Ur of the Chaldees was a seaport several thousand years ago. Today it is almost 200 miles [322 km] from the Persian Gulf. That distance was filled in as delta formation filled from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Archaeologists date the seaport Ur at 3500 B.C. Assuming that date, the delta formed at 35 miles [56 km] for every 1000 years.
According to evolutionary theory, everything occurs at a uniform rate and the earth is billions of years old. If that is so, 80,000 years ago the Persian Gulf would have reached to Paris! At the same rate of delta formation, 120,000 years ago the Gulf of Mexico would have extended up through the Mississippi River—to the North Pole!
44 - SEA OOZE—As fish and plants in the ocean die, they drop to the bottom and gradually form an ooze, or very soft mud, that is built up on the ocean floors. This occurs at the rate of about 1 inch [2.54 cm] every 1500 years. Measuring the depth of this ooze, it is clear that the earth is quite young.
45 - EROSION IN THE OCEAN—If erosion has been occurring for millions of years, why below sea level in the oceans do we find ragged cliffs, mountains not leveled, oceans unfilled by sediments, and continents still above sea level?
An excellent example of this is the topology of Monterey Bay, California. It is filled with steep underwater canyons—so steep that small avalanches occur on them quite frequently. (See * "Between Monterey Tides, " National Geographic, February 1990, pp. 2-43; especially note map on pp. 10-11.) If the earth were as old as the evolutionists claim, all this would long ago have been flattened out.
46 - THICKNESS OF OCEAN SEDIMENTS—About 29 billion tons [26.3 billion mt] of sediment is added to the ocean each and every year. If the earth were billions of years old, the ocean floor would be covered by sediments from land measuring 60 to 100 miles [96.5 to 160.9 km] thick, and all the continents would be eroded away. But, instead, we find only a few thousand feet of sediment in the ocean and no indication that the continents have eroded away even once. Calculations on the thickness of ocean sediments yield only a few thousand years for our planet.
The average depth of sediments on the ocean floor is only a little over V2 mile [.804 km]. But if the oceans were billions of years old, the rate of sediment deposit from the continents would have resulted in a minimum of 60 miles [96.6 km] of sediments, on the ocean floors, and closer to 100 miles [160.9 km].
Plate tectonics theory (chapter 20, Paleomagnetism [omitted from this book for lack of space; you will find it in chapter 26 on our website]) declares that gradually subducting plates bury themselves deep into the earth, carrying with them the sediments on top of them. But, according to that theory, this would only remove about 2.75 x 1010 tons [2.49 mt x 1010] per year, or merely 1/10th of the annual new sediments being added from the continents!
The 60 miles [96.6 km] of ocean sediments needed by the evolutionists for their theory is hopelessly missing.
47 - OCEAN CONCENTRATIONS—We have a fairly good idea of the amount of various elements and salts that are in the oceans and also how much is being added yearly by rivers, subterranean springs, rainwater, and other sources. A comparison of the two factors points to a young age for the ocean and thus for the earth.
Of the 51 primary chemical elements contained in sea-water, twenty could have accumulated to their present concentrations in 1000 years or less, 9 additional elements in no more than 10,000 years, and 8 others in no more than 100,000 years. For example, the nitrates in the oceans could have accumulated within 13,000 years.
48 - GROWTH OF CORAL—Coral in the ocean grows at a definite rate. Analysis of coral growth in the oceans reveals that ours is a young world.
"Estimated old ages for the earth are frequently based on 'clocks' that today are ticking at very slow rates. For example, coral growth rates were for many years thought to be very slow, implying that some coral reefs must be hundreds of thousands of years old. More accurate measurements of these rates under favorable growth conditions now show us that no known coral formation need be older than 3,500 years (A.A. Roth, 'Coral Reef Growth,' Origins, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1979, pp. 88-95)"—W.T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 14.
Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM LIVING THINGS that the earth is quite young:
49 - TREE RINGS—The giant sequoias of California have no known enemies except man. And only recently did man (with his saws) have the ability to easily destroy them. Insects do not bother them, nor even forest fires. They live on, century after century. Yet the sequoias are never older than about 4000 years. These giant redwoods seem to be the original trees that existed in their timber stands. Sequoia gigantea, in their groves in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, never have any dead trees ("snags") among them. Unless man cuts them down, there is no evidence that they ever die!
The University of Arizona has a department that specializes in tree dating. *Edmund Schulman of its Den-drochronological Laboratory discovered a stand of still older trees in the White Mountains of California. These were bristlecone pines (Pinus longalva).
Beginning in 1978, Walter Lammerts, a plant scientist, spent several years working with bristlecone pine seedlings in their native habitat of Arizona. He discovered that the San Francisco Mountain region, in which they grow, has spring and fall rains with a very dry summer in between. Working carefully with the seedlings and giving them the same type of watering and other climatic conditions that they would normally receive,—he found that much of the time the bristlecone pines produce two growth rings a year. This is an important discovery, for it would indicate that the sequoias—not the bristlecone pines—are probably the oldest living things on earth.
Think of it! Today we have just ONE generation of the Sequoia gigantea! Both the parent trees and their offspring are still alive. There is no record of any tree or other living thing that is older than any reasonable date given for the Genesis Flood. In the case of the giant sequoias, there is no reason why they could not have lived for many thousands of years beyond their present life span.
For additional information on tree ring dating, see chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods.
50 - MUTATION LOAD—Before completing this section on the evidence from living things, it is of interest that one researcher, *H.T. Band, discovered in the early 1960s that natural selection was not eliminating the "genetic load" (the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms). Thus mutational defects are accumulating, even though some are only on recessive genes. Calculations, based on genetic load, indicate that life-forms could not have continued more than several thousand years—and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are.
Much more information on mutations, including a more complete discussion of genetic load, will be given in chapter 10, Mutations.
Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM CIVILIZATION that the earth is quite young:
(The information given in this section is somewhat paralleled by material to be found in Ancient Cultures and As Far Back as We Can Go, near the end of chapter 13, Ancient Man. Additional material will be found there.)
51 - HISTORICAL RECORDS—If mankind has been living and working on Planet Earth for millions of years, why do we find records of man only dating back to about 2000-3500 B.C.? And these records, when found, reveal the existence of highly developed civilizations.
As is shown more fully in chapter 13, Ancient Man, the writings, language, and cultures of ancient mankind started off fully developed—but are not found to have begun until about 2000-3000 B.C.
(1) Early Egyptian Records. The earliest historical books are those of the Egyptians and the Hebrews. The historical dates assigned to the beginnings of Egyptian and Sumerian history are based primarily on king-lists. The earliest records are the Egyptian king-lists, dating from about the First Dynasty in Egypt, between 3200 and 3600 B.C. But internal and external evidence indicates that these dates should be lowered. An Egyptologist writes:
"We think that the First Dynasty [in Egypt] began not before 3400 and not much later than 3200 B.C. . . A. Scharff, however, would bring the date down to about 3000 B.C.; and it must be admitted that his arguments are good, and that at any rate it is more probable that the date of the First Dynasty is later than 3400 B.C., rather than earlier."—*H.R. Hall, "Egypt: Archaeology," in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956edition, Vol. 8, p. 37.
The problem with First Dynasty dates is they are based on the king-lists of Manetho, an Egyptian priest who lived many centuries later, in 250 B.C. Manetho's writings have only been preserved in a few inaccurate quotations in other ancient writings. Barton, of the University of Pennsylvania, points out the problem here:
"The number of years assigned to each [Egyptian] king, and consequently the length of time covered by the dynasties, differ in these two copies, so that, while the work of Manetho forms the backbone of our chronology, it gives us no absolute reliable chronology."—George A. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible, p. 11.
Was this article helpful?