Is the earth billions of years old?
There are stalactites and stalagmites in caves and other rock formations that scientists claim took millions of years to develop. Stalactites are formed by the deposition of calcium carbonate and other minerals, which is precipitated from mineralized water solutions. The corresponding formation on the floor underneath a stalactite is known as a stalagmite. Given enough time, these formations can meet, resulting in formations known as columns. In Thermopolis, Wyoming there is a huge formation of stalactite that developed over 100 years where a 1 inch water pipe was left running for 100 years. Only 100 years! There are many places where man made tunnels are forming stalactites and stalagmites. It happens a lot faster than they say.
The Grand Canyon and other canyons supposedly took millions of years to be carved by the rivers running through them. Mud from the Mississippi river is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico at the rate of 80,000 tons per hour. Where is the mud from the Colorado River as it carved the Grand Canyon for millions of years? Also, when does a river that comes back in on itself, changing direction, somehow in the past was a rushing river that carved a canyon so deep? They have changed their minds about the Grand Canyon many times already. National Geographic Kids, March 2003; The Grand Canyon is just a baby! Science News, September 2000; The Grand Canyon is not as old as once thought! They are realizing it didn’t take millions of years to carve the canyons; it took a lot of water, not a lot of time. Science News, June 2004; Gorges were carved surprisingly fast!
The Geologic Column is an evolutionary column that you will find in many textbooks. It doesn’t exist anywhere in the world but it is taught as fact (Earth Science magazine 1989). The Grand Canyon is supposed to represent the deepest exposed “strata” layers in the world. It’s interesting that less than half of the strata are actually seen and it’s not in the order science says it is and there are gaps where there are no strata from a presumed era. All over the earth, depending on where you go, there are strata layers missing, they are in completely different orders from one place to another, and some places have certain layers that others do not. There are layers, certainly, but the “column” is not evident or complete as it is taught anywhere on the planet.
Another interesting fact is that they have found fossilized trees that are vertical through the layers of strata. Think about this for a second. A dead tree stood for millions of years in the same place and fossilized while the world changed and evolved around it and layers of strata were built up around it. For millions of years??? Some places have trees fallen over, some at an angle, some straight up, all fossilized and extending through several layers of “strata” that took millions of years to lay down. Hello? When can a dead tree lay there for millions of years, exposed to the elements, and not rot away?
And what about the layers of Diatoms found in the ocean floors? These are microscopic life forms that accumulate on the floor of bodies of water and are said to accumulate at one inch per 1000 years as they die and float to the bottom. They use this accumulation to determine the age of things found. It’s very interesting that they found an 80 foot whale standing on its tail completely surrounded by Diatom layered around it. A whale stood on its tail for millions of years while Diatoms died and built up around it?
They’ve also found entire buried forests 200 feet below ground all over the earth, but they have never found a meteorite found below the top layer. Scientists are baffled by this.
They’ve found 90 foot plumb trees frozen in the ice 600 miles north of the Arctic Circle. They have ripe plumbs and healthy leaves, all frozen.
They’ve found Mammoths and many other animals frozen in place with food still in their mouths, frozen in stride.
How about the fact that since man has begun recording time, the earth’s rotation slows by one second per year? The spinning of the earth is slowing down. A year from today, it will take one second longer for the earth to spin in one complete rotation. If you do the math, and I did, that means that 30 million years ago there was one revolution about every second. The sun would flash across the sky every second. The earth would have been like a strobe light… on, off, on, off, on, off… 300 million years ago there were 10 revolutions per second… on off on off on off… 3 billion years ago there were 100 revolutions per second. 15 billion years ago (the big bang) earth was spinning at 500 revolutions per second. The earth would have been spinning so fast that there would be no difference in light at any time. Gravity would have had no effect and, without proving the physics, I would bet that things literally would be flung from the surface of the planet at that speed of rotation from the centrifugal force.
Science cannot explain these things or many other things. Is the earth really as old as they want us to believe? We’ll talk more about this later…
Carbon dating is another interesting study. Did you know that they base it on totally unproven “facts”? Yes, today we can see the rate of decay on Radiocarbon or Carbon 14 (known as Carbon dating) and we expound upon the findings of short-term testing to “prove” that things are billions of years old. We have to assume that scientists know all about the variables involved, that some scientists are wrong in supposing that there was variation in the intensity of cosmic-ray formation and that others were wrong in supposing that there were fluctuations in the original C-14 content. Carbon dating assumes that the rate of C-14 decay has been a constant and has always been exactly the same rate that we find it to be today.
Funny thing is that they tested an ancient structure at Darlington Walls in England, that they knew was 1500 years old, but the Carbon dating “proved” that it was actually 2500 years old! I stress that this "proof" was actually provably wrong. Some other examples of abnormal C14 results include testing of recently harvested, live mollusc shells from the Hawaiian coast that showed that they had died 2000 years ago and snail shells just killed in Nevada, USA, dated in at 27,000 years old. A freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, yielded a death age of 1300 years ago. A petrified miner’s hat and wooden fence posts were unearthed from an abandoned 19th century gold hunter’s town in Australia’s outback. Results from radiocarbon dating said that they were 6000 years old. So, why does everyone believe such a farce? If it is so inaccurate on such a relatively new sample, how can we assume that it won't be exponentially deviate on a much older sample? It is a belief, not a science.
Here's an interesting page where scientists in the UK are concerned about this very subject: http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/RadioCarbonDating.html. Specifically, I found this statement very interesting: “For radiocarbon dating to be reliable scientists need to make a number of vital assumptions. Firstly, Dr Libby assumed that C14 decays at a constant rate. However, experimental evidence indicates that C14 decay is slowing down and that millennia ago it decayed much faster than is observed today. Secondly, the theory behind C14 dating demands that there is the same rate of cosmic production of radioactive isotopes throughout time.
The industrial revolution has belched hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon gases into the atmosphere increasing the C12 ratio and atomic weapons testing have increased neutron levels. Thirdly, the environment in which the artefact lies heavily impacts on the rate of decay. For example, C14 leaches at an accelerated rate from organic material saturated in water, especially saline water. Fourthly, for C14 to test accurately the artefact must have been protected from contamination. Organic matter, being porous, can easily be contaminated by organic carbon in groundwater. This increases the C12 content and interferes with the carbon ratio.”
The flood caused this type of testing to be completely unreliable. Why do the scientists ignore these facts? There are many other things that scientists can't explain which are explained very easily when the flood is considered in the reasoning process.