Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Is the Earth Only 6,000 Years Old?

Hi everyone! Holly here, the 13yo seventh-grader, but only for 26 more days. Seventh-grade, that is, not being 13. J

I’m taking over Mom’s blog today as she continues Creation Week to post my persuasive research report from language. Even though I have references, remember this isn't a comprehensive scientific paper. It’s a bit longer than what Mom usually posts {we first-borns like to talk}, but I hope you’ll stick with it.

A 6,000 Year Old Earth

For hundreds of years, many people have been indecisive as to whether they believe Charles Darwin and evolutionists or the Bible and creationists. Evolutionists try to prove evolution but cannot find many ways, if any, to prove it. The Earth isn’t millions of years old as proved by radioisotope dating. It is only a few thousand years old as proved by spiral galaxies, 14C in coal and fossils, salt in the ocean, and soft tissue and red blood cells in bones.

Spiral Galaxies

Spiral Galaxies prove that not only the Earth is only a few thousand years old, but also the entire universe. The Earth is one of many spiral galaxies. Spiral galaxies contain a lot of blue stars. Blue stars are very bright, but don’t last for very long. Certainly not millions of years. If the universe was millions of years old, all the blue stars in all the spiral galaxies would be long gone. But blues stars still exist. Some evolutionist astronomers think new blue stars form from the clouds of gas left from the old ones. (Ham, 193) However, the gas is very resistant to being shaped into a new star and no one has ever seen it happen.

Another problem is the arms of a spiral galaxy. The arms can’t last for millions of years. The middle stars in a spiral galaxy spin around their orbits faster than the outer stars, which makes the arms wind up around the spiral galaxy. In millions of years the arms would be all wound up and disfigured. Evolutionist astronomers think new spiral arms emerge when the old ones are wound up. (Ham, 193) More problems are created, though, with this theory. It doesn’t explain the spiral arms wound really tightly around galaxies like M51, but no new ones emerging.

14C in Coal and Fossils

Carbon 14 (14C) is displaced neutrons and ordinary nitrogen combined. 14C is in the air, so it is taken in by plants and when people and animals breathe. 14C is constantly changing back into ordinary nitrogen, but since it keeps being taken in it all stays equivalent. When people, plants, or animals die, 14C changes and isn’t replaced. Every 5,730 years half changes back. In just 50,000 years (far less than the assumed millions), coal and anything else should not have any 14C in it whatsoever. Evolutionists date coal at least tens of millions of years old, but all coal ever dated has had 14C in it.

Once a sample of fossilized wood was dated by evolutionists at about 230 million years old. It should have completely lacked 14C. However, 14C was found in it, enough for creationists to date it at about 33,720 years old.

Salt in the Ocean

Salt isn’t leaving the ocean as fast as it’s coming in. If the Earth was millions of years old, all of those years of adding salt and the ocean would be almost solid salt. Even if the ocean had started out completely saltless, and being very generous to evolutionists, it couldn’t possibly be any more than 62 million years old. The 62 million years of adding salt doesn’t include things like outpourings of more water from inside the Earth, which comes from cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. That kind of water is very salty. However, if the Earth was only about 6,000 to 8,000 years old it all works out.

Radioisotope Dating

Radioisotope dating is used on igneous rocks (rocks formed from molten lava). Since not many volcanoes erupt and produce rocks of known ages it is hard to test radioisotope dating.

When Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980, it provided the perfect opportunity to test radioisotope dating. In 1992, a 15 pound chunk of dactite was taken from the top of Mt. St. Helens. It was crushed up and sent to a lab to be dated. The evolutionists who dated it didn’t know it was taken from a volcano that blew up only 12 years ago. They dated it 340,000 to 2.8 million years old.

Soft Tissue and Red Blood Cells in Fossils

Red blood cells and soft tissue can’t last for millions of years. It should be impossible to find them in a T-Rex femur tens of millions of years old. Some were found though. Some evolutionists thought that bacterial biofilms created what only looked like tissue and red blood cells. (Menton, 1) More work was done and evidence for collagen (the base for soft tissue) was found. Bacterial biofilms can’t create collagen, so that’s proof the tissue and blood cells were not created from biofilms.

Some other evolutionists thought maybe red blood cells and soft tissue can last for millions of years because of some unknown way of fossilization. (Menton, 1) But it is still very unlikely that cells and tissue can last for millions of years.

Egyptian mummies known to be 3,000 to 4,000 years old still have red blood cells and soft tissue just like the T-Rex femur.

Starting from 6,000 years old it all makes perfect sense that red blood cells and soft tissue can still be found in bones, blue stars still exist, all coal still has C14 in it, and the ocean isn’t solid salt. Radioisotope dating doesn’t prove evolution nor does anything else.

Works Cited

{Mom wanted me to tell you that she’s going to put an affiliate link in here.}

Ham, Ken. The New Answers Book 3 . Arkansas: Master Books, 2009

Thanks for reading,

Receive new posts from this blog by e-mail.
Let’s connect on Facebook, Twitter, or Pinterest.
Or follow this blog with Google Friend Connect on the sidebar.

This post may be linked up, with much gratitude, to these blog hops.

Photobucket Growing Home parents as teachers Wise-Woman-Builds Our Simple Country Life MomsTheWord Photobucket Life In Bloom

Pin It!


  1. very interesting paper. I have heard about radioisotope and how reading the dates can be so off. I read an article that a group of scientists buried something in the ground and left it in the earth for a week. when they carbonated it, they got that it was 10,000 years old. Anyways, I thought you did a great job on your paper :)

    1. Yeah, if they know it's inaccurate, why do they keep using it? I don't get it. Thanks for reading! ~Holly

  2. Great job, Holly! I actually had never heard the salt theory before.

  3. I am very impressed, Holly! You did an excellent job. I had no idea about blue stars and spiral galaxies. Thanks for sharing your wealth of knowledge with us.

    Meghan, you must be very proud!!

    Blessings to your family,
    Keri @ Growing in His Glory

    1. Thank you, but it's not exactly a wealth of knowledge. We just go to the Creation Museum a lot, and our homeschool curriculum is really good about comparing the world's thinking with the Bible. ~Holly

  4. Thanks for this very informative article! I am going to save it to read again and share with my husband.

  5. Very impressive and informative! Loved the read. :-) I always believed the earth was thousands of years old but never knew the exact science behind it. :-) Thanks for all the information.

    1. I'm glad it was helpful! ~Holly (BTW, Mom says she loves your blog.)

  6. I recently took a science course with Liberty University and learned much of this through a great textbook that we used. I was specifically drawn to the salt theory and the carbon 14 dating. I just don't understand why our schools are teaching evolution as FACT when there is so much data to back up creationism!

    1. I don't understand it either. I'm just glad I don't go to public school! ~Holly

  7. Wow, Holly, this was really a fascinating read. A man from our church is a creation scientist and he is always amazing us with the facts he shares that the scientist community ignores!

    I'll bet you got an "A" on this! ;) Thanks so much for linking up to the "Making Your Home Sing Monday"

    1. Thank you! I did get an A. And I love the name of your blog! ~Holly

  8. Excellent, EXCELLENT report. I shared it on FB. I am so glad you linked this up.

    1. Thank you! And Mom says thanks for your link-up! ~Holly


I so much appreciate your time and effort in leaving a comment, and I try to respond to as many as time permits. :-)