News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

--How Can a Geology Professor Believe that the Earth Is Young?
--By: John D. Morris, Ph.D.

While nearly all geology professors on the university level accept the concept of the ancient age for the earth, I hold the young-earth position, and do so without compromise, for several reasons:

First, I am absolutely certain that Scripture specifically teaches the young-earth doctrine. The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 must mean something; the word �day" in Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, etc., can only be interpreted legitimately as a literal day; death entered the world only after Adam sinned; the flood of Noah's day deposited the rock and fossil record worldwide; Christ alluded to a recent creation; etc. A Bible believer must believe all of Scripture.

-Second, I am equally certain, after lengthy study of and research in the facts, theories, and methods of geology, a reasonable familiarity with the data and methods of radiometric decay, etc., that there is no geological or physical evidence that demands an old earth. There are many interpretations of certain geologic data which propose an old earth, but there is always another, usually better, interpretation of the same data which points to a young earth. The scientific evidence is actually somewhat generic with respect to age; it can be interpreted both ways. I am convinced that the better scientific interpretation is of a young earth. There are problems yet to be solved, but the bulk of the evidence points to a young earth, and no scientific facts are incompatible with that view. Conversely, I am aware of much scientific evidence which is seemingly incompatible with the old-earth view.

-Next, the old earth is an integral component of evolutionary ideas, which I regard as patently false. Even evolutionists agree that evolution is unlikely. Only as one shrouds it in the mist of time does it take on the aura of respectability. Vast time is necessary for an evolutionary model to be convincing, and I feel it is for this reason that such emphasis is placed on establishing this extreme view of the past.

-Lastly, the old earth concept is a requisite of evolutionism, which is an unmitigated evil. The disgusting and failed systems of fascism, racism, Marxism, social Darwinism, imperialism, etc., etc., have all been based squarely on evolution and the application of an evolutionary world view to society. Likewise, the modern ills of promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, humanism, new-age pantheism, etc., etc., flower from the same evil root. It is, in essence, the anti-Biblical, anti-theistic world view.

-There can be no justification for a Christian adopting the old-earth concept. Most Christians who do hold it, do so because they have been taught nothing else, and are usually relieved when they discover the evidence referred to above.To those Christian leaders who hold and perhaps teach the old-earth concept knowledgeably, I would urge them to abandon their compromise of Scripture, to eschew the evils of a failed scientific theory, and join in the battle for truth!

[Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)]
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.

--- Sedimentary Structure Shows a Young Earth
--By: John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation

--Sedimentary rock, which makes up most of the surface cover of the continents, is by definition deposited by moving fluids. Normally, the sediments contain evidence of their waterborne history in what is called sedimentary structure. These features may be in the form of cross bedding, paleo-current markers, graded bedding, laminations, ripple marks, etc. If the hardening conditions are met (presence of a cementing agent and pressure to drive water from the matrix), the sediments soon harden into sedimentary rock, making the "structure" somewhat permanent, although erosion will eventually destroy even hard rock features.

Rocks abound with such markings, virtually frozen in place in the solid rock. Today when we drive through a road cut, we can observe these reminders of past sedimentary processes and discern many things about the moving fluids, including their direction, velocity, chemistry, etc.

Geologists have traditionally surmised that the deposits are typically the results of the calm and gradual, uniformitarian processes currently in operation. Conversely, more recent geologic models recognize that processes of the past acted at rates, scales, and intensities far exceeding those of today. They were the same basic processes, but were acting at catastrophic levels, accomplishing much depositional work in a short time. Continuing catastrophic action would quickly deposit a second layer, and then more. The question remains: How long ago did this rapid depositional sequence of events take place?

While the muddy sediments are still fresh and soft, the ephemeral sedimentary structure within the deposits is in jeopardy of being obliterated by the action of plant and animal life. We know that life proliferates in every near-surface layer of soft sediment. This is true on land and especially true underwater. Plant roots penetrate through the soil. Animals such as worms, moles, clams, etc., burrow through the sediment, chewing up and turning it over in search of food or shelter through a process called bioturbation. This obviously destroys the sedimentary structure. But how long does it take? A recent study undertook to determine just how much time was required to destroy all remnants of water action.

Numerous recent storm deposits, dominated by sedimentary structure, were investigated in a natural setting. It was observed that within months, all sedimentary structure was destroyed, so intense is the bioturbation in soft sediments. As long as the sediments are still soft, they will be bioturbated and the structure lost. Yet the geologic record abounds with such sedimentary structure. This comprises a good geologic age indicator, and in fact points to a young earth. Consider the total picture.

Virtually all sediments required only a short time to accumulate in various high energy events. Hardening of sediments into sedimentary rock itself normally takes little time, if the conditions are met. Soft at the start, the sediment's internal character would necessarily be subjected to the rapid, destructive action of plant and animal life. Within a relatively short time (months or years), all sedimentary structure would disappear through their action. The surface of each layer would be exposed to bioturbation until the next layer covered it and until hardening was complete. Sedimentary structure is fragile and short-lived, yet such features abound in nearly every sedimentary rock layer.

Each layer was laid down in a short period of time. The deposit could not have been exposed for long before the next deposit covered it, isolating it from destructive bioturbation. Thus the length of time between the layers could not have been great. The total time involved for the entire sequence must have been short.

Of course, Scripture specifies that the time elapsed for all of creation and earth history has not been very long. Geology confirms it.
----
For information regarding ICR/ <www.icr.org>

-----Understanding Solid Scientific and Theological reasons supporting a young age for our world.

Clearly, there are solid scientific and theological reasons supporting a young age for our world. But maintaining confidence in a straightforward biblical history can still be difficult and unpopular, because scientific or historical discoveries are constantly blended with the leaven of deep time, and repetition can brainwash.
Check it out /
--- ICR/ Institute for Creation Research
<http://www.icr.org/article/understanding-evidence-for-biblical/>
----------

---Oceans of Water Deep Beneath the Earth

These mantle waters could represent residual waters �of the great deep� that burst through the crust and onto Earth�s surface to initiate Noah�s year-long Flood, according to Genesis 7:11. Although some may suggest other explanations for the water, it complements Scripture�s general reference to waters deep beneath the earth.

If this evidence supports the Bible, it also challenges textbook Earth-formation scenarios. Secularists face a tough enough challenge in trying to explain how oceans of water came from molten rock. They imagine hydrated minerals from space rocks collided to form Earth, but the heat from those collisions would have pushed out the water. Now they have to explain this newly discovered deep water origin in addition to the vast amount in the world�s surface oceans.

Biblical scientists do not arbitrarily discount miracles,
so they remain open to the possibility that God placed all this water on and in the earth just how He described it.
Check it out!

<http://www.icr.org/article/oceans-water-deep-beneath-earth>

--Old Earth VS. Young Earth- What are the Core Issue in the Debate?

Question: "Old earth vs. young earth�what are the core issues in the debate?"

**Answer: Both old earth creationism and young earth creationism seek to solve the apparent conflict between science and the Bible in regard to the age of the earth. What is the apparent conflict? If the book of Genesis is interpreted strictly literally, it seems to indicate that the earth and the universe are around 6,000 years old. ----

In contrast, various scientific dating methods place the age of the earth around 4.5 billion years and the age of the universe around 14.6 billion years.

The options to solve the apparent conflict are as follows: the Bible is wrong, the Bible is being interpreted incorrectly, or the scientific data is being interpreted incorrectly.

Neither old earth creationism nor young earth creationism teaches that the Bible is wrong. Generally speaking, both old earth and young earth creationists believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of God�s Word. What differs between these approaches is one�s view on what the Bible is, in fact, saying. It�s a matter of interpretation.

Old earth creationists believe a strictly literal approach is not the correct way to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. They view Genesis 1�2 as being primarily symbolic and/or poetic. Young earth creationists interpret Genesis 1�2 as a literal, historical account of how God created the universe. Young earth creationists question why, if the rest of Genesis is historical, should the first two chapters be interpreted differently? Old earth creationists question why, if the Bible uses symbolism in many other books, can�t metaphor be used in Genesis?

Young earth creationists contend that the scientific data supporting a billions-of-years-old universe is being interpreted incorrectly. They view old-earth arguments developed by naturalistic scientists as primarily being a defense for Darwinian evolution. They contend that the dating methods are flawed, at best, and are implemented by scientists with bias, presuppositions, and agendas. Old earth creationists view the scientific dating methods as being reasonably accurate and therefore accept that the earth and the universe are truly old. Also, a great number of old earth creationists reject Darwinian evolution.

So, in the old earth vs. young earth debate, who is correct? As a ministry, GotQuestions.org definitely leans toward the young earth perspective. We believe that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are meant to be read literally, and young earth creationism is what a literal reading of those chapters presents. At the same time, we do not view old earth creationism as heresy. We are not going to question the faith or motives of our brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with us on this issue. Ultimately, one can hold to views other than young earth creationism and still have an accurate understanding of the core doctrines of the Christian faith.

As we interpret it, the Bible indicates that the earth is relatively young. According to secular scientists and those who accept an old-earth reading of Scripture, the earth is very old. **Since neither viewpoint can be explicitly proved, we choose to side with a plain/literal interpretation of the Bible.

~~~~~~~~~~~

--- "DOES NOT THE GOD [JUDGE], OF ALL THE EARTH DO RIGHT?--(GENESIS 18:25B)
YES and AMEN!


---Is Young Earth Creation Crazy?
----(BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.)

A creation-believing friend of mine attended a dinner with various scientists. One of them who favored intelligent design said that any scientist who believed in a young earth was “crazy.” Then, remembering one in his audience, he turned to my friend and said, “No offense.” The reply came, “None taken!” This brief banter illustrates popular scorn for belief in a 6,000-year-old world. Can recent creation sound remotely rational in a climate so soaked in millions-of-years thinking?

-- --The 6,000-year estimate comes from counting the number of years the Bible gives between various events from creation to Christ. This view of history is called recent creation. In contrast, the world’s way of thinking denies creation from the get-go. It needs millions of years, called deep time, to imagine creatures evolving from goo to you.

Many trails lead toward recent creation. Take the limits of science, for example. Some scientists think that science can firmly answer questions about the past. But it can’t. Science directly tests only that which is observable and repeatable. History is neither. The best science can do is weed out unlikely scenarios.

For example, scientists can measure isotope ratios in a rock, but those numbers must be cranked through a formula that includes unknown, unmeasurable variables to output a time estimate. Secularists make sure those variables receive deep-time-friendly values. They assume the rock’s starting state and that no outside process tinkered with the ratio since the rock hardened long ago. Then in a crazy twist, they often invoke special starting states of rocks or outside tinkering to explain out-of-place isotope-based age estimates.

Since science fails to pinpoint historical events, how can we know when past events happened? Simple—we consult those who were there. We read what they wrote. And it turns out the Bible is the ultimate history book. Not only did eyewitnesses write or help write it, but God Himself carried the prophets and apostles along as they or their associates penned the Word of God. Recent creation isn’t crazy. It uses the most reliable record around. Trusting in science to answer all our questions about the past is the crazy option.

-- Lousy logic in secular approaches to ancient history offers another trail that leads to recent creation. Deep-time defenders resort to circular arguments instead of observation. They say things like “Science has proved the Bible is wrong, so the world must be billions of years old.” Ask them what they mean by “science” and they often equate science with billions of years. Thus, they reason in a circle. It’s like saying “The world is billions of years old, therefore the world must be billions of years old.” Science cannot verify such a claim since science deals strictly with the observable here and now. Only by first refusing to include the Bible’s history do they then declare the Bible unfit to convey history. Now that’s crazy.

--If one digs deeper into science and history, the evidence points to the young earth described in Genesis. Now this, natural time clocks from many disciplines help confirm biblical creation. ICR.org has dozens of articles that describe everything from an abundance of blue stars, helium in minerals, and soft tissues in fossils, to a scarcity of creature mutations. Even these science-based observations cannot pinpoint history, but they do weed out deep-time options. Misplaced faith in science, a lack of logic in secular arguments, natural time clocks, and the very Word of the Creator all lead to recent creation.

References

Woodmorappe, J. 1999. The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research.
Thus, historians find no certain dates for events for which eyewitnesses left no documentation like court records or coins.
2 Peter 1:21.
Lisle, J. 2012. Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation. Acts & Facts. 41 (9): 16.
Cupps, V. R. 2019. Helium Retention in Zircons Demonstrates a Young Earth. Acts & Facts. 48 (1): 10-13.
Thomas, B. 2014. Original-Tissue Fossils: Creation’s Silent Advocates. Acts & Facts. 43 (8): 5-9.
Jeanson, N. T. 2014. New Genetic-Clock Research Challenges Millions of Years. Acts & Facts. 43 (4): 5-8.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his M.S. in biotechnology from Stephen F. Austin State University.

--Mantle Water Flux Indicates a Young Earth ~ ~-(1-08-2019)

<https://www.icr.org/article/mantle-water-flux-indicates-young-ocean/>