution to be true because there would have to be enough time for all of the DNA mutations to have happened for humans to evolve from nonlife.

This topic is among the most controversial of all of the areas of disagreement of creation and evolution. The ‘young earth’ creationists are harshly criticized for their belief the earth is only many thousands of years old. Let’s put this in perspective though. This is only one of the many areas of controversy and even if the earth is really old that does not make evolution true, it just makes it possible, whereas if it is not really old, evolution is definitely not possible.

Not all creationists believe the earth is young, but those who do are often ridiculed and dismissed as being religious fanatics. While it is true that some of the reasons for believing the earth is not old enough for evolution to be true are based on literal interpretations of the Bible, it is not the only reason.

There is some very surprising scientific support for a young earth and many scientific facts that contradict the long held teaching that the earth is millions of years old. All of this is pretty heavy in science so I will just give an overview. Many of the methods to determine the age of the earth use radiometric dating of molecules that can only be understood if you understand radioactive decay. For those interested in Further Study Appendix K discusses carbon dating and radiometric dating and Appendix M presents Radiohalos which are physical evidences consistent with a young earth. Young earth creationists argue that assumptions made in these radiometric dating calculations make the results not believable and result in a wide range of ages (see Appendix L). The scientists who evaluate all of the data related to the age of the earth and believe the earth is ‘young’ are equally intelligent and educated as those who believe the earth is ‘old’. They are all looking at the same data and science, and they interpret the same evidence differently. It is just controversial.

Another area of disagreement concerning the age of the earth is in the interpretation of the geologic column. The geologic column is the layers of sediments on the earth’s surface crust. The Grand Canyon is a great example where these layers can be seen well. Evolutionists explain the layers as having been developed over millions of years and use what is called ‘index fossils’ to determine how old each layer is. The geologists that are certain evolution is true use the sequence of fossils to give dates to the layers in the rocks. Fossils of less advanced life forms are at the bottom and they become more advanced towards the top. Evolutionists then use the complexity of the fossils in each layer to come up with how old that layer must be for things to have evolved into the next layer.

Figure 1: Geologic Time Table (above)

However this is not logically correct. It is circular reasoning. The sequence of the life forms is determined by the order in the rocks, and then this is used to determine how old the rocks are. They assume the layers must be millions of years apart because that is how long it would take these life forms to evolve into the more complex life forms. The only thing we know for sure is that there are layers and that the fossils in these layers have an order of complexity. If you believe evolution is true then this ‘fits’ what you think you should see in the earth. If the earth is millions of years old and species evolved from each other, then there would be layers in the earths crust and the fossils in each layer would have an order of complexity.

This thinking is wrong though because there is no independent way to determine how old the layers are. We cannot logically say the layers are old just because of the types of fossils that are found in each layer. The layers themselves are made of materials which were transported in moving water from somewhere else and after settling became the sediments. There is no way to know how old the layers are. Radiometric dating does not give dates for these layers because radiometric dating can only date rocks, and these are layers of sediment.

The problem here is that the rocks in the layers were transported in moving water, then deposited in what later became a layer. This dates the rocks in the layer, but does not gives dates of the layer. These rocks came from somewhere else, and now are in the layer. We are not interested in the dates of the rocks that came from somewhere else and were transported to the layer; we want to know the age of the layer itself. This cannot be known. This is not controversial. It is a fact. There is no way to know how old the layers are.

Evolutionists are just saying these layers MUST be old since that is how long it would take for evolution to have the life forms that made one type of fossil evolve into a life form of another type of fossil in another layer. This is assuming evolution is true and then explaining what is seen in the earth based on what you already believe.

The scientific approach should be to look at the evidence without this assumption that evolution is true. We should look at the evidence without any assumptions and then consider the possible explanations before developing a belief system. Evolutionists are doing the opposite; they are starting with a belief in evolution, then they are interpreting the geologic column as supporting what they already believe.

Creationists can also explain everything that is seen in the geologic column as will be explained next. They can explain the layers, the types of fossils seen in each layer, and many additional complexities in the geologic column that contradict evolution. Creationists can look at the same scientific evidence and explain it based on creation, in direct contradiction to the evolutionists’ explanation.

This is a perfect example of all of creation science. There is the evidence, and then there is the interpretation of the evidence. It is all the same evidence. It is how you interpret the evidence and what you believe created these same things that we can all see that is the difference between evolutionists and creationists.

Be aware that experts in this field at the highest level of training and education are not convinced that the earth is old and base this belief on science, not religion. The age of the earth is highly controversial, but it is not certain that it is old. If it is not old enough there would not be enough time for evolution to happen which would make evolution not possible. It is a necessary condition.

You do not need to be old and wise or a geochronologist to know:

If the earth is not millions of years old, then evolution logically cannot be possible.

FURTHER STUDY

This is discussed using higher levels of science to explain that there are three types of rocks. These are sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic. Radiometric dating techniques compare the amounts of parent and daughter isotopes in a mineral after the process of crystallization takes place. After molten material that makes igneous rocks cools and hardens, then the atoms of this rock are locked in place and then the “clock starts” and from this time forward the ratios of the amounts of parent and daughter isotopes gives us the dates.

Sedimentary rocks do not go through this. The sedimentary rocks went through this somewhere else, so since there is no crystallizing of igneous molten flows is it not possible to give a radiometric date to sedimentary rocks. This is not controversial, it is a fact.

This has been known for decades. The article, “Landscape development, forest fires, and wilderness management” published in the journal Science confirms this with the declaration, “We are left with an unresolvable problem, for the sedimentary records of erosional history are largely inaccessible, undatable, and indecipherable, at least in the detail necessary to describe long-term evolution of the landscape”. They go on to say “despite tremendous inventions in geochronology and impressive advances in stratigraphic knowledge, we cannot yet establish the rates or even the fact of crustal uplift in most areas”.

It is a published fact in peer reviewed scientific journals that the sedimentary rocks “are undatable”.