Mt. St. Helens is very exciting for creation scientists because it demonstrates that much geological work can be done in a very short amount of time.
Age of the Earth
Biblical Age of the Earth
Scripture presents enough chronological information to estimate the number of years between Adam and Christ. Adding these and other pieces brackets an age for the world of around 6,000 years. More...
Scientific Evidence for Recent Creation
Many different measurable processes—from blue stars, Saturn’s heat, and Earth’s magnetic field to radiocarbon in coal, diamond, and fossils—confirm a biblical age of the universe of thousands, not billions, of years. More...
Reasons to Doubt Secular Ages
Secular scientists constantly reiterate that science proves millions and billions of years. But those who make this assertion either ignore or have never heard contrary evidence or the faulty assumptions behind it. More...
Circular Reasoning Behind Secular Ages
Secular scientists constantly publish reports claiming their finds support an earth that is millions or billions of years old, but few people realize that many of their conclusions are based on circular reasoning. More...
Topics
- Biblical Age of the Earth
- Scientific Evidence for Recent Creation
- Reasons to Doubt Secular Ages
- Circular Reasoning Behind Secular Ages
Resources › Earth Sciences Resources» Next
Related Articles
Rocks and fossils do not come with labels informing us of their age. They must be understood in light of their geologic context, and interpreted within a worldview. Unfortunately, my evolutionary colleagues are often so dominated by uniformitarian brainwashing they can't objectively understand young-Earth evidence. Nevertheless, some of the evidence is clear and open for all to see.
One such clear piece of evidence is in Kodachrome Basin State Park in Utah. Named by a former director of National Geographic magazine for its photographic beauty, it can be found near the better-known Bryce Canyon National Park. Here one can see numerous clastic "pipes" rising many feet into the air.
A clastic rock consists of eroded fragments of a previous rock. For instance, sandstone consists of sand grains, usually derived from a previously existing granitic source. When sand grains are deposited and cemented together it becomes a sandstone. These clastic pipes are sandstone, nearly identical with a deeply buried sandstone source.
Evidently a tectonic event fluidized an unconsolidated sand deposit, and squeezed it up like toothpaste into piercements in the overlying rock. Once emplaced as a liner "dike," or in this case a vertical "pipe," it hardened into resistant rock. Eventually the surrounding, more easily erodable rock was washed away, leaving only a vertical pipe.
The timing of the deposition, squeezing, and erosion provides the young-Earth argument. According to conventional dating methods, the pipes squeezed up some 150 million years ago, but the source sandstone bed is 175 million years old. Thus, the mother bed remained soft and unconsolidated for 25 million years before it squeezed up.
In the presence of a cementing agent to bind the grains together, which both the source and daughter pipes have, loose sand can harden into a sandstone in a short time, perhaps just years. The fact that the pipes exist at all is evidence that little time passed between deposition and squeezing. Thus, the millions of years postulated by old-Earth advocates never happened.
[body_edit] =>Rocks and fossils do not come with labels informing us of their age. They must be understood in light of their geologic context, and interpreted within a worldview. Unfortunately, my evolutionary colleagues are often so dominated by uniformitarian brainwashing they can't objectively understand young-Earth evidence. Nevertheless, some of the evidence is clear and open for all to see.
One such clear piece of evidence is in Kodachrome Basin State Park in Utah. Named by a former director of National Geographic magazine for its photographic beauty, it can be found near the better-known Bryce Canyon National Park. Here one can see numerous clastic "pipes" rising many feet into the air.
A clastic rock consists of eroded fragments of a previous rock. For instance, sandstone consists of sand grains, usually derived from a previously existing granitic source. When sand grains are deposited and cemented together it becomes a sandstone. These clastic pipes are sandstone, nearly identical with a deeply buried sandstone source.
Evidently a tectonic event fluidized an unconsolidated sand deposit, and squeezed it up like toothpaste into piercements in the overlying rock. Once emplaced as a liner "dike," or in this case a vertical "pipe," it hardened into resistant rock. Eventually the surrounding, more easily erodable rock was washed away, leaving only a vertical pipe.
The timing of the deposition, squeezing, and erosion provides the young-Earth argument. According to conventional dating methods, the pipes squeezed up some 150 million years ago, but the source sandstone bed is 175 million years old. Thus, the mother bed remained soft and unconsolidated for 25 million years before it squeezed up.
In the presence of a cementing agent to bind the grains together, which both the source and daughter pipes have, loose sand can harden into a sandstone in a short time, perhaps just years. The fact that the pipes exist at all is evidence that little time passed between deposition and squeezing. Thus, the millions of years postulated by old-Earth advocates never happened.
[typeID] => 1 [visible] => t [pdf] => /i/pdf/btg/btg-211.pdf [publishURL] => where-can-we-see-young-earth-evidence [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => 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!
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[body_edit] =>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!
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
[typeID] => 3 [visible] => t [pdf] => [publishURL] => how-can-geology-professor-believe-that-earth-young [publishDate] => 0000-00-00 [authorAsterisk] => f [domainID] => 1 [publication] => [volume] => [issue] => [page] => [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D. ) -->